Jump!,
If situated on the moon, your ass is grass unless you're speaking of
earthshine, and even then it's already more than a little damn testy if
not lethal. So what's your point?

Besides, if you still can't manage to get yourself and such technology
via fly-by-rocket safely onto that dark and nasty terrain in the first
place, along with everything it's going to take for surviving plus
eventually returning home, then what's the point of your even
suggesting of accomplishing much of anything that's related to robotics
or humans upon the lunar deck?

Nuclear energy upon the moon is by far the most reliable and by far the
safest alternative we've got, especially once taking everything into
account. I'm not suggesting the same nuclear alternative for Earth
because, that's just downright pathetic and otherwise stupid for more
good reasons than you'd care to hear about, although it's not nearly as
dumb and dumber than obtaining and burning off coal the way we do.

Fuel cells of h2o2/aluminum are certainly a good energy packing
alternative, although obviously the h2o2 portion needs to be imported
at creating an overall deployed fuel-cell cost of perhaps a million
dollars/kg, therefore a tonne worth of each operational fuel-cell is
only going to cost a mere billion, and you'll need several such units
unless your moon base of operations is primarily robotic.

H2O2/aluminum as a fuel cell is good for better than a kwh/kg, with I
believe a theoretical maximum capability of delivering 3.47 kwh/kg
(12.5 mj/kg). Therefore, we might expect to see 2 kw/kg as being the
most likely fuel cell accomplishment, that is unless your conditional
laws of physics get involved again.
-
Brad Guth