Since the first moon landing in 1969, it’s long been a goal to establish lunar colonies. After all, the moon has water we could use, subterranean caves we could inhabit, and now, it seems, a native way to generate a steady source of usable energy. With the upcoming Artemis project from NASA that aims to bring humans back to the satellite, it’s more important than ever to research and invest in resources for a long-term lunar stay.
Luckily, scientists in China might have discovered something that can help. In a new study published Thursday in the journal Joule, the researchers found that chemical compounds in lunar soil are capable of transforming carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and hydrocarbons like methane that can be used as fuel. The team says these chemical compounds can act as catalysts—substances that speed up chemical reactions—to form an extraterrestrial photosynthesis system. This means that lunar soil along with sunlight could be used to support long-term lunar living for colonies.
It goes back to one big challenge standing in the way of sustainable living outside Earth: resources. You can only bring so much breathable air, usable water, and fuel on a space mission. While scientists are developing technologies that allow astronauts to tap into planetary resources, those technologies still require elements from home. For example, NASA’s Perseverance rover carries a device named MOXIE that can turn Martian carbon dioxide into oxygen long enough to keep an astronaut healthy for 10 minutes. But MOXIE still relies on electrical power from an Earth-built battery onboard.
It’s crucial then to make like the Swiss Family Robinson and survive entirely on the resources that the moon can provide. In the new study, the researchers found that it might be possible via iron, magnesium, and titanium-rich substances found in lunar soil. They found that these substances—coupled with ultraviolet light—were capable of making carbon dioxide and oxygen from water. The catalysts also made small amounts of hydrogen gas, methane, and methanol. Each of these elements and chemicals can be used to create fuel and other materials needed for long-term lunar colonization.
“We use in-situ environmental resources to minimize rocket payload, and our strategy provides a scenario for a sustainable and affordable extraterrestrial living environment,” Yingfang Yao, an engineer at Nanjing University and study lead author, said in a press release.
While the catalysts aren’t as efficient as ones on Earth, Yao and his team are working on improving their design. They envision a future where lunar- life support and fuel systems combine the power of the moon’s soil with sunlight, which is abundant in spades. These “extraterrestrial photosynthesis” systems could be a means for a constant supply of oxygen as well as refueling space vehicles or rocket propellants.
“In the near future, we will see the crewed spaceflight industry developing rapidly,” said Yao. “Just like the ‘Age of Sail’ in the 1600s when hundreds of ships head to the sea, we will enter an ‘Age of Space.’ But if we want to carry out large-scale exploration of the extraterrestrial world, we will need to think of ways to reduce payload, meaning relying on as little supplies from Earth as possible and using extraterrestrial resources instead.”
Artistic conception of a crewed mission to Mars. Image: NASA
Scientists are on the fence as to whether solar or nuclear should be the preferred source of power for small teams visiting the Martian surface. New research suggests both options are good, with geographical location being the determining factor.
The researchers compared two different power-generating options for a crewed trip to Mars: solar cells and nuclear power from small fission reactors. A key consideration was the amount of weight, or “carry-along mass,” required to build each solution, as missions to Mars will seek to pack in the most efficient way possible. The results, published today in Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, suggest both options are viable, but with a rather important caveat having to do with geography.
“The main result was that which one ‘wins’ depends on the location on Mars,” Anthony Abel, a researcher from the Department of Chemical Engineering at UC Berkeley and a co-author of the study, explained in an email. “The overall result was that nearer the equator, solar was better than nuclear, while nearer the poles, nuclear was better than solar.”
This is good information to have, as it could have significant bearing on the type of power-generating devices that each future mission will want to bring to Mars. NASA should take note, as the space agency is planning to send the first crewed mission to planet in the late 2030s or early 2040s. That said, these findings are specific to a six-person crew on a 480-day mission to the Martian surface (the first missions won’t likely last longer than 30 days), but the researchers say their results could speak to even larger and longer missions, including permanent colonies. Aaron Berliner from the UC Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering is a co-author on the study.
Future explorers will need electricity to support their ground missions. This power will be needed to generate warmth, oxygen, and clean drinking water, as well as to also power more advanced activities, such as LEDs to shine on crops and 3D printers to churn out useful parts. Abel and Berliner, as members of the Center for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), have a vested interest in this subject, as their imagined concepts will depend on sustained power to work, such as the use of microbes to produce plastics and pharmaceuticals. Abel and Berliner wanted to know how to best provide power to their future space-enabling systems, leading to the new study.
