Do you have an answer that isn't speculation or something you concluded from a breezy stroll over to Wikipedia?

Stop mocking questions. It solves nothing.

Each Mars Rover uses 5 kilograms of plutonium 238. (Plutonium 239 is the one that is used in nuclear bombs.)

Per https://www.wired.com/story/nasas-mars-rover-will-be-powered... we currently have a lab dedicated to producing it, and it makes 3.5 pounds per year.

Per https://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/141931325/the-plutonium-probl... the cost of getting the lab restarted was a bit shy of $100 million. And once running fully it costs millions of dollars to run.

At those cost points it would be cheaper to deliver you a brand new fridge each month for the next 20 years than to deliver you a single fridge using plutonium to run without external electricity for the same 20 years. Not to mention that the plutonium itself is toxic.

Thanks for the info, interesting.

Though FWIW I was more commenting on the mocking of a legitimate question. Not everyone has the same background as everyone else. There are no stupid questions.

Fair enough. I probably should have dialed down the snark.

I suppose if we're looking for a Randall Munroe / "What If?" style explanation of why powering consumer equipment with plutonium is a bad idea, then it was the right question to ask.

I come to HN because yes, people are really asking and really answering. It’s currently the best forum on the internet for this reason.

Not sure about you, but I was promised fusion-powered DeLoreans by now.

You don’t have the Mr. Fusion upgrade? Run that sucker on trash. Had it since 2015.

I was promised that by at least 1985, plutonium would be available in every corner drugstore.