31–40 of 83 posts
[1] Based on energy consumption figures from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
"Let me tell you one of my pet peeves: space solar power. Okay, the stupidest thing ever. If anyone should like space solar power, it should be me. I got a rocket company and a solar company. I should be really on it, ya know. But it's like, super obviously, not going to work because, ya know, if you have solar panels - first of all, it has to be better than having solar panels on Earth, so then you say, okay, solar…
That feels overly simplistic. What are the actual losses?
Taking aside feasibility of this, having a single source of power delivering 33% of world's energy is a terrible idea. Especially if it would not be quick to fix or replace if it'd had been completely destroyed. Such a single point of failure would become a single point of doom if the world suddenly would be cut off of third of its energy for weeks or months.
"Let me tell you one of my pet peeves: space solar power. Okay, the stupidest thing ever. If anyone should like space solar power, it should be me. I got a rocket company and a solar company. I should be really on it, ya know. But it's like, super obviously, not going to work because, ya know, if you have solar panels - first of all, it has to be better than having solar panels on Earth, so then you say, okay, solar…
"Let me tell you one of my pet peeves: space solar power. Okay, the stupidest thing ever. If anyone should like space solar power, it should be me. I got a rocket company and a solar company. I should be really on it, ya know. But it's like, super obviously, not going to work because, ya know, if you have solar panels - first of all, it has to be better than having solar panels on Earth, so then you say, okay, solar…
"Let me tell you one of my pet peeves: space solar power. Okay, the stupidest thing ever. If anyone should like space solar power, it should be me. I got a rocket company and a solar company. I should be really on it, ya know. But it's like, super obviously, not going to work because, ya know, if you have solar panels - first of all, it has to be better than having solar panels on Earth, so then you say, okay, solar…
What if instead of solar panels, you put up big mirrors, and instead of earth you have them orbit far closer to the sun? Btw, great quote.
Taking aside feasibility of this, having a single source of power delivering 33% of world's energy is a terrible idea. Especially if it would not be quick to fix or replace if it'd had been completely destroyed. Such a single point of failure would become a single point of doom if the world suddenly would be cut off of third of its energy for weeks or months.
Except it's not a single source. It would be dozens of satellites, hundreds ground stations etc. This is like claiming that "coal power" is a single point of failure.
I'm just commenting on what they wrote and I see nothing about a farm of satellites in the article. Perhaps the original source is more clear about it. Or maybe this technology doesn't scale down well and that's the reason they're writing about one powerful satellite?
"Let me tell you one of my pet peeves: space solar power. Okay, the stupidest thing ever. If anyone should like space solar power, it should be me. I got a rocket company and a solar company. I should be really on it, ya know. But it's like, super obviously, not going to work because, ya know, if you have solar panels - first of all, it has to be better than having solar panels on Earth, so then you say, okay, solar…