What is Digg?96 Comments
- kakihara0513, on 07/29/2008, -4/+21Dyson Spheres....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere - briguymaine, on 07/29/2008, -0/+14"Mr. Dyson gave up this idea and made a vacuum cleaner..."
- DeskFlyer, on 07/29/2008, -5/+15My swimming pool's been harvesting solar power from outer space for years.
- Raider007, on 07/29/2008, -1/+9OUTERSPACE!!!! So obvious! Looks like I have egg on my face for running my solar panels indoors with sun lamps... no wonder my electricity bill was going up... huh... all these years..
- inactive, on 07/29/2008, -0/+7You obviously did not read the article. Talk about daft...
- DyceFreak, on 07/29/2008, -0/+7I'm pretty sure any solar power would reduce fossil fuel dependancy...
- gn0stik, on 07/29/2008, -1/+7First it depends on where the ring, or sphere was located in reference to the earth. And second most scenarios in which we would build a Dyson Sphere would likely be ones in which all life on earth was already threatened by the waning of the sun's energy. It would also include a mass exodus of life from earth to the sphere.
The problem with it, is that at our current level of technology, and even any predictable level of technology, it's impossible. It would take many times more mass than is in our entire solar system to create a Dyson sphere of sufficient structural integrity, and mass to remain in a sustained rotation around the sun. It would require the ability to move massive heavenly bodies around like mounds of dirt in a gravel pit, pulverize it, and turn it into useable raw materials in orbit around the sun. Without destroying ourselves in the process. - fadetoone, on 07/29/2008, -1/+7Isn't all solar power from outer space? Have they made stars on the earth that I am unaware of?
- LoudMusic, on 07/29/2008, -1/+6Amazingly short article and people still don't read it.
Paraphrase:
Massive solar collecting satellites avoid negatives of ground based solar collectors and beam the massive amounts of energy to Earth. Costs a lot to do, saves a lot in the long term. Big countries are interested, no one wants to pay for it.
My opinion:
Also like the article says, this is not a new idea. And plenty of peons like myself have also been thinking about it for years. I just wish they'd create a small proof of concept to really encourage the money holders. Once the thing is in orbit it would require little to no maintenance. Free power? That you can charge for? The billionaires of the world will eat that ***** up. - waldo686, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5FTA -"and someone has to take care of the billion dollar bill for the whole thing"
Quote from another digg article
"The Iraq war, at just over five years old, is priced at $648 billion"
Couldn't we have used maybe a little bit of that cash for a better purpose mr W bush? - rz8472, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5Ever consider building cheap coal powerplants in the midst of a bunch of dirty industrial buildings at the very corner of the map? Ahh exploits...
- papastout, on 07/29/2008, -1/+5Solar Power from Outer Space?
Wait, isn't that the only kind?
...from the Department of Redundancy Departments - KaiUno, on 07/29/2008, -0/+4Aye, laddy. And it wasn't all that good.
- ineedunderscore, on 07/29/2008, -4/+8so it's worth adding the cost of power loss via microwave degradation/diffusion through atmosphere, heat and offgassing from any particulates in the path, constant danger of catastrophic failure, very high upkeep cost, very high initial cost and the potential to be turned into a weapon of mass destruction, so that solar collectors won't have between 8-12 hours of less than full output on a daily basis?
It's a neat idea, but conventional solar is more user friendly, less dangerous, easier to build, easier to maintain and cheaper. Dugg for a cool brainstorming idea. - longbomberz, on 07/29/2008, -1/+5The satellites could provide 24/7 power, while earth-based solar panels would only work so long as the sun was shining.
- ssj2119, on 07/29/2008, -1/+4Where the hell else is solar power going to come from?
- aki009, on 07/29/2008, -2/+5Only if we were to assume that the technology used to create a Dyson sphere would not be reflective of the ability to prepare Earth for its existence. Besides, the logistics for creating a Dyson sphere would probably involve using material from conveniently located planets, such as Earth, most likely in their entirety.
- gn0stik, on 07/29/2008, -1/+4Think it through, man.. Reading the article helps.
- rz8472, on 07/29/2008, -3/+6Ever see that episode of Star Trek: TNG where Scotty was found in suspended animation when his ship crashed into one of those?
- ilistenisee, on 07/29/2008, -1/+4how about we start on earth, make solar power efficient and cheap enough before talking about fancy stuff like this...
