What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
64 Comments
- majortom1981, on 07/03/2009, -2/+13Lol didnt sim city 2000 have this as a power plant? One of the disasters was that the beam would miss every now and then and start a fire.
- vorda, on 07/03/2009, -2/+8Forget about the costs, we are running low on energy and destroying the globe. We need to stop using money and do something really for all of us. Who says that at the end of it all there needs to be a corporation to collect the profit. Who says there even needs to be a profit involved. It is time for the economic evolution.
- Countess666, on 07/03/2009, -0/+6solar power in space brings in 8 times the power that it does heir on earth, can always to be focused on the sun (so small efficient (expensive) solar panels with bigger lenses are much more effective then here on earth ) and work 24 hours a day.
there are A LOT of advantages to solar power in space. a lot of advantages that make it possible for it to much more profitable then solar here on earth.
and repairs are a non-issue in a good designed system.
you can make the electronics next to fail proof, and losing a single solar panel or even a couple should have no effect on the overall unit, just a small loss in efficiently. - wolfkeeper, on 07/03/2009, -0/+5Nah.
The microwave intensity they are intending to use is only slightly stronger (literally a few times) than the radio wave strength you get from a cell phone.
It's a bit above the permitted limits for humans, but far below the level needed to cause people harm; and nothing catches fire under it, under any circumstances; and anyway the beam is aimed for a particular place on the ground, and nobody would live there.
In tests they raised birds for multiple generations under the planned beam strength; the birds lived longer if anything. You could literally stand in the middle of the beam and not know you were doing it; nor is there likely to be any long term harm that anyone has proven from doing that. So if the beam slipped, big deal. - Berkana, on 07/03/2009, -0/+5I'm not advocating solar panels: I'm advocating solar power in general. Solar thermal tech is superior to PV technology in the deserts:
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/advantages.htm - mantis108, on 07/03/2009, -1/+6This would be very cool if it could be cost-justified.
- Ferretman, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4Great idea....can't wait to see it in action.
- Barackalypse, on 07/03/2009, -1/+5I have a hunch the transmission losses from space plus the extreme cost of putting materials up there makes it uneconomical. To me the biggest positive to space based solar is the 24 hour a day availability of the power source, which means you need no storage mechanism or conventional standby generation capability for nighttime.
- Berkana, on 07/03/2009, -5/+8No it is not justified. Putting solar panels in space makes them cost prohibitive to maintain. Until every last square mile of solar-farm suitable land in the uninhabited deserts of the American South West is utilized, and until all of our urban sun-baked warehouse rooftops are utilized, we shouldn't even begin to think about space based arrays. Launching things into space may sound cool, but for the cost, far more solar capacity could be developed terrestrially.
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -2/+5Way to be realistic dude, something the digg hopefuls strangely lack.
- inactive, on 07/04/2009, -0/+3not calling you out but could you link to something addressing it? i'd like to read more about it.
- StusGhost, on 07/03/2009, -1/+4How do you protect the solar panels in space from space debris and small meteorites?
- waldo686, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3I think if they could get a multi million dollar company to sponsor them and put up the money to launch a small scale version and actually prove that this can work it would catch the attention of the national media and probably or government
- billricardi, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3The big gains don't happen until you get a space elevator in place, because you lose so much in wireless transmission of any kind. But you never know what breakthroughs you'll come up with until you put the research in.
- weif, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3Solar panels on rooftops: good. Assuming you're OK with and educated about the environmental impact of the creation and destruction of traditional solar panels.
Solar panels occupying every available inch of desert: bad.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_ ...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/not_so ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics - apickle, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3While I agree with you in part (why put solar panels in space when they work excellent on Earth? http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2349171 ... ), photovoltaics are not the only resource available in space. What about the Van Allen belts? If we could make satellites or space stations that could collect inducted current from those, we'd... have a TON of energy.
- apickle, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3Satellites themselves aren't THAT expensive, not even the launches. Especially if they were a viable means of power generation, they would actually, for once, start paying for themselves directly.
But the problem lies in getting the power from space to Earth. I'm all for just using the energy in the Van Allen belts, but... how do we get it to Earth? - anonymousmedic, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2Aeolia Shinburg would approve of this.
