Timeline for What production of power would be most efficient in a zombie apocalypse?

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

7 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
May 24, 2016 at 23:42	comment	added	JDB		Yeah... I really know very little about the tech. :)
May 24, 2016 at 23:40	comment	added	Schwern		You're mistaken. Curiosity uses an RTG (already covered in another answer) which is powered by the heat of simple spontaneous radioactive decay, has few moving parts, and generates about 125W of electricity. The rest use solar panels. A nuclear power plant employs a controlled fission reaction to heat steam to turn a turbine to produce megawatts of power. What makes an SMR unique is they're made at a factory, but they're not intended to run independently.
May 24, 2016 at 23:31	comment	added	JDB		The mars rover uses something similar that's much smaller than 50 tons. Granted, current technology doesn't last very long (2 years), but given a 5 or 10 year timeframe and significant r&d, I bet those figures could reasonably be extended. Consider the progress battery technology has made in a similar timeframe.
May 24, 2016 at 23:26	comment	added	Schwern		I don't know about the "no maintenance" part. Significantly less maintenance than a nuclear power plant is still a lot of maintenance. And these need to be refueled every couple years, and you're not going to be able to do that, but it would be a very plush two years. As for digging it up, I don't think these are as self-contained as you think. If nothing else they probably need significant additional pieces to deal with waste heat. Though if you have the time, ability, and transport to dig up a 50+ ton nuclear reactor, maybe you should be doing something else?
May 24, 2016 at 22:07	history	edited	JDB	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 564 characters in body
May 24, 2016 at 22:04	review	First posts
May 24, 2016 at 22:17
May 24, 2016 at 21:58	history	answered	JDB	CC BY-SA 3.0