5 ms·

Europe isn't actually getting series about that. This is mostly just talk. Europe is neither willing to invest in the rocket technology to make this happen nor

Europe isn't actually getting series about that. This is mostly just talk. Europe is neither willing to invest in the rocket technology to make this happen nor has committed to financing of the solar based power or the necessary ground system. And beyond space based solar is mostly a really bad idea anyway. But I guess some people in Europe and specially Germany are willing to finance anything other then nuclear.

midoridensha 4y ago
They don't need rocket technology to launch this; they can just buy that from the US (namely SpaceX). Why is it a bad idea? The amount of sunlight striking Europe (esp. northern Europe) in the winter is basically useless for solar power generation.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  I mean sure if Europe wants to simple give 5-10 billion to a US cooperation that is destroying its own launch industry. That would be the exact opposite policy they had for the last 40 years. France is so jelly of RocketLab that they spend a large sum of money to have its own micro-launcher despite the market already being hilariously flooded with companies. If you want solar power in Northern Europe, just put collectors into southern Europe and put a DC long distance power transport line. But why would you want solar? Norway and Sweden are already mostly green because of hydro and nuclear.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    >I mean sure if Europe wants to simple give 5-10 billion to a US cooperation that is destroying its own launch industry. The alternative is not getting the space-based solar power working for a very long time. They don't have the launch capacity. Also, they can do both, you know. It's not like they have to choose to forever give up all work on their launch industry to do one big project. >If you want solar power in Northern Europe, just put collectors into southern Europe and put a DC long distance power transport line. This might be doable, but it'd be interesting to see a good analysis comparing the two. Southern Europe is still pretty far north if you look at a globe, and doesn't get that much sunlight in the winter (though the southern tip of Italy is certainly better than Denmark, for instance). HVDC will still have significant losses over that distance, though I don't know how that compares to microwave transmission from space. >But why would you want solar? Norway and Sweden are already mostly green because of hydro and nuclear. Hydro is unsustainable and is not scalable. It's completely tapped out in developed nations, and it also causes huge ecosystem destruction. Nuclear is unpopular, and apparently having serious problems in France currently.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      > Also, they can do both, you know. I mean, if you have followed the politics of European space, sure, in a fantasy world they just have money to do everything. In reality they don't even want to spend a fraction of the money for either project. > Hydro is unsustainable and is not scalable. It's completely tapped out in developed nations Its not tapped out in Norway or Iceland but there is enough already, they don't need more. > Nuclear is unpopular, and apparently having serious problems in France currently. It has serious problem in France because the anti-nuclear forced tried to destroy nuclear for the last 10 years and deliberately stopped investing and maintaining. They want to force the reduction of nuclear. Arguable nuclear has been politically embattled for much longer. And whatever problem nuclear might have, compared to the problems of space solar its a small problem.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        >Its not tapped out in Norway or Iceland but there is enough already, they don't need more. Apparently, Europe as a whole needs a lot more. Iceland is too far from mainland Europe to be any kind of electricity supplier anyway, and Norway is problematic too because power lines would have to cross the Baltic, so I don't see these as useful either.