- gcnaddict, on 07/29/2008, -2/+5Ah *****, mine misfired.
/goes back to SimCity 2000 - tomakun, on 07/29/2008, -1/+4If mobile suit gundam 00 has taught us anything...
Wouldn't this eventually lead to wars between the few countries rich enough to afford to build arrays of solar panels in space? (not to mention the inevitable giant robots) - denizen42, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2I agree, from your perspective even his butt outshines your output.
- Wildthing, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2They're trying in France.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239. ... - johnpaul191, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3I heard about this on NPR today. The former NASA scientist talking about it said the microwave ray is not dangerous to birds, bees, people, small villages (you know you're remembering that news blurb in Robocop). The idea is that the solar panels would be in geosynchronous orbit (of course) and would be above clouds/atmosphere that degrade the light, or flat out suck on cloudy days. He had a ballpark cost per kilowatt, and it was high.... but thinking about it now i am not sure how it would compare to unsubsidized terrestrial solar panel farms. He also though one satellite should be able to power "a medium sized city". That's kind of impressive.
- bizsumpark182, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3Interesting idea, I never thought about it before. Although how many satellites would be needed? How big of an area could one power?
- tomakun, on 07/29/2008, -1/+31) Please learn the difference between fantasy and science fiction
2) Check what something is before you criticize it (anime TV series, not a movie)
3) Don't act all holier-than-thou because you read scifi novels. I do that too. - ineedunderscore, on 07/29/2008, -0/+21) nope? nope what?
2) nobody said "do nothing". It's going to be hard enough to keep up the momentum generated by global warming zealots, let alone trying to get people interested in yet another high cost investment with no proven returns.
Alternative energy gloms need to run with the ball they have just to get truly started as a globally competitive force. A new game might be a good idea later, but they need to have a foundation of success. (no, big success like transcontinental railroad, ford production line, petroleum distillers or cotton producers.) Then, when alt. energy gloms have a goodly chunk of the world standard energy revenue, a huge cost for orbiting solar could be mitigated by a thriving private enterprise.
3) status quo - ineedunderscore, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3but... I never said they were wrong.... and this is the discussion section... where we exchange views. ? I'm sorry I've bored you lolcat23. I certainly only meant to provide seed stock for intellectual exchange. Sorry.
- TheImaginator, on 07/29/2008, -7/+9Daft idea, blocking of sunlight by encompassing the Sun would kill all life on Earth.
- Squidwalk, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3What's the point of recycled articles? Add an opinion, a cross reference, some new information, I don't care what. But it's ***** insulting when "writers" read CNN and repost it like they put it together themselves.
There's mechanisms in Digg to keep people form re-posting the same article, and you're saying re-posts are important to Digg? Do you have some knowledge the rest of us don't? - Squidwalk, on 07/29/2008, -0/+25 buries so far, and no one offers a reason why. Ariel Schwartz is re-phrasing Lara Farrar from CNN with no further research and no opinion. Pranav Mehta, Space Island Group, even the Charles Miller-10 years estimate where all just lifted from the CNN article. This isn't journalism, it's plagiarism. Here's the Digg link for it.
http://digg.com/space/How_to_harvest_solar_power_B ... - inactive, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2blah blah and another hollywood crazed navelstaring idiot quotes YET ANOTHER ludicrous movie. With a story that was total ***** to begin with.
What, quotes from harry potter next? - ineedunderscore, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2As I said before, it's a neat idea. I think it can work. It is not impossible. Ok there. What I'm arguing is that a shift in focus from current alternative energy supply growth to a very expensive, exceedingly difficult new alternative energy strategy is detrimental to the alt. energy cause. Fund research privately, keep up the good work and I hope the orbital power source idea succeeds. But the "Space is just very profitable" set are missing a few context sentences there.
It's still upwards of $10k/Kg just to get a device into LEO and a device in LEO is considered to have a limited life span due to deorbiting friction. So just right there, the problem of permanence/lifespan and cost to create becomes a blocker. There is nothing in the article or on the website which removes this blocker. Just more ideas. So, on paper and proven by ISS/semi-permanent orbiters, a power platrform is possible to create. But also proven is that every large platform in space is a big, big money hole which requires a great deal of upkeep. The alt. energy infrastructure is not ready to accept such a load yet, but hopefully, in the future, it will be.
