Someone else already pointed that out, and I accepted I made a mistake. Plus the way you present it does not cast you in a good light.

My point was that solar and wind can never be used as primary sources of power for human settlements/cities/countries, and I used the example of Germany having to build more coal plants as proof.

At least here on Earth, we can still use fossil fuels to make up the difference without going nuclear, but on the moon/Mars/asteroid belt we don't have that choice (Mars is the exception, but not initially).

[quote]Why take our problems to Mars? We are starting with a clean slate.[/quote]

By using nuclear we are not taking problems to Mars, we are using our best option.

My bad. My point is still valid though.

And, 100 feet x 100 feet is 10,000 square feet – Not almost 2 square miles. You are confusing area measure with linear measure.

100 meters times 100 meters is 10000 meters squared, which is 10 km^2. Run 100 * 100 through a calculator if you don't believe me.

"Re-use of nuclear fuel is a complicated process; included are water which will be most important for the colonies survival (now we have to build depositories for that contaminated water)"

Not all of the methods use water, there is one that doesn't
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#Pyroprocessing

"equipment that could only be used for the cleaning process (at what cost and how do we get it there?), buildings that will need to be constructed (at what cost and how how long will it take to build them?)."

Both of which are a one time investment, and don't even need to be built right away. Like I said, it took the old, far less efficient generation 2 nuclear reactors in the US 30 years to fill up their waste reservoirs without any kind of reprocessing. With modern nuclear reactors it would take even longer., and even then that assumes we use a full scale 1 GW reactor, which at the moment isn't even necessary.

"Also keep in mind that the safety of the colony is most important"

Actually even the old generation 2 nuclear plants are a lot safer than the coal plants we like to depend on. Coal claims thousands of lives every year through mining accidents and air pollution related respiratory ailments. And besides, as KG6ya rightly points out the nights on Mars are really really cold, can solar provide enough power at night to run a power hungry heater for 12 hours +? I doubt it.

"And, I hope I am here to see it happen that there ARE colonies on Mars running on energy that is as "Green" and our planet will be in the near future"

In reality countries in western europe (namely the UK and Germany) that tried to ditch nuclear and invested heavily in wind and solar are finding themselves stuck with looming energy shortages, which is causing them to build more coal power plants (which is causing more air pollution) and buy nuclear generated electricity from France. Thinking that solar and wind and other such low density, intermittent power sources can provide enough electricity for us no matter what is an unfortunate fantasy.

I wonder if this MIT thinktank considered the energy required to sustain and keep warm a small Mars colony during

THE COLD NIGHT.

However, a 4 kW solar array powers my home and the batteries provide power for 4 days with no sunlight. But I cannot run an electric heater without running out of juice within a few hours.

A solar powerd Mars colony my be possible.

Although if you want to save weight, and money, and provide heat, nuclear fission will be needed.

A small point here. 1km (kilo metre) is 1000 metres so 100 metres is .1 km. and 100m x 100m is .01 km^2

I don't know, Feenixx, the minute someone finds minerals or precious stones on Mars, which I believe there was plenty of time for their creation, then business men from the private sector will be scrambling to get a piece!!!

One hundred, two hundred is a long time. I think we will be on Mars much much sooner.
I liken it to the Gold Rush in America. Moneys will be available for new ventures.

somebody with some spare time and the knowledge about material properties might do the sums, just for the fun of it…

With humans around to attend to it, dust might not be a huge problem… like a couple of days work every year, or thereabouts. Remember, Spirit has been out there for five years.

Re-use of nuclear fuel is a complicated process; included are water which will be most important for the colonies survival (now we have to build depositories for that contaminated water), equipment that could only be used for the cleaning process (at what cost and how do we get it there?), buildings that will need to be constructed (at what cost and how how long will it take to build them?). Also keep in mind that the safety of the colony is most important (since science is most import, time is an issue so at what distance will they need to do all of this?).

A combo of power sources like what Maxwell said is the best way to go. It would be stupid to rely on one type of power source anyway in the first place.

Look how far we have come, and in reality I thing we are still so-so very new to science that we do not even qualify for diapers stage.

So, YES, those smart guys at NASA will figure this one out…… And, I hope I am here to see it happen that there ARE colonies on Mars running on energy that is as "Green" and our planet will be in the near future.

I agree that Nuclear could be a solution, but it takes anything from 6 to 12 years to get a reactor fully functional. And like the others have said – what happens to the radioactive waste?

We've already created enough waste on Earth. We shouldn't start spreading it all over the solar system now.

The idea of compressed air is an idea, however, how will it be refilled?

I think all the solutions to cleaning the panels are a start, but they all have their pitfalls. Good luck for the brains at NASA for figuring this one out!

By the time theres enough colonists and waste to worry about, mars bases should be self sufficient.

Yes you did, because other than fossil fuels there is nothing else with a high enough energy density and reliability (granted in space reliability isn't the problem, but on practically any planet or moon it will be) to be useful.

[quote] So what do we do with the waste product?[/quote]

Reprocess it for reuse in the reactor and what cannot be reprocessed perhaps can be reused as RTGs.

But really, modern reactors don't make that much waste. Yes, the waste storage pools in american reactors are full, but that took more than 30 years for this to happen and that was without reprocessing.

Did I understand correctly that we should build some type of nuclear generator that would last 50 years? So what do we do with the waste product? We know nothing about the planet and we are already contaminating it!!

Solar energy is a "store-type" system, right?
Why do they need to do an EVA for dusting in a dust storm?