637
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] wabafee@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

We'll probably be able to harvest solar power from space then beam it to Earth in a practical way first, than nuclear fusion becomes practical.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 78 points 6 months ago

There is a very efficient way to beam solar power from space. It is called light.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago

It's not efficient, a huge amount of it gets diffused or absorbed

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

It doesn't need to be efficient. Capture all the light that hits earth for 5 minutes and that's the world energy demand for a year.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

It’s not efficient, a huge amount of it gets diffused or absorbed

The amount that's left over though is more than enough, especially with today panels which only convert a very small percentage of that remaining energy.

As the panels improve even more they'll be a very large energy surplus, even with how much solar light actually gets through the atmosphere.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] excitingburp@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

The nice thing about space is that there isn't any weather up there to make the solar panels dirty etc. There's also a lot of space, which solar panels need a lot of.

[-] gex@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

How would you move the power down to earth?

[-] nymwit@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago

Microwave transmission is what's usually said, then someone says anything in the beam's path will get zapped, then it's pointed out the energy density isn't that high. Just wanted to shortcut that for ya

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

But what if I want to zap anything in the beam's path?

[-] shottymcb@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

Then a meddlesome British agent will interfere.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Well at least I still have my cat.

And my moon laser

[-] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 months ago
[-] justawittyusername@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

We need to make sure we knot it at the joins so it doesn’t get accidentally disconnected.

[-] butterflyattack@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Or just charge up car batteries and drop them.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Isn't there already a tesla up there?

Checkmate, Elon haters

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

How would you move the power down to earth?

Last time I read up on it it was via converting the energy into microwaves and beaming it down.

[-] excitingburp@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

I think masers (microwave lasers) are the new theory for achieving this, previously it was beaming microwave down much like your microwave oven beams your food.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

It’s not that new. Sim City 2000 included a power plant that was just a receiving dish for a maser

[-] cygnosis@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Funny thing is, no matter how you arrange to do that it becomes a de-facto death ray. Stick a terawatt of solar panels in space, use the power to shine a laser/maser down to earth, then build a station to turn the laser power back to electricity? Great, until some hacker figures out how to control where the laser is pointed. Then you get Dr. Evil holding the world for ransom.

[-] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 months ago

Nah it's not really bad at all:

The use of microwave transmission of power has been the most controversial issue in considering any SPS design. At the Earth's surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its center, of 23 mW/cm2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1 mW/cm2 outside the rectenna fenceline (the receiver's perimeter). These compare with current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves, which are 10 mW/cm2,[original research?] - the limit itself being expressed in voluntary terms and ruled unenforceable for Federal OSHA enforcement purposes.[citation needed] A beam of this intensity is therefore at its center, of a similar magnitude to current safe workplace levels, even for long term or indefinite exposure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power?wprov=sfla1

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

The nice thing about space is that there isn’t any weather up there to make the solar panels dirty etc.

There's a lot of junk though can that can damage those panels.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Space Lane cleaner was going to become a thing at some point anyway...

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Not at the legrange point! Yet, anyway

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Not at the legrange point! Yet, anyway

Actually, that's not true. The latest telescope we sent up there has been getting damaged from the junk at that point.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

And we can position a bunch over the poles to help stave off climate change.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 months ago

The poles aren’t really the place that need that the most.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

You wouldn't think so but them staying super cold helps stabilize a large chunk of our climate. Also throwing shade on arable land isn't great for food production.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TIMMAY@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

We dont need to collect it in space, just direct more of it to certain ground based collectors?

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

Increasing solar incidence will increase the planet’s temperature.

[-] kbotc@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

So will any other space collection of power.

[-] TIMMAY@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago
[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

We might be able to burn this atmosphere away yet!

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago
[-] Rutty@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 months ago

I’m not sure what comment to reply to, but I feel obligated to remind people that the sun is a fusion reaction.

[-] sus@programming.dev 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

~~solar power~~ gravity confinement fusion

[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago
[-] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Basically, the idea is to build orbital solar farms (where is always sunny), then beam the energy produced back to the ground with microwave transmitters and ground recievers. It's technically feasible, unlike fusion we have all the technology needed to do it right now. However, it's cost and resource prohibitive. The US government studied building such a system in the 1970-80's after the energy crisis. We could do it, but building it would take a generation to get running and about double the US's current military annual budget. Launch costs are coming down since then, but the industrialization of space and the moon will take generations and would need to be an international effort to have any chance of success.

[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

You know, for a bunch of people who crave power, politicians sure don't seem too keen on harnessing it.

[-] tamal3@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Wait... Beam solar energy from space? That's what the sun does?

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago

We'll probably be able to harvest solar power from space then beam it to Earth in a practical way first, than nuclear fusion becomes practical.

You mean solar panels?

this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
637 points (96.2% liked)

News

22507 readers
3838 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS