What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
91 Comments
- CourageWulf, on 11/09/2009, -3/+44FOOK AYOU FOSSIR FUER!!
- KidKenosha, on 11/09/2009, -3/+26Have we learnt nothing from SimCity 2000?
- Starsurfer56, on 11/09/2009, -2/+18Thats why they're launching a test satellite...
Please read article before posting - TragedyAndHope, on 11/09/2009, -0/+13This is what Japan wants to do while the US wants to spend $600 billion tax payer dollars on the military every year.
- T8erT0T, on 11/09/2009, -2/+12Extension cord.
- hsanjuan, on 11/09/2009, -2/+12"The researchers are targeting a one gigawatt system, equivalent to a medium-sized atomic power plant", only .21 gigawatts more to power the time machine.
- doctechnical, on 11/09/2009, -2/+11The sun ALWAYS shines in space. On the face of the earth you've got night time, clouds, dust etc to deal with. Even with the transmission loss you're talking about 24x7 free energy with zero pollution. Isn't that what everyone's had a hard-on for the past decade or so, "renewable" energy? This is about as renewable as you can get.
- rushover, on 11/09/2009, -2/+11Godzilla can't reach that *****.
- doctechnical, on 11/09/2009, -2/+9Don't kid yourselves, folks - this is the next space race, and the US should be involved - screw that, the US should be leading the way. THIS is what NASA should be concentrating on, something useful, not putting people on the moon. Again.
- afterforever21, on 11/09/2009, -1/+8i sure as hell haven't... couldnt get all the little red lightning bolts to disappear no matter how many plants and power lines i had, damn game.
- ippey, on 11/09/2009, -2/+9For some reason, I think that their research will be far more intense and intuitive than an internet commentator's speculation.
Also, when mocking someone for using ellipses and linking its usage to lower IQ, it helps to assure that the insulting sentence has proper spelling and grammar: "has been shown to reduce you IQ".
*your - ninjaofpatience, on 11/09/2009, -2/+8Low Orbit Ion Canon anyone?
- smashTasker, on 11/09/2009, -1/+7The way things are going now, the next major energy source for the US will be a donkey pulling a cart.
- sHockz, on 11/09/2009, -0/+5the energy loss is a lot greater than you are giving it credit for....like almost 100%
also, you are assuming that we can receive that energy 24/7, which, last time i checked, the earth was round and spun around on its axis. if such a station in space spun in coordination with the island of japan, the station would still experience blackouts from the sun. - Haha71687, on 11/09/2009, -1/+6I wanna live in an arcology.
- askantik, on 11/09/2009, -1/+6But playing world police is so fun! And cheap oil!
- Atrius, on 11/09/2009, -3/+8You know, I have one simple request, and that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now, evidently, my cycloptic colleague informs me that that can't be done. Can you remind me what I pay you people for? Honestly, throw me a bone here!
- Awwzm, on 11/09/2009, -1/+5The description reminds me of "Akira" - when SOL melts off Tetsuo's arm.
- sHockz, on 11/09/2009, -0/+36x cheaper? lol, let me know how much its going to cost to build this, then tell me how much cheaper it is really going to be to operate such a device, much less support it.
also, the engineers here at one of the leading electric companies in the USA say differently, and say that even with a directional high powered beam, the loss would be so substantial it wouldn't be a good option when they could easily create something right here on earth that is 1000x more efficient at energy creation and delivery. - inactive, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3They aren't even doing that though.It's been canceled.
- nartvq, on 11/10/2009, -0/+3The concept of electrical propulsion has been around for years, but they have trouble working reliably. That's why commercial satellites still use electrothermal hydrazine thrusters (IMPEHT).
I'm not saying they can't use electrical propulsion. It's just not a mature technology that currently only provides marginal propellant savings (on the order of like 10%).
The article doesn't say much about how far away or what orbital slot the Japanese intend to position this space structure into. If they intend to beam power down 24/7, they'll need to be in a stable geosynchronous orbit. For commercial satellites, that's about 36,000 km away. Realistically, I don't think its possible to send up a single satellite with several square kilometres worth of stowed solar arrays to that altitude and still make it financially feasible. Ideally, you'd want it to stay up there long enough for a replacement to be build and well on its way plus a bit more to recoup your costs. So I would think 10 years minimum. The mass and the amount of propellant you'd need for station keeping are just too great for that. Just my opinion. Cheers. - awfl, on 11/09/2009, -1/+4This is a leap ahead of all other technologies, period. No matter the losses, no matter the cost. Once it is done and implemented, it (re)moves most of the dirty work of energy production off planet. And, we will have ultimately subsidized the project and Japan when they then sell their excess nighttime electricity back to the rest of us.