My research is based on consistent interest in space program development and almost maniacal interest in alternate energy resources. I use nasa.gov, liftwatch.org, spaceward foundation and liftport.com for linking information on new space tech. I use alternativeenergy.com eeere.energy.gov and jalopnik for linking information on new energy resource trends. I use Digg, fark, slashdot and arstechnica to check on public responsiveness to the more accepted of each subject.
So I am not a hardcore scientist, but a motivated enthusiast. Have I refuted anyones claim that their science is wrong? No. I'm just doing a quick and dirty feasability study based on what I have observed.
P.S. your lolcat is messing with your capslock. - eekthekat, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3I you get the chance, check out a book called Firestar by Michael Flynn. It deals with this and several other issues we are now facing. Plus it's just a good scifi read anyway.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2Yes, according to http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand- ...
We could have replaced our entire dependence on ALL oil FOREVER with a fraction of what we'll spend in Iraq (now estimated at $3 trillion).
And since we only get 20% of our oil from the Middle East, we could have ended our need to even talk to that part of the world much sooner, faster, and cheaper that what is presented above.
The satellite idea is a STUPID one for anything except space based stations and infrastructure. Move along, nothing to see here. - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2ignore this ex-NASA nimwit's prattle
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand- ... - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1My god, I cannot believe how stupid the people who say (and digg) "solar power doesn't work 24/7" are...
There are many ways to store power collected by day to be used at night. It already works with modern power systems, and modern solar paneled power systems found in industry and homes.
Batteries can be charged by day and discharged by night, for example.
There is NO reason to build solar panels for power in space. We only need an infinitesimally small portion of the Earth surface to power everyone and everything, forever, for free.
Here's just one example...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand- ...
- inactive, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1*DENTAL* metal-based fillings.
- SpinozaQ, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1We aren't researching nano-tubes because we "feel like it". Geosynchronous orbit, is oh, 25,000 miles up.... If you make the cable out of steel it would have to taper to several thousands of miles wide, just to support it's own weight. There does not yet exist a cable "super sturdy" enough to not break.
There is a more reasonable solution. It's called a "fountain tower" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain .. It's weight is supported from the ground up, so it doesn't have to to reach to geosync to be fixed. Towers like this could act as a "focus" point for energy from the satellites, then use plain old sturdy cables to take the power the rest of the way. - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1no it doesn't
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand- ... - lolcat23, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1sigh, whatever.
so send a mail to the scientists and prove them wrong, we dont care. - inactive, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Listen to the specialists in the oil industry. We have been PARTYING on our oil inheritance for a century, the party is about over. Renewables will NEVER be able to match the same energy output. We gorged ourselves on oil, and in that century humanity grew from a billion to six billion.
Imagine moving to a no growth paradigm, with lots of agriculture, decentralized production. It would be the end of diversified society, consumerism, capitalism, transport, vacations. The next generation would work with animals to work the land. But worse - about 2-4 billion people would have to die. We cannot sustain a population of 6 billion on this planet with renewables. Not indefinitely. And that is not even considering the topic of global warming. Sure, we can party on for 20-30 years on coal, but if we do that, the earth's carrying capacity will certainly drop to 500.000 million ***** sapiens.
Please please please if you do not believe me do your own homework. Space based solar would be the next step if we want to grow and expand further. - inactive, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Helium 3 in lunar regolith is about 90% of the reason yah.
- liljay2k, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Milk?
- GiggleStick, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1What are cows normally filled with?
- inactive, on 07/29/2008, -0/+11 - Nope. We have no sane alternative to space based energy sources, as far as we know now. The alternative is a no-growth eternal status quo until we invent something totally unexpected, This works, it requires hard work and it allows a very high rate of economic growth. Space is just very profitable.
2- The alternatives, i.e. are nonviable Best arguments provided are by Matt Simmons. Just take me on my word if I say that if we as a species opt for "largely renewable energy sources" we enter the age of gradual die-off. That means - no more economic growth, period, status quo, no more consumerism of any kind, a very spartan lifestyle and a decrease in global population from 6+ billion to (about 2-3 billion). the downside is that has to happen by global consensus, and that means - a world government that can enforce population reductions. You really want to go there?
3- Status Quo, indeed. We had a status quo in the middle ages too. Stagnation can be bloody filthy and uncivilized. -
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is