11–20 of 98 posts
Aren’t we trying to manage the energy we already get, and maybe even get less energy? Isn’t it that at the current rates with our modified atmosphere we are going to cook ourselves ?
Aren’t we trying to manage the energy we already get, and maybe even get less energy? Isn’t it that at the current rates with our modified atmosphere we are going to cook ourselves ?
They're either very weather dependent, ecologically intensive or time dependent.
This solves a lot of this by moving the actual capture above us, into geostationary orbit where there's still plenty of space and by using microwaves (rather than traditional light) you can avoid clouds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what they said about leaded gasoline and asbestus. We do not know, it might cause cancer.
Leaded gasoline and asbestos weren't studied before introduction. This has been.
Launching stuff into orbit is expensive in cash and emissions.
I’m no rocket scientist but surely it’s cheaper to build more panels and batteries on Earth? Launching stuff into orbit is expensive in cash and emissions.
I wonder what happens to the air craft or living things when they get caught in this high energy beam
They will have predominantly female offsprings https://www.jstor.org/stable/40965912
I’m no rocket scientist but surely it’s cheaper to build more panels and batteries on Earth? Launching stuff into orbit is expensive in cash and emissions.
The hope is that space based manufacturing will eventually make this technology viable more widely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what they said about leaded gasoline and asbestus. We do not know, it might cause cancer.
Leaded gasoline and asbestos weren't studied before introduction. This has been.
I’m no rocket scientist but surely it’s cheaper to build more panels and batteries on Earth? Launching stuff into orbit is expensive in cash and emissions.