3 ms·
Even assuming that you can get the conversion loss low enough that you're coming out ahead due to not having night or clouds, you're still only marginally produ
by eloff 11y ago
Even assuming that you can get the conversion loss low enough that you're coming out ahead due to not having night or clouds, you're still only marginally producing more power. The cost is you have to launch all of that equipment into orbit. That doesn't even begin to justify marginal improvements. The whole thing is wildly optimistic and not grounded at all in economic realities. It would take space elevator type costs of space launch to even consider this. And if you have that, then you have cables to the ground and you can stop worrying about conversion.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoThat's a leap. Its 10X better solar flux out there in vacuum than on the ground. Gonna take a lot of losses to cancel that. And its not a matter of total cost - its payback period. It keeps transmitting for decades after being built. We plant forests, reclaim ocean, terrace mountains - with an outlook of 20 to 100 years, and call it good business. Why not orbital solar?
- eloff 11y agoI would say it's you who is making a leap here. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/03/space-based-solar-power/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/03/space-based-sola...
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoGuy starts out with fakery to make ground-based work better. Transmitting thousands of miles on land is far worse proposition than he makes out - cable losses are great. Can't use anything as efficient as a laser, because air and dirt.