4 ms·

How about we don't use 10 kg of fossil fuel derived methane to launch a 100W solar panel which will likely last 1/10th as long and cost 100x as much just so it

How about we don't use 10 kg of fossil fuel derived methane to launch a 100W solar panel which will likely last 1/10th as long and cost 100x as much just so it gathers 3x the energy? Sure we might be able to make the methane with sunlight, but having that ability removes the point of doing it in the first place.

mlindner 4y ago
It doesn't even gather any additional energy, once you factor in transmission losses from the very inefficient long distance power beaming. Unless you're trying to build solar power north of the arctic circle I really don't see the need for such systems.
- XorNot 4y ago
  No but it produces reliable solar power. Its never cloudy, and with the right alignment some part of it can always be in sun shine (do something with Lagrange halo orbits and a single installation can be continuously powered).
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Just burn the methane when it's cloudy and the batteries are flat instead of putting it in a rocket.
    - formvoltron 4y ago
  - mlindner 4y ago
    > Its never cloudy, and with the right alignment some part of it can always be in sun shine (do something with Lagrange halo orbits and a single installation can be continuously powered). If it's using visual/infrared lasers, it absolutely can be blocked by clouds. If it's using microwaves, it absolutely can still get weather fade during storms when it's trying to punch through a tremendous amount of water in the atmosphere. And if it's out at lagrange halo orbits, it's not going to be doing any power beaming at all, as that's much too far to be useful unless we're planning on building dishes that are hundreds (maybe thousands) of meters in size on both the receive and send points.
zeristor 4y ago
One trick might be to relocate energy intensive industry to orbit. Data centres could be one. Although metal processing, transport, and heating seem to be the largest energy consumers. Of course making anti-matter, and using it as a store of energy is a possible option. Actually antimatter could be trapped in the ionosphere.
- argiopetech 4y ago

mlindner 4y ago

It doesn't even gather any additional energy, once you factor in transmission losses from the very inefficient long distance power beaming. Unless you're trying to build solar power north of the arctic circle I really don't see the need for such systems.

XorNot 4y ago
No but it produces reliable solar power. Its never cloudy, and with the right alignment some part of it can always be in sun shine (do something with Lagrange halo orbits and a single installation can be continuously powered).
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Just burn the methane when it's cloudy and the batteries are flat instead of putting it in a rocket.
  - formvoltron 4y ago
- mlindner 4y ago
  > Its never cloudy, and with the right alignment some part of it can always be in sun shine (do something with Lagrange halo orbits and a single installation can be continuously powered). If it's using visual/infrared lasers, it absolutely can be blocked by clouds. If it's using microwaves, it absolutely can still get weather fade during storms when it's trying to punch through a tremendous amount of water in the atmosphere. And if it's out at lagrange halo orbits, it's not going to be doing any power beaming at all, as that's much too far to be useful unless we're planning on building dishes that are hundreds (maybe thousands) of meters in size on both the receive and send points.

zeristor 4y ago

One trick might be to relocate energy intensive industry to orbit. Data centres could be one. Although metal processing, transport, and heating seem to be the largest energy consumers. Of course making anti-matter, and using it as a store of energy is a possible option. Actually antimatter could be trapped in the ionosphere.

argiopetech 4y ago