Using moon's rotational energy on earth

AI Thread Summary
Tapping into the moon's rotational energy could theoretically provide about 3.15 x 10^23 joules, enough to meet future energy demands for approximately 158 years if global consumption increases fivefold. However, questions arise regarding the cost-effectiveness of harvesting this energy, particularly after the 158-year period. The feasibility of energy extraction methods and the sustainability of such a resource remain unclear. Additionally, the discussion highlights the need for a long-term energy strategy beyond the initial supply. Overall, while the moon's rotational energy presents an interesting concept, practical implementation challenges may hinder its viability as a reliable energy source.
henry3369
Messages
194
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose that some time in the future we decide to tap the moon's rotational energy for use on earth. In additional to the astronomical data in Appendix F in the textbook, you may need to know that the moon spins on its axis once every 27.3 days. Assume that the moon is uniform throughout.1. How much total energy could we get from the moon's rotation?
E = 3.15 x 10^23 J

2. The world presently uses about 4.0×1020J of energy per year. If in the future the world uses five times as much energy yearly, for how many years would the moon's rotation provide us energy?
t = 158 years

3. In light of your answer, does this seem like a cost-effective energy source in which to invest?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm just curious as to why this would not be a cost effective energy source. If the moon complete one rotation every 27.3 days, and as a result, it provides energy for 158 years, how is that not cost effective?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What happens after 158 years?

How did you get that number? How would you harvest this energy to use it?
 
mfb said:
What happens after 158 years?

And how did you get that number? And how would you release this energy to use it?

Future energy use = 5* (4.0×10^20)= 2 x 10^21
3.15 x 10^23/ 2x10^21 = 158 years
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top