“We knew that rovers in the past had been powered by either solar cells or nuclear power generators, and that both solar and nuclear had been proposed for crewed missions to Mars,” Abel told me. “Nuclear generators will work more or less the same regardless of where you are, but solar cells will operate pretty differently because sunlight is the source of power.”
The consistency of nuclear and the tenuousness of solar has led some experts to suggest that nuclear might be the smarter, more reliable choice. Indeed, there are many factors to consider when it comes to generating solar power on the Red Planet. Mars, in addition to being farther away from the Sun than Earth, is colder, dustier, and dryer. Abel and Berliner had to take these factors into account, calculating variations in solar intensity, mapping out surface temperatures, and analyzing the way gasses and particles absorb and scatter light on Mars, as all of this influences solar cells’ ability to produce power.
“So, we needed to model the Martian atmosphere to figure out how much light would land on our solar cells, and then model the solar cells to figure out how much power they would generate,” Abel said. “The Sun also sets every day, so when using solar, you have to figure out how to store energy to ‘keep the lights on’ at night.”
Equipped with this data, the team then calculated the carry-along mass of the different energy solutions—the “amount of stuff we would need to bring with us from Earth to Mars,” Abel said, adding that “less is better.” This led the team to conclude that solar works better nearer the equator, while nuclear makes more sense near the poles.
Indeed, while a miniature nuclear fission device operates the same regardless of the chosen location on Mars, the same cannot be said for solar. A photovoltaic array that uses compressed hydrogen for energy storage was calculated to have a carry-on mass of 8.3 tons at the Martian equator, compared to 9.5 tons for the equivalent nuclear option. But as the efficiency of solar decreases with distance to the equator, our intrepid explorers would need to pack 22 tons of material to build an equally efficient solar power array at the Martian poles. And future explorers will certainly want to visit the poles, as these regions are likely to have valuable water ice.
The primary takeaway of the research is that “both solar and nuclear can work, but it depends on where you land, how many people go, and how you store energy,” said Abel. Interestingly, the Martian surface is roughly split down the middle in terms of whether solar or nuclear would be the ideal power option. In terms of energy storage, the team found that it would be best to take excess electricity and use it to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.
“Those gasses can be stored easily in tanks until the nighttime, when the solar panels aren’t producing energy. Then, we use a fuel cell to release the energy stored in those gasses back into electricity, regenerating water,” Abel told me. “You’ve probably heard of fuel cell buses, which rely on the same technology to power their engines.”
I asked Abel if these findings might be transferable to Mars missions lasting longer than 480 days and involving more than six people.
“Things will be a little bit different for bigger missions or for a colony,” he responded. “Because the habitats will be bigger, they’ll need more power, so your power generation system will also need to get bigger. For solar, your energy storage system will also need to be bigger, which might put solar at a bit of a disadvantage.”
That said, Abel believes these findings could translate well to other mission types. Once a landing site is chosen and the number of crew members selected, mission planners “could use our calculations to determine if nuclear or solar will be better at that site for that size of mission.”
According to Abel, solar would be better for a mission to Jezero Crater, the landing site of NASA’s Perseverance rover, while nuclear would be the superior option at Utopia Planitia, where the Viking 2 rover landed. These results “might change for bigger missions, but redoing the calculation for different mission sizes is pretty easy now that we can predict how much power solar cells can generate in a given place on Mars,” he added.
Looking ahead, the team will work to determine how much food, medicine, and other resources will be required by Martian ground crews, and how many and what type of solar panels would have to support those needs. They’re also hoping to design mission plans that take brighter days or the summer months into account, during which time Martian explorers could store materials for use during the winter, when sunlight is less intense.
The Point of Ayr Gas Terminal in Talacre, Wales, on September 20, 2021.
Christopher Furlong | Getty Images
The British government is considering bailout loans to help steer energy suppliers through the ongoing gas pricing crisis.
U.K. Business Minister Kwasi Kwarteng told Sky News on Tuesday that “a lot of options” were currently being considered, including potential state-backed loans. However, he suggested not every energy supplier would be eligible to benefit from such a scheme.
“Every year between five and eight companies exit the market and I don’t want to prop up failing companies, I don’t want there to be a reward for failure,” he said. “I don’t think we should be throwing taxpayers’ money at companies which, let’s face it, have been badly run.”
