What is Digg?125 Comments
- i4mt3hwin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+45Microwave Power Plants in Sim City were hawt.
- davidconnell, on 10/10/2007, -3/+33If you don't pay me, one milllllliiiiioon dollars, I will power your house with my La-ser.
- DeskFlyer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+29Sharks unavailable for comment.
- sweetrelease, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25I may not know much physics but dosent the sun already transmit solar power to earth
- arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Absolutely, that's what I thought of. But there were microwave disasters too, or maybe it was just in that Unlimited Version. There'll be fires near the plant when the beam misfires.
- Digitalicious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11This is the precursor to two technologies already dreamed up in the video game world. A) The Ion Cannon from Command and Conquer, or b) the Microwave power plant from Sim City 2000.
- perkonis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Is this the Rube Goldberg attempt at solar power? It just sounds way more complex than solar energy should be.
- zapped33, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9For some reason, this reminds me of the 80's movie Real Genius. Don't let the Japanese put this up there or they'll be able to vaporize a human target from space! Or, even scarier, they may be able to cook a large tin of Jifffy Pop in the sky and inundate the world with popcorn.
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9And it shall be called the "death star"
- scottknick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"The process, according the scientists, can be up to 40% efficient, which makes it comparable with the most efficient solar panels of today."
Translation: It would be just as efficient to put decent solar panels on people's roofs. So why build this thing? Because a utility could own it. Projects like this are just attempts to meter the sun. - JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6More like "Because lasers are awesome!" Anything + lasers = awesomer.
- fluidfoundation, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I call it the Allen Parsens Project!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6And I'm sure it has a few special military uses.
- cfdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"Kent, this is Jesus.. stop touching yourself!"
- seanherman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Plus, the main problem with these technologies is the inefficiency of "power beaming." The inefficiency of the energy transportation method is one of the (many) reasons the space elevator is currently impossible to build.
The sun does already transmit solar energy to work, but there are a number of obvious logistical problems with capturing this energy on the surface of the earth. For example, a fluffy cloud render a multi-million dollar solar complex completely useless. That solar energy is also traveling through a lot of atmosphere, reducing that panel's efficiency. Useful land is hard to come by, and one of the biggest problems solar panels will always have to deal with. - Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How about an idea that doesn't breach the Space Act?
- Unlgued, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Totally read my mind.
- MikeFromAmerica, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I was thinking of Akira.
- sustainablogger, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6And government leaders with their finger on the trigger.... Poor Henry Waxman would be toast!
- markp93, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"projected 2030 launch date" -- I'll use my flying car to go out and see the launch...
nice idea but sounds like vaporware. - FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"One of the issues he identified with it is that it would have to be precisely controlled, otherwise it could cause untold devastation."
Just invent a robot that thinks the laser is God and thinks that keeping the laser precisely on target is his religion - lordchronos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3yeah sooner or later they always malfunctioned and started a massive fire
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't know many science fiction stories I've read that have this concept in it. It always seemed like a minimal gain idea. You're still sending EM radiation through the atmosphere to be dissipated along the way.
- HomerS1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Assuming that this will redirect solar energy that would othrewise bypass the earth, this will increase global warming. More solar energy (in whatever form) ultimately = more heat as all forms of energy ultimately degrade into heat (via friction or electrical resistance).
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Seriously though. Do you really think its only going to be used for "peaceful" purposes? That would be ignoring that the real leaders in this country were war criminals.
- palehorse864, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ion cannon ready.
Boy is nod going to hate this news. - saleem, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6does no one see the cost involved with putting things in space? Complete ignorance: "you don't have to buy land on which to place the panels, you just keep them orbiting and you're set. " Do you understand how expensive a launch and maintenance is, compared to buying farmland, where you can easily send a guy out with a wrench if something breaks. what do you do when your space laser breaks. Send in the sharks?
- daridave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It doesn't beat sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads.
- DoscoJones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Idiot. You have any idea how many start-ups are doing just this?
- diggface5000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3This news is several years old. Repost when someone will address the safety issues. The problem is not so much harnessing the energy in space, it's safely receiving it on earth without significant loss from the atmosphere. 40% does not justify the cost of undertaking this kind of operation. The author says "I'm not sure how this last step is accomplished."