        panick21_ 4y ago
        Sure, I would agree that we shouldn't build lots more hydro storage to export lots of hydro. I have been pro nuclear for a long time, it was the solution in 1970 and its still the solution today. So for me there really isn't much of a problem. I have just been watching this slow train driving against a wall for decades now.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    France always makes a point of maibtaining strategic independence. They maintain a non-Nato nuclear triad, build nuclear subs and carriers, build their oen 4.5th gen fighters. Soaintaining a domestic micro launch capability makes sense, not everything governments do is about cost saving and financial efficiency. >> just put collectors into southern Europe and put a DC long distance power transport line. That is technically non trivial, and NIMBY across central Europe, looking at you Germany, is making close to impossible. We already fail getting wind from Holstein to Bavaria because people refuse to have power lines above ground close by. Or wind turbines, although that is changing.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Europe already has the Vega C. And they already don't have enough launches. They are doing a micro launcher because everybody is. Those kind of long distance DC power-lines would be blow the earth I would assume.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        Europe =|= France, there is no united Europe when it comes to defense. And yes, those powerlines have to be underground because above ground is not feasible for political and public opinion reasons. And they are orders of magnitude more expensive. Connecting power grids is no trivial task, the powerlines are actually among easier things.
        panick21_ 4y ago
        European space is fully integrated. France doesn't have its own launcher. Arianespace operates Vega C and Ariane 5. These rockets launches from french soil. And also, micro launchers have very little military value. > And they are orders of magnitude more expensive. Not compared to space based solar. > Connecting power grids is no trivial task Europes power system is already very highly integrated.
hef19898 4y ago
Ariane Space carried the James Webb to where it is now, and Ariane 6 is currently being developed, slowly but surely. If not, there is still SpaceX among others. Germany kick startes solar early on only to have our lunch eaten bybthe Chinese manufacturers. Non the less, solar already was in 2018 cheaper then Hinckley, cheaper than coal and cheaper than gas per kWh in auctions for utility scale projects, same for wind. No idea why people still try ti ridicule solar and wind in 2022 if all numbers show something different.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Ariene 6 is basically useless for space solar power. Even if you assume Starship Space Solar doesnt make sense. With Ariane 6 its beyond insane and useless to even try. Had Germany done the Grühnewende with mass constructing nuclear they would be done by now and likely German companies would be building nuclear plants in Poland and likely many other countries. Germany could have spend the next 50 years building nuclear plants all over the world. Honckley is a terrible example. Everybody know if you build a single PWR in a country with very little experiance its not gone be worth it. You need to build many to get learning effects, educate the work force. If they had done that they could be finishing multible plants a year at a very cheap price. And that is even assume they built shitty PWRs rather then some next generation reactors. Solar and Wind without Storage look good in the statistics but on a systematic level it causes many isses as well. Storage is still not solved so fossile will stay for a while yet. And even if you have storage a single matural disaster can cause a shortfall of electricity that overwhelms your storage. Not to mention far more waste, far less attractive in term of livable envoironments. More land use and so on.

