2 ms·

>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 spa

>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.

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.