6 ms·
Yes, but most of the time that fusion reactor is behind a giant hunk of iron covered in various other matter. Even when in the sky, the sky itself is an effecti
by gridspy 4y ago
Yes, but most of the time that fusion reactor is behind a giant hunk of iron covered in various other matter. Even when in the sky, the sky itself is an effective insulator that only allows 1/4 of the energy through.
That's why we are considering placing a converter above the sky to more efficiently pierce the sky with energy.
- markdown 4y agoTowing the converter outside the environment is something I can get behind.
- gridspy 4y agoI always liked how NASA realised in 1970 that the moon is a sandpit of fusion-converter material. It's such an awesome reason to build houses above the sky.
- ncmncm 4y agoIt would take far more energy to extract the 3He from the moon's crust than you could get fusing it.
- gridspy 4y agoThe moon is high in silicon. You can make solar panels from mostly moon dust. Then build solar panels in orbit which are 4x the power generation of sea level panels and they experience less shading.
- ncmncm 4y agoTrue enough. But by the time that could be fielded, our energy problems will already have been solved, or civilization will have collapsed.
- gridspy 4y agoI agree with you relating to our existing energy problems. However I expect that humanity will be attempting to use as much energy as it can possibly create for at least the next 1,000 years. I hope we have a bright future growing into space, creating a Dyson ring, orbital habitats, etc. Replacing our current use of fossil fuels has plenty of strong ground-alternatives. I like the idea of Thorium salt reactors for base load, hydro stored energy and lots of local wind and solar.
- gridspy 4y agoI support moving all the smoking buildings outside the environment also. Then many of them can use the fusion reactor directly, with the aid of mirrors and lenses.
- YoshiRulz 4y agoI hear there's nothing out there but sea, birds, and fish. No environment in sight. (for the uninitiated: https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM)
- lightedman 4y ago"Even when in the sky, the sky itself is an effective insulator that only allows 1/4 of the energy through" https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Solar_energy_to_the_Earth https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Solar_energy_to_the_... Demonstrates otherwise. About 30% is lost to the atmosphere, 70% reaches the surface.
- gridspy 4y agoOh, I remember it being a much higher factor but I must be mistaken.
- pydry 4y agoOr simply pumping water uphill. The UK is building two of these pump uphill things. Four more and it could sustain a 99% carbon free grid on solar and wind alone.
- ourlordcaffeine 4y agoThe UK already has 4 pumped storage plants
- pydry 4y agoTrue, but existing plants are small in scale and arent really meant for large scale storing of solar and wind power like, say, Coire Glas.