midoridensha 4y ago

They don't need rocket technology to launch this; they can just buy that from the US (namely SpaceX). Why is it a bad idea? The amount of sunlight striking Europe (esp. northern Europe) in the winter is basically useless for solar power generation.

panick21_ 4y ago
I mean sure if Europe wants to simple give 5-10 billion to a US cooperation that is destroying its own launch industry. That would be the exact opposite policy they had for the last 40 years. France is so jelly of RocketLab that they spend a large sum of money to have its own micro-launcher despite the market already being hilariously flooded with companies. If you want solar power in Northern Europe, just put collectors into southern Europe and put a DC long distance power transport line. But why would you want solar? Norway and Sweden are already mostly green because of hydro and nuclear.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >I mean sure if Europe wants to simple give 5-10 billion to a US cooperation that is destroying its own launch industry. The alternative is not getting the space-based solar power working for a very long time. They don't have the launch capacity. Also, they can do both, you know. It's not like they have to choose to forever give up all work on their launch industry to do one big project. >If you want solar power in Northern Europe, just put collectors into southern Europe and put a DC long distance power transport line. This might be doable, but it'd be interesting to see a good analysis comparing the two. Southern Europe is still pretty far north if you look at a globe, and doesn't get that much sunlight in the winter (though the southern tip of Italy is certainly better than Denmark, for instance). HVDC will still have significant losses over that distance, though I don't know how that compares to microwave transmission from space. >But why would you want solar? Norway and Sweden are already mostly green because of hydro and nuclear. Hydro is unsustainable and is not scalable. It's completely tapped out in developed nations, and it also causes huge ecosystem destruction. Nuclear is unpopular, and apparently having serious problems in France currently.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    > Also, they can do both, you know. I mean, if you have followed the politics of European space, sure, in a fantasy world they just have money to do everything. In reality they don't even want to spend a fraction of the money for either project. > Hydro is unsustainable and is not scalable. It's completely tapped out in developed nations Its not tapped out in Norway or Iceland but there is enough already, they don't need more. > Nuclear is unpopular, and apparently having serious problems in France currently. It has serious problem in France because the anti-nuclear forced tried to destroy nuclear for the last 10 years and deliberately stopped investing and maintaining. They want to force the reduction of nuclear. Arguable nuclear has been politically embattled for much longer. And whatever problem nuclear might have, compared to the problems of space solar its a small problem.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      >Its not tapped out in Norway or Iceland but there is enough already, they don't need more. Apparently, Europe as a whole needs a lot more. Iceland is too far from mainland Europe to be any kind of electricity supplier anyway, and Norway is problematic too because power lines would have to cross the Baltic, so I don't see these as useful either.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        Sure, I would agree that we shouldn't build lots more hydro storage to export lots of hydro. I have been pro nuclear for a long time, it was the solution in 1970 and its still the solution today. So for me there really isn't much of a problem. I have just been watching this slow train driving against a wall for decades now.
- hef19898 4y ago
  France always makes a point of maibtaining strategic independence. They maintain a non-Nato nuclear triad, build nuclear subs and carriers, build their oen 4.5th gen fighters. Soaintaining a domestic micro launch capability makes sense, not everything governments do is about cost saving and financial efficiency. >> just put collectors into southern Europe and put a DC long distance power transport line. That is technically non trivial, and NIMBY across central Europe, looking at you Germany, is making close to impossible. We already fail getting wind from Holstein to Bavaria because people refuse to have power lines above ground close by. Or wind turbines, although that is changing.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Europe already has the Vega C. And they already don't have enough launches. They are doing a micro launcher because everybody is. Those kind of long distance DC power-lines would be blow the earth I would assume.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      Europe =|= France, there is no united Europe when it comes to defense. And yes, those powerlines have to be underground because above ground is not feasible for political and public opinion reasons. And they are orders of magnitude more expensive. Connecting power grids is no trivial task, the powerlines are actually among easier things.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        European space is fully integrated. France doesn't have its own launcher. Arianespace operates Vega C and Ariane 5. These rockets launches from french soil. And also, micro launchers have very little military value. > And they are orders of magnitude more expensive. Not compared to space based solar. > Connecting power grids is no trivial task Europes power system is already very highly integrated.

hef19898 4y ago

Ariane Space carried the James Webb to where it is now, and Ariane 6 is currently being developed, slowly but surely. If not, there is still SpaceX among others. Germany kick startes solar early on only to have our lunch eaten bybthe Chinese manufacturers. Non the less, solar already was in 2018 cheaper then Hinckley, cheaper than coal and cheaper than gas per kWh in auctions for utility scale projects, same for wind. No idea why people still try ti ridicule solar and wind in 2022 if all numbers show something different.

panick21_ 4y ago
Ariene 6 is basically useless for space solar power. Even if you assume Starship Space Solar doesnt make sense. With Ariane 6 its beyond insane and useless to even try. Had Germany done the Grühnewende with mass constructing nuclear they would be done by now and likely German companies would be building nuclear plants in Poland and likely many other countries. Germany could have spend the next 50 years building nuclear plants all over the world. Honckley is a terrible example. Everybody know if you build a single PWR in a country with very little experiance its not gone be worth it. You need to build many to get learning effects, educate the work force. If they had done that they could be finishing multible plants a year at a very cheap price. And that is even assume they built shitty PWRs rather then some next generation reactors. Solar and Wind without Storage look good in the statistics but on a systematic level it causes many isses as well. Storage is still not solved so fossile will stay for a while yet. And even if you have storage a single matural disaster can cause a shortfall of electricity that overwhelms your storage. Not to mention far more waste, far less attractive in term of livable envoironments. More land use and so on.