you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 78 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    How would you store it though?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Wow, you're right! We should just build a Dyson sphere around the sun. 100% efficiency achieved. What could possibly go wrong?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Did you understand the person you respond to as saying its inefficient because the sun shines in other directions than the array proposed?
    I'm pretty sure the person talked specifically about the beam from the array to earth being inefficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    How would you move the power down to earth?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Increasing solar incidence will increase the planet’s temperature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments