you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the 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