Is it really that obscure of a reference? - waldo686, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2well i'm sure they do get hit alot but look at how many satellites are currently orbiting the globe, they dont just run on gasoline generators ya know ;)
- weif, on 07/03/2009, -1/+3Not mentioned in the article: Environmental costs and hazardous by-products of the production of solar panels (sorry guys, solar panels are just magic green energy, there are environmental concerns with them too, and they do require natural resources).
Wrong in the article: The solar panels do have a limited life expectancy, and when they're done, the materials, many of which are environmentally hazardous, need to be disposed of. Yes, they could be just left in orbit, but then you have that much more debris in orbit, which, in turn, poses more risk for the replacement of that power plant or others, not to mention anything else that's going into orbit. You could let its orbit decay and let it get burned up in the atmosphere, but that's probably got its own environmental risks. And I'm sure the environmental activists that are objecting to the storage of nuclear waste in space would have the same problems with solar collection arrays falling to earth that they do with nuclear waste falling to earth... - Stephenishere, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2I've always been a huge fan of space based solar, but I believe there are steps we need to take first in other technologies before we can do it effectively. First we need to start with large scale production of solar panels for residential and businesses. Too many houses/warehouses have plain unused roofs which could be used to harvest energy, have power close to homes also eliminates more of the waste of power in transmitting power over lines over great distances to locations needed. With production of solar panels always increasing and constant evolution of production techniques, the price point for panels will eventually be a rival to current technology on our planet(coal, hydro, nuke, wind, etc). The other technology i believe we need to really focus on before we could build these satellites would have to be space elevators. If we have rope into space that could transport goods much more cheaply/ safely we could put mass amounts of these satellites and would never have a energy problem. I also would have to think these towers could also be utilized as a mean for transporting the power down to earth. If so this system of satellites connected to a space elevator would eliminate a lot of the power lost from transmission and also the fear people would have of transmitting power, at the same time making the whole process of getting power from space much cheaper.
Thought's, comments? - DeathToaster, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2Actually, it makes more sense in space without that pesky atmosphere to deal with.
- SigmaStar, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/visionar ...
Capturing a concentrated beam of microwaves carrying electricity proves difficult. - crypticcipher, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2Based on Asimov's I, Robot short stories. I've been pushing this idea for several years.
To those lamenting microwave transmission, the whole system could be based on remote relays to orbital collection stations which are then hardwired to the ground via tether. This would allow collection stations to be very high in earth orbit or even situated remotely at lagrange points or even in solar orbit. There is no need to use radiation to cross the ionosphere except to minimize the cost of transmission. All of the concepts are sound and can provide theoretically unlimited power to the earth. It is, of course, not a trivial task, but it is the only source of energy that is virtually limitless and generally safe. There are also issues with efficiency that need to be addressed.
I looked for the article, but could not locate it which describes the third level of biological evolution or the solar engineering phase. This technology would allow our entrance into that tier. - EllsworthT, on 07/05/2009, -0/+2No, 5urr3al5am, there isn't a shortage of fossil fuel. And if there ever is, you can be sure entrepreneurs will discover new sources of energy and new ways to harness it. Oil is just too cheap now--despite government regulation and meddling--to bother with alternatives.
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2Asimov kicked everyone's ass
- bipolarruledout, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2Since when is solar power NOT from space? Perhaps we could find a way to use the energy that already reaches the earth every day.
- anthropodeus, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2powersats would make great military targets. an entire region could be easily incapacitated by shooting down some powersats. and in some cases, you could even hit a powersat with a ground-based laser if the powersat is above the horizon, eliminating the need for tempermental rockets.
- Stephenishere, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2This brings for the need for developing a more effective way to get objects and materials to space, the answer? Space elevators. With these towers we would significantly drop the price on getting mass amounts of materials to space. The cost of building massive solar arrays would still be more expensive than earth, but with a much more justified cost with the 24/7 power/ more power for each panel. I also wonder if these space elevators could be used as a way to also transmit the power down to earth, maybe even provide a way to power the vehicles needed to travel up and down the tower.