- JustAZombie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's not like solar panels aren't freely and widely available for anyone to put on their roofs already.
- redxxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2the inability of the shuttle to even leave earth orbit does a decent job of preventing them from towing largish asteroids to earth.
- tkareeson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Gawd, stupid digg and comments. Anyway, I was going to say:
I think there is already a company that does this called "citizenre" with the "renu" system. So that smart guys is SOL.
I think the concept is that they put the solar panels on your roof for free but you have to pay for the electricity generated by the panels (cheaper than PG&E in California). I think as long as it atleast breaks even with PG&E, I would do it just to lessen my carbon footprint. - Blitzenn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It also a really cool why to burn off the ozone layer surrounding our planet. It only takes a little additional energy to drop off that extra oxygen molecule. We don't need no stink'en ozone layer!
- DoscoJones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, he's very right about the shuttle and you are very wrong. You want to think forward, that's great, but do it with a clue.
- EzarKun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5it might look expensive now, but it could be cheap, very cheap for the future of humanity.
If you were standing in space right now millions of miles away from Earth, you will see how puny it is. And how much space the Energy of our sun is lost to nothingness. There are prolly billions of ***** Watts which are usefull just passing us buy.
If we could build a bunch of these connons, and point them to earth, it would be very efficient.
Also it may not have to me pointing to earth, it could point to a space station, or a colony or for space travel itself. These beams could somehow be used to lauch space crafts from earth or for interplanetary travel.
one problem i can think right now beside money and earth resources is how this will effect the earths climate. would it heat the climate up? stuff concering like that.
Also, i believe every mechanism built from science to benefit a human can also be used for the destruction of humanity, you cant stop it. - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You are forgetting the move towards the commercialization of space. If it continues it will drastically lower the cost you are worried about. Then add the planned manned moon base and the possibilities grow. With things like this you have to look at whet else is in the works which will impact the cost effectiveness of this idea. the trend right now IS towards the commericialization of space which will drive costs down.
- gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And we all thought that film was too unrealistic. Sorta like how the U.S. military thought that Broken Arrow was an unrealistic film up until last week.
- FLarsen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You could send sharks into orbit.
Better have bears holding them for maximum effect.
Bears holding sharks with frickin' space lasers attached to their heads. - thatsiebguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Until you realize you didn't allocate enough money in the city budget for maintenance and the sat. drifted off course sending the laser beam tearing through your city. :P bbbvvvvzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Shazbot!
- Azriel7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thought the exact same thing
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ouch
- InvisibleMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1John Travolta stole two 80 megaton nukes last week, damn it all!
- warriorscot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Because you'll get only half the power of earth based systems. And during night when the most power is needed you'll get next to no power it also keeps power generation from using allot of real estate that we could use for something more useful. And 40% efficient solar panels are hideously expensive and neither easy or environmentally friendly to make.
If people wanted to have solar panels something like this wouldn't stop them or make them more expensive its not like it is some evil plan to block out the sun either its just a more efficient(because on earth no solar panel will get 24 hour power at high efficiency) way to generate renewable energy. - bbardlbradd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm assuming the satellite would stay over the target indefinitely, and the power plants will NOT be in cities... Look at the solar plants we have now...HUGE. The satellite I think would be an extension to the plants that we already have built. Which are too big to exist in cities and far enough away from cities to have smog effect their usefulness.
- azAZ09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Even worse -- energy utilities.
- Chewie67, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That caught me eye too. This kind of revolutionary stuff is always "in 25 years we will...." Sure.
Wake me when we get there. - InvisibleMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul: According to the 2nd Amendment, every American should have access to his own space laser. SPACE LASERS FOR ALL!
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ummm what makes you think there aren't space based weps already in orbit? Also lets not forget the possibility of turning teh shuttle into a wep. What's to stop them from towing a largish meteor into orbit and dropping it on a target on the ground? That would be FAR more destructive than any laser.
- DoscoJones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's hard to hit a ground station from 250,000,000 miles out.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is