- brandozilla, on 11/09/2009, -2/+4"According to a 2004 study by JAXA, the words 'laser' and 'microwave' caused the most concern among the 1000 people questioned."
I'm guessing they left out words like "doomsday", "Armageddon", and "apocalypse". - hawkspur, on 11/09/2009, -1/+3You can't compare Chernobyl to this at all, you fail at science.
Chernobyl was caused by a reactor with several failsafes not installed or disabled and an overeager scientist who wanted to know what would happen if they stopped the coolant on purpose. - h0ly, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2RTFriendlyA
- michirican123, on 11/09/2009, -2/+4hahahhahahahaa i love these comments
- sHockz, on 11/09/2009, -4/+6i work for one of the top electric companies here in the US, and you are 100% right. they might as well just improve current solar technologies here on earth....no reason to harness the energy in space, yet. the amount of energy lost from space to earth does not make this a truly viable option, unless the japanese magically invented some new way to transmit energy wirelessly and havent told any of us.
- gronkers, on 11/09/2009, -1/+3And with all the trash flying around in orbit, I wonder how long that will survive.
- dumptaker, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2I was thinking more in terms of the laser beam.
- omababy, on 11/09/2009, -2/+4Space elevator perhaps
- kefkaantakrist, on 11/09/2009, -1/+3If you can use it to collect energy 24x7, it'll be worth whatever inefficiency is introduced by beaming the energy down in microwave form.
/completely uneducated opinion. - Harabeck, on 11/09/2009, -1/+3Read the article OP, they calculate it's 6x cheaper, even accounting for the transmission loss. Over time, that would pay for itself.
- TexMexRex, on 11/10/2009, -1/+2The fantasy here is transmission of megawatts of power across 22,236 miles, and through the atmosphere, clouds etc via laser or some other waveform. Placing acres of solar cells into orbit with chemical powered rockets, and maintaining them in the hostile environment of space is more of a pipe dream.
I bring up perpetual motion, and cold fusion because people here seem willing to believe anything that promises clean energy. I am all for clean energy, but one has to approach anything with some skepticism, especially when multi-million dollar government grants are being handed out. - nartvq, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2Interesting idea, but I don't think this will work out. They're talking about putting up a solar array that is "several square kilometres (square miles) in size". I would think the propellant requirements to keep such a large structure up in geosynchronous orbit for 15-20 years would be cost prohibitive.
- DagonwebNL, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1ohhmygodohmygod
- pgriffinmonmout, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2Japan made a ladder to heaven too...
- DagonwebNL, on 11/10/2009, -1/+2Read up in electrical propulsion via cable. Sufficient energy plus a very small reaction mass can push these structures into higher orbits almost constantly, using ion drives. Plus there is also an electrostatic trick using a charged cable trailing through the van allen belts than provides lift.
Orbital positioning is the least of your worries here. - GibsnSG, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2the japanese aren't the only ones who have thought of transmitting electricity wirelessly, Tesla was the first..
- DagonwebNL, on 11/10/2009, -1/+2Let me make a few dozen predictions in 1990, for the year 2010, people back then would have regarded as laughable, and would have thought more likely for 2030 rather than 2010.
That is some big list. It took ten years for an american president to voice the desire for a lunar lander and an actual landing. That jump ahead was far bigger than between now and launching a test satelite in 2030. - doctechnical, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2Multiple satellites, multiple receiving stations. It's not that hard to figure out.
- Prism123, on 11/09/2009, -2/+3all that work for the output of a single midsized nuclear plant doesn't really seem worth it.
- MOJIRA, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2What happens when someone hacks in and focuses all that energy to an enemy target. DEATH RAY!
- Harabeck, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2Dust wouldn't do anything to microwaves. I don't know what the risk of causing harm on the ground is, but I suspect the experts have taken it into account. Believe it or not, they know more than the average digger.
- arkwald, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2You try aiming at something from 22,236 miles out.
- sHockz, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2texmex, 5x more power in space...not transferred energy. the system does not have an efficient delivery system, laser or no laser. they would be better off with a 30mile copper wire heading out into space than using a laser.
- bradleyland, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2The skies filled with gigawatt laser beams. We can dream, can't we?
- DagonwebNL, on 11/10/2009, -1/+1Blaaaa blaaaa blaaaa
- Harabeck, on 11/10/2009, -1/+1They say it'll be cheaper, and they also say they want it to be cheaper so it's nonsense?
-
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is