Fears that some of Britain’s energy suppliers may struggle to stay afloat have been rising in recent weeks, as wholesale gas prices continue to rise to unprecedented levels across Europe.
The October gas price at the Dutch TTF hub, a European benchmark for natural gas trading, was volatile on Tuesday, trading just above 74 euros ($86.9) per megawatt-hour by the early afternoon in London. Last week, the contract hit a record high of 79 euros per megawatt-hour.
Since January, its value has risen by more than 250%.
The British October gas price was trading lower on Tuesday at around £1.88 per therm, but it continued to hover around recent record highs.
Kwarteng said Tuesday that the U.K. would need to ensure its “Supplier of Last Resort” mechanism — which helps customers transition to a new energy supplier if their current supplier collapses — was made more robust ahead of the winter to ensure a continuous supply of energy.
“It costs a company to absorb up to hundreds of thousands of customers from a company that’s failed, and that may well be a provision for some sort of loan — that’s been discussed,” he told Sky News.
“When I became energy minister more than two years ago, there were 65 suppliers. Today the figure is around 55. Am I going to bailout all 55 of those companies? No, I don’t think we can do that because a handful of them would have exited [the market] anyway.”
Companies’ financial positions may be considered to evaluate whether they should be granted any potential financial assistance from the government, Kwarteng, who is meeting with some of the U.K.’s smaller energy firms on Tuesday, said.
Start-up Bulb, the U.K.’s sixth-largest energy supplier, is seeking a bailout, while four smaller competitors recently ceased trading, the BBC has reported.
Meanwhile, the chief executive of challenger supplier Green told BBC Radio 4 on Monday that the outlook for the company was “looking bleak.”
“We are currently in discussions with the Government and Ofgem on what measures can be taken to manage the situation and these continuing talks will include domestic suppliers of all sizes,” trade body Energy UK said in a statement on Monday.
“There are no easy solutions, but the priority of all involved is to protect customers as much as possible, and whether there needs to be additional support provided to them on top of existing mechanisms, while also trying to minimize further disruption to the retail market.”
A spokesperson for Energy UK told CNBC via email on Tuesday that it was “clearly a very difficult market for suppliers” but that the focus of discussions with the government so far had been on protecting customers rather than direct financial assistance for companies.
Why has the U.K. been hit so hard?
Gas is crucial to the U.K.’s energy supply, playing a significant role in heating, industry and power generation. More than 22 million households are connected to the country’s gas grid.
The largest single source of gas in the country is the U.K. Continental Shelf, which made up around 48% of total supply last year. However, the UCS is a mature source, meaning it has to be supplemented with gas imported from international markets.
The U.K. has limits on how much suppliers are able to charge consumers for energy, with price caps reviewed by the government every six months. Some companies are reportedly pressing to government to lift those caps, but Kwarteng stressed on Tuesday that he would not be rescinding the regulation.
Global problem
As the U.K. scrambles to mitigate the impact of the crisis, its impacts are also being felt across Europe, and industry sources have warned that the issue is a global problem.
Soaring wholesale prices have partially been caused by a surge in demand, particularly from Asia, as economies emerge from Covid-19 induced lockdowns. A cold European winter and spring also meant supplies had already been heavily depleted by the summer.
Meanwhile, falling domestic production, adverse U.S. weather conditions and essential maintenance works have created a tight gas market and made restocking gas supplies ahead of the coming winter difficult across the region.
In a note on Tuesday, analysts at Barclays warned that another harsh winter could keep prices elevated well into 2022 and push core price inflation sharply higher.
“We see the gas price surge so far adding 1 percentage point year-on-year to U.K. CPI this winter, lasting for most of 2022,” they said, referring to inflation. “In the EA [euro area], we see a 0.5 percentage point contribution to HICP inflation in late 2021 and early 2022. We estimate every sustained 10% increase in consumer gas prices to generate 0.1 percentage of headline inflation in the U.K. and 0.2 percentage point in the EA.”
Limited pipeline imports, caused by a tighter Russian market, have also contributed to the crisis.
“Without additional Russian supply, European buyers will have to compete fiercely with their Asian counterparts to attract the needed LNG cargoes,” analysts at research firm Engie EnergyScan said in an update on their website on Tuesday.
Spain’s government released a decree this week to cap retail energy prices amid the crisis. Some experts have speculated that the gas crisis could damage the EU’s green ambitions, as governments could prioritize keeping energy cheap over transitioning to greener alternatives.