A huge solar collector in space?
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
You're about 40 years too late with your idea....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite
..and the power transmission was with microwaves (idea was tested out and worked with power being transmitted over several miles.) Environmentalists screamed the concept down in the late '70s....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite
..and the power transmission was with microwaves (idea was tested out and worked with power being transmitted over several miles.) Environmentalists screamed the concept down in the late '70s....
*grins* It was never my idea.
Environmentalists aside, I have to wonder whether they'd be at all profitable with our current launch technology. In the 70's, Stine and Bova wrote as if they were obvious answers to every problem in the world. But they also thought the space shuttle would be worth a damn too.
A year or two back, there was a thread here discussing Dyson spheres and someone (may have been TGT, but I'm not sure) posted a couple of very interesting links wherein something quite similar to what you describe was covered in some detail. As I recall, the main obstacles would have been
1) the lack of present technical/technological capability for construction, and
2) where the heck to get all of the necessary material?
Ironically, one can blame the environmentalists as to why we're still on fossil fuels today. They have shot down all alternative fuel sources because any or all of them have some sort of negative aesthetic repercussion on the environment. eg. Windfarms...affect the view. Nuclear Power, might leak... Water power, hurts the trout.
It's total bullshit...so here we are still burning oil and coal further polluting the atmosphere (and I'm no hippy anti-oil person), and the environmentalists still protest the very thing they're forcing us to stay with.
Nuclear plants can't really blow up. There just isn't the critical mass for that to happen.
The danger in the past has been runaway reactions which produce so much heat that the pile simply melts into the ground, sinking until it hits groundwater and sending radioactive steam up into the atmosphere. Hence the term "meltdown".
Designs are now available which minimize this risk, however.
And whatever problems may come from nuclear waste, at least it's containable. Unlike the waste smoke from incinerators etc, which just spreads unchecked as it will.
The danger in the past has been runaway reactions which produce so much heat that the pile simply melts into the ground, sinking until it hits groundwater and sending radioactive steam up into the atmosphere. Hence the term "meltdown".
Designs are now available which minimize this risk, however.
And whatever problems may come from nuclear waste, at least it's containable. Unlike the waste smoke from incinerators etc, which just spreads unchecked as it will.
^^^^
And on top of that, if it had had a containment building like U.S. reactors do, the radioactive gases would have been contained.
And on top of that, if it had had a containment building like U.S. reactors do, the radioactive gases would have been contained.
Hydrogen:
Need some other energy source to generate
Need high pressure tanks OR extremely cold temperatures for storage.
Dissipates so easily can be an explosion/fire hazard
Wind:
Weather dependent
eyesore
Hazard to aviation and birds
Some reports of localized climate effects
Dams:
Inundates large areas displacing people and wildlife
Interference with fish migrations
Resevouirs fill up with silt
Dangerous if rain or snow melt overfills resevour.
Solar:
Weather dependent
Need LARGE area of collectors to generate large quantity of power, displacing human and natural uses
Probably vulnerable to damage in hail storms, possibly high winds too.
Nuclear:
While volume is relatively low waste products must be stored away from people and other life forms for an EXTREMELY LONG TIME. Storage period would be long enough to expect major changes in spoken and written (like warning signs and labels) communication languages.
Cooling system failures can lead to steam explosions and consequential release of radioactive steam. Can also result in containment building contamination preventing safe human access to reactor for THOUSANDS of years.
Need some other energy source to generate
Need high pressure tanks OR extremely cold temperatures for storage.
Dissipates so easily can be an explosion/fire hazard
Wind:
Weather dependent
eyesore
Hazard to aviation and birds
Some reports of localized climate effects
Dams:
Inundates large areas displacing people and wildlife
Interference with fish migrations
Resevouirs fill up with silt
Dangerous if rain or snow melt overfills resevour.
Solar:
Weather dependent
Need LARGE area of collectors to generate large quantity of power, displacing human and natural uses
Probably vulnerable to damage in hail storms, possibly high winds too.
Nuclear:
While volume is relatively low waste products must be stored away from people and other life forms for an EXTREMELY LONG TIME. Storage period would be long enough to expect major changes in spoken and written (like warning signs and labels) communication languages.
Cooling system failures can lead to steam explosions and consequential release of radioactive steam. Can also result in containment building contamination preventing safe human access to reactor for THOUSANDS of years.
Luckily, power usage tends to peak in hot, sunny weather - exactly when solar power is most useful.
Nobody's suggesting displacing a forest, city, or corn field. Most solar advocates want to put solar cells somewhere that isn't being used - on the roof of a building, for instance.
Where are you getting that from? Languages don't change that fast...
Modern reactors shut themselves off before that happens.
Power usage peaks during the day:
MIGHT change as people use things like batteries and heat/cool sumps to redistribute demand.
Roof top solar cells:
May reduce power demand, but will probably still need to buy power for high demand uses like HVAC equipment. Also plenty of demand for transportation if this one person per vehicle demand continues.
Ability for descendants to read labels and warning signs on nuclear waste repositories:
Contains isotopes that people can't approach for TENS OF THOUSANDS of years. How many languages from the EARLY years of civilization can most people read? In the terms of the current calendar they might be needing six digit year numbers before some of that stuff is safe to be around for more than a few minutes.
Modern reactors shut themselves off before that happens:
Said the operators of Three Mile Island. Better be VERY careful about redundant AND failure resistant coolant supplies. Better have some place to store heated emergency coolant too. Note that you can't douse a reactor like an unwanted camp fire. It takes MANY hours to dampen the fission rate, and the neutron production that sustains it, to the point of not needing sustained coolant circulation.
Summary:
Most of these alternatives will NEED to be used, but their use will NOT be without problems. Careful attention to safety, in the short and VERY long term, and environmental issues will ALWAYS be necessary.
MIGHT change as people use things like batteries and heat/cool sumps to redistribute demand.
Roof top solar cells:
May reduce power demand, but will probably still need to buy power for high demand uses like HVAC equipment. Also plenty of demand for transportation if this one person per vehicle demand continues.
Ability for descendants to read labels and warning signs on nuclear waste repositories:
Contains isotopes that people can't approach for TENS OF THOUSANDS of years. How many languages from the EARLY years of civilization can most people read? In the terms of the current calendar they might be needing six digit year numbers before some of that stuff is safe to be around for more than a few minutes.
Modern reactors shut themselves off before that happens:
Said the operators of Three Mile Island. Better be VERY careful about redundant AND failure resistant coolant supplies. Better have some place to store heated emergency coolant too. Note that you can't douse a reactor like an unwanted camp fire. It takes MANY hours to dampen the fission rate, and the neutron production that sustains it, to the point of not needing sustained coolant circulation.
Summary:
Most of these alternatives will NEED to be used, but their use will NOT be without problems. Careful attention to safety, in the short and VERY long term, and environmental issues will ALWAYS be necessary.
I still say nuclear power. You can stick it in an empty mountain like the fins and everyone nearby would be safe. The only way to die would be to break the containers on purpose. The whole nuclear debate has is full of useless fear created by environmentalists. Part of the reason why I turned away from them.
Similar threads
