To the anti-nuke crowd: putting solar panels in space is just not feasible

[conspirator]

1) Too expensive. It would probably be cheaper to go to the moon and extract helium3, which itself is very expensive.
2) How do you store the energy and send it back? If it was easy to channel energy back to earth, again the moon would be the best bet. It would be cheaper to build nuke power plants in the moon and send the energy back. Meltdowns? Who cares, nobody lives on the moon.

[InvisibleTouch]

1. Who said anything about space?

There are millions of rooftops in the world. Time to utilize all that wasted acreage.

[abelenkpe]

10. +1

Especially in CA

[Bill McBlueState]

2. there will be some legendary DU threads

if a nuclear power plant is ever proposed for the moon.

[physioex]

11. That's because it would be a

Redux of Raygun's Star Wars.

[JVS]

18. No. It's because it would be a violation of the moon goddess' purity.

I've seen this flamewar before.

[Javaman]

24. LOL you got that...

I'm sure you were around when the nuts came out of the wood work when they shot that research mission into the moon.

I couldn't believe that there were people on here saying it would destroy the moon. It was simply priceless and made for many an amusing read. LOL

[Maru Kitteh]

36. YES! and Lord, please let me live to see them.

:rofl:

[Ian David]

3. But then the moon could blow-up and fly out of orbit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WZW4groJro

[yourout]

19. Proving how old I am getting.....I watched this show as a teenager.

[rdking647]

26. only if it was on teh far side of the moon :)

[SpiralHawk]

4. The OP is just space-out sockpuppetry rabble rousing

connected to nothing...sheesh. Republicons. Go fig...

[Statistical]

5. Please read up on space based solar.

Microwaves are very efficient at converting electricity into a beam and then back into electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

There are issues but the largest is relatively simple. It costs a lot of money to put stuff in space. If you can drop the cost per ton then space based solar can work.

What would helium3 do? We have no fusion power plants hence Helium3 would be of absolutely no use. A nuclear power plant on the moon. I mean that woudl qualify at the stupidest idea ever presented. Getting to the money is expensive, per kg it is nearly 12x the cost of getting into orbit. Nuclear power plants also weight tens of thousands of tons. The cost to transport a nuclear reactor to the moon would be in the trillions of dollars.

[notesdev]

6. Not yet, anyway

it may one day and it's worth further research, but no we shouldn't pin our hopes on it at this time.

Beaming energy from the moon is not feasible anytime sooner than solar satellite; the distance to earth orbit, and the distance to the moon, differ by orders of magnitude.

Helium-3 mining might do the trick, but that involves having at least one major spacefaring nation both take its head out of its ass and put forward a massive and risky investment.

[Botany]

7. Doing bong hits and drinking rum first thing in the morning is not good.

It would be cheaper to build nuke power plants in the moon and send the energy back.

BTW I like solar panels on the roofs of homes and businesses.

[Rabblevox]

32. I beg to differ. Doing bong hits and drinking rum first thing is intrinsically good...

I'll take bong hits and rum over prozac and valium any day.

[daleo]

8. The Earth's surface works just fine

Space based solar power would be engineering overkill. Smaller scale distributed solar is much more feasible and prevents concentration of the resource into the hands of a few big monopoly capitalists.

[physioex]

9. Those things are a long ways away......

But in theory, I think energy could be sent back as microwaves. We could even put solar panels on the moon and send the energy back to earth. But again we are probably several decades from being able to implement such technologies.

Our need is more urgent and our resources are more limited, I would rather we spent our time on multitude of different solutions solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean. We don't derive our power from a single source and there won't be a single cleaner option.

[jschurchin]

12. I have a better idea.

Look at this picture



Now compare it to this one



They BOTH work on the same principal, an exchange of heat (btu). One is extreamly safe, one is not. Can you guess which is which.

[JetJaguar]

21. Sort of an apple and orange thing here

The bottom pictured machine produces energy.

The top one uses it albeit environmentally friendly.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Javaman]

25. Best answer ever!

cheers to you! :)

[JetJaguar]

33. You are equating a geothermal heat pump to a power plant.

Your top diagram is an air conditioning unit.

What powers the pumps, compressor and solenoids in the heat pump?

Maybe the illustration you intended can be found here.

http://visual.merriam-webster.com/energy/geothermal-fossil-energy/production-electricity-from-geothermal-energy.php



Oh and thanks for the raspberry.

[jschurchin]

35. Your welcome

Here is an idea, explain to us how the change of state occurs by the addition or subtraction of heat. Come on brother, explain to everyone how this change enables work.

[EstimatedProphet]

13. Oh bullshit

If what you said was true, then why are there companies working on doing it?

http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30198977/

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/11/09/japan-beam-solar-power-space-lasers/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8467472.stm

http://web.mit.edu/space_solar_power/

These are things that are happening NOW. Had we started looking into this 25-30 years ago in addition to putting effort into nuclear energy, we would have functioning space-based solar power RIGHT NOW. If we just talk about how it's too expensive to implement now, we will never have it. It's ridiculous to claim that it would cost more than going back to the moon when we have right at this moment geostationary satellites operating! How did Comcast ever get started?

[Deep13]

14. Yes it's a total fantasy. ...

We should be using dilithium crystals instead.