We are going to need out of the box ideos and grand feats of engineering to get us out of our problem of energy in the coming years. - anthropodeus, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2but those are very small compared to powersats
- weif, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1um... BrianTerrel, you missed that bit that I thought was in at least one of those on loss of habitat to plants (yes, even in deserts) and therefore to animals that rely on those plants (even more delicate balances in deserts). In urban areas, particularly rooftops that are not otherwise used, the damage has already been done.
- starmanjones, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1>No it is not justified. Putting solar panels
>in space makes them cost prohibitive to
>maintain.
it doesn't have to be solar cells. how 'bout a turbine with one end in the shade and the other in the sun? how about tethers? how about a few thousand other ideas besides the one that may be the least practical... which you use to discredit an entire body of good ideas.
the whole "if i don't understand it then i go to guns" mentality is what is killing us... literally. - FearlessFreep, on 07/03/2009, -1/+2Asimov had a short story about it
"Reason" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(short_story) - apickle, on 07/03/2009, -1/+2Solar power on rooftops is an incredibly good idea.
- Kapitaine, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1EXACTLY! I thought I was going mad thinking this. If a solar satellite is powering LA...it's going to stay over LA, which in turn will follow our little globe around into darkness.
The only way I could possibly imagine it working 24/7 is the fact they could have double the amount of units (which kinda defeats the point)... OR they use some kind of relay system that collects energy from various angles and sources which THEN relays it to Earth. But that is convoluted and only adds to the complications.
Hmmmmm... - Rawjava, on 07/03/2009, -2/+3So all that we need is money....hmm i wonder how much we spend on nuclear weapons research?
- Paranor01, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Whats the problem with creating a geosynchronous orbit receiver in the Antarctica ? No shadow there I'd expect.
- wolfkeeper, on 07/05/2009, -0/+1Yeah, see:
http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ps.htm - noizeuk, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1No sharks?
Buried - anthropodeus, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1it would be much easier to advance our solar panel technology and our battery technology and then make more ground-based solar collectors.
- vorda, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Lezas!!
- bazzarr, on 07/04/2009, -1/+2Not going to happen. Sharks cant live in outer space and even if we could make them space suits, their helmets would block the lasers attached to their heads. Dumb idea..
- Pinkertinkle, on 07/03/2009, -2/+3there's plenty of sun in the Nevada desert that's a lot more accessible than in orbit.
- Countess666, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1you don't, you designed it in such a way that if any part gets broken it won't effect the rest of the system. you might loss a bit of power, but you can plan for that.
only the transmission and control unit might get some shielding but its so small (relatively) that it probably wont need that either. - mrkmrk, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1That's completely and utterly meaningless. You still have no clue of what you're talking about.
- vorda, on 07/04/2009, -1/+2You didn't understand me. So let me explain.
It has to start somewhere.
It has to start sometime.
What better place than this,
what better time then NOW!
All hell can't stop us now! - vorda, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1We are stuck in this place where everything and all is looked through profit. I don't think we can do much about it and it makes me sad. The corporations with power to change things are not doing it because free energy is not their turf. Even cheap energy is not their turf. Nor energy that is abundant. We gave to much power to lifeless entities that put profit above all - above quality, usability, abundance....
Energy is all around us. But the corporate agenda is still not on the side of humanity. I would love my electric company as my own mom if it gave me electricity for free - but they simply don't get it as there is no room in the economy today to just simply give something away for free. You give for free - You go bankrupt. This needs to be changed or adjusted somehow in some way so we can start implementing brilliant ideas from really smart people. - Countess666, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1it just goes away every night.
and only shines at maximum brightness a few months a year for a few hour's a year.
not saying we shouldn't also develop that, just saying its not the only option and space solar does have a few advantages. - Paranor01, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1What mrkmrk is talking about, is a new form of economics that sets new priorities from and on the society. Something similar to what you saw best in Star Trek TNG. I'm not talking about the technology, but the social economic background to the show.
Picard in one episode talking to three people that survived cryogenic freezing and were now awake, he stated "humanity's goal is no longer for the accumulation of 'things', but for the betterment of themselves" that's not verbatim, but is the message. "things" is the materialistic nature of today's economy, which has inherent flaws in it which will make it fail eventually.
With the growing awareness of this within society, society itself will drive the changes to the economy which are needed, and that will eventually occur without total collapse of both. Government is just the "middle-man" of the society and the economic system of each country. -
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is