51–60 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't know about asbestos, but everyone knew lead was bad. Profits just spoke louder.
Romans knew that slaves in asbestos mines didn't live long.
I wonder what happens to the air craft or living things when they get caught in this high energy beam
Lots of doubt. But don't doubt this: anybody who bets against orbital solar will lose, and it won't take long. The costs are all going in the direction to make space-based solar the winning option.
Citation needed. I'd especially like to see the calculation against the launch costs and the expected lifetimes of solar cells.
Is the other way also possible? Moving heat into space and then profit on the generated heat gradient on earth?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not a rocket scientist but you're absolutely right. It's cheaper to tear down the microwave receiver and put up solar panels and batteries than it is to send solar panels to space to beam power back to the microwave receiver. You'd have to beam 1000x the power that solar panels receive to justify the cost of sending things to space, but at that point you're lifting 100x more panels to space to get the 10x bonu…
That's probably an exaggeration by this time. Lift costs are decreasing geometrically. Solar efficiency is going up constantly. Land and eminent domain groundside continue to go up. All the variables are moving in the direction to benefit orbital solar, and will continue to go that way. It's not so much a matter of whether it's cheaper in space, than when it is cheaper in space. And it won't be long now.
The installation cost for space is so much more than the installation cost for earth. Even at 10x the cost, which is orders of magnitude off, what do we have?
We have a system in space at 10 the cost that needs a solar array sized receiving plant (double the cost) and has transmission losses (increase size of space and ground installations to offset).
It would have to be nearly the same cost or cheaper to install in space than on a field in, say, Kansas. Its a ludicrous proposition.
Anyway, this guy said it better: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/space-based-so...
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.
Not many places to build solar panels in Japan. They tried building on mountain faces but shoddy construction by yakuza linked companies lead to landslides[0] and many dead people a couple of years ago. For the record, I live in a remote mountainous (snowy) region and have panels generating 10kw on my roof. It generates really well 8 months out of the year. 2 months of snow and another couple of months for the rainy…
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/space-based-so...
Is the other way also possible? Moving heat into space and then profit on the generated heat gradient on earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_daytime_radiative_cool...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These beams contain 1/4 of peak solar energy at more benign wavelengths. Long term exposure is probably safe but might not be. Any amount of time measured in any unit less than years will be safe. https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Techn...
That's what they said about leaded gasoline and asbestus. We do not know, it might cause cancer.