I haven’t looked at the numbers, but I expext that while RTGs are simple and reliable, that they aren’t cost-competitive with nuclear reactors per unit of energy generated.
From memory, we have actually used them on Earth in a few situations where we need a very long-lasting, albeit very limited in quantity, source of power, like remote, unmanned lighthouses that aren’t connected to anything.
Also, I don’t believe that, at least with the ones I’ve read about, one can control their power output. It’s just a container of some material that’s got enough passive radioactivity to stay warm enough to generate some electricity.
NASA used a radioisotope thermoelectric generator for Cassini, which is more of a battery and does not use nuclear fission to heat a liquid.
But it generates electricity, right? So couldn’t we scale it up? I admit this is way out of my sphere of knowledge, which is why I’m asking.
I haven’t looked at the numbers, but I expext that while RTGs are simple and reliable, that they aren’t cost-competitive with nuclear reactors per unit of energy generated.
From memory, we have actually used them on Earth in a few situations where we need a very long-lasting, albeit very limited in quantity, source of power, like remote, unmanned lighthouses that aren’t connected to anything.
Also, I don’t believe that, at least with the ones I’ve read about, one can control their power output. It’s just a container of some material that’s got enough passive radioactivity to stay warm enough to generate some electricity.
I’m no expert but did some quick googling. Seems they are very expensive and don’t produce much power, making them useful only for nich situations.
Thanks!