[physioex]

16. Ummmm....

Say, wouldn't matter anti-matter be more realistic and efficient?

[Deep13]

17. Captain, I cannot change the laws of physics!

Wait, I just figured out how to change the laws of physics and how to store antimatter in a cereal box.

[Rabblevox]

15. "We Like The Moon. But Not As Much as Cheese"

Sometimes, nothing fits better than the Spongemonkeys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY6insZjCfU

[originalpckelly]

20. On one point you are right, on one point you are totally wrong.

"1) Too expensive. It would probably be cheaper to go to the moon and extract helium3, which itself is very expensive."

Completely accurate.

"2) How do you store the energy and send it back? If it was easy to channel energy back to earth, again the moon would be the best bet. It would be cheaper to build nuke power plants in the moon and send the energy back. Meltdowns? Who cares, nobody lives on the moon."

You wirelessly transmit the energy to Earth. This is possible, you use radio which does it every day. Microchips for pets do it. A shitload of things do this. It's efficient in modern experiments, reaching 95% efficiency in some cases, which is on par with actual transmission lines.


That said, putting them in space is not an option, BUT what if I told you I figured out a poor man's version of this space-based power idea?

Oh, I have, and we can really do it on the cheap! Send the motherfuckers up on an airship designed for high altitude. Lockheed was designing a high altitude airship. You could use the same thing to put one of these solar plants in the sky.

But instead of using big ass and heavy solar panels, you can just use the gas envelope of the vehicle as the collector! It would have to be big anyway to support the weight of a power plant in the sky, so you'll get a lot of power out of it.

Doing this is ooodles cheaper than actually sending a satellite into space, and because it's high in the atmosphere you get a shitload of benefits from it. You get more direct sunlight because you're higher up and there is less atmosphere scattering the light being emitted from the sun!

You get more bang for your buck, and of course that actually works out, because it's not in space. You're still above the weather at extremely high altitude, so no worries about clouds fucking up your energy production!

It would be easier to launch, because it's not on a fucking rocket. Safer too.

And you can repair them, when you'd probably just have to write them off if they were in a geostationary orbit, because that's an extremely high orbit.

You would not get 24/7 illumination as you would with a geostationary plant, but you would probably be able to create network of transmission stations around the world to get power from the side that's in the sun to the side that isn't. But it must be said, because you're higher up, you would have a longer day, because the horizon is further away. The higher you go, the longer the day.

All of this we can actually do.

This kind of solar power makes terrestrial based solar look like a kiddie science experiment.

Now, eventually, space will be an option, because you can use experience from building these high altitude solar platforms, to build launch vehicles for rockets that will carry them to high altitude on board an airship, so that they can be lighter, because they wouldn't have to waste fuel fighting against drag in the lower atmosphere, and interestingly enough, they would have to carry fuel, just to carry more fuel. There are right now planes that launch actual rockets, but only for Low Earth Orbit, and they do this for that reason. Well, an airplane can't go as high as an airship.

It's like going up steps. First we did solar on Earth, but we saw the problems with it: scattering of light reducing power to terrestrial solar and clouds of course. Then we decided to jump a few steps, and we put solar panels in space to power spacecraft. And we now know the benefits of doing that.

What we need to do, is go down a step or two, and work to provide power at high altitude.

It sounds like science fiction, but all the technologies exist are used everyday. It's like cooking, you wouldn't have to grow a new species of spice, you'd just be coming up with a new recipe, by putting the technologies together in a way they have never been used.

[rdking647]

27. wireless power tranmission

doesnt exists in reality.

[Rabblevox]

30. Actually, yes, it does. Just not on a large scale or cost-effective...yet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer

[WatsonT]

29. To make it worthwhile

and actually able to penetrate the atmosphere that would have to be one hell of a powerful radiation emission.

And I don't think the anti-nuke crowd would be favorable to the idea of a flying death ray (as it would be declared about 5 seconds after being proposed).

[Javaman]

23. You said...

2) how do you store the energy and send it back?"

Then...

"If it was easy to channel energy back to earth, again the moon would be the best bet. it would be cheaper to build nuke power plants in the moon and send the energy back. Meltdowns? Who cares, nobody lives on the moon.

Isn't that a contradiction? You say can't transmit energy from orbit, but then you go on to say that if you could, we should do it from the moon? That's just odd.

Then as far as cost: you actually believe it would be cheaper to send up a manned crew with 100 of tons of manufacturing equipment, to turn moon dirt into concrete, then safely transport the nuclear material via moon shot for it's operation? Instead of putting a satellite, built on earth, into orbit that would unfurl ultra thin solar material.

Really, you honestly believe that?

Your logic is lacking in so many ways.

[MadHound]

28. Fine, let's put them on every rooftop in the country. That's feasible.

After all, they are making thin film photovoltaics that can now be applied like shingles.

Let's put up windbelts and turbines as well. Whatever we do, let us not put up anymore nuclear plants, or fossil fuel plants for that matter. We don't need them.

[Rabblevox]

31. I'm grateful to live in a region that gets most of it's power from clean, renewable hydro...

but of course, that carries it's own set of costs. Especially to fish and riparian birds.

[laureloak]

34. But on the other hand there could be solar roadways...

http://www.solarroadways.com/

Imagine recharging your electric vehicle while driving down the lighted road.