4 ms·

It is more than 5x less expensive to get surface area on earth’s surface.

bob1029 8mo ago
Right now it is. However, the amount of available land is fixed and the demand for its use is growing. Solar isn't the only buyer in this real estate market.
- JeremyNT 8mo ago
  We have so much excess land with no real use for it that our government actually pays farmers to grow corn on it to burn in cars. Availability of land for solar production isn't remotely a real problem in the near term.
  - moralestapia 8mo ago
    This. I feel like everyone just lost their mind.
    - doctorwho42 8mo ago
      You just have to remember, most of these people live in high density regions and have little comprehension about how much surface area humanity truly occupies... And that isn't even accounting for offshore constructs.
  - rainsford 8mo ago
    The Technology Connections Youtube channel recently did a great video arguing pretty convincingly that the land used to grow corn for cars would be vastly more efficiently used from an energy perspective if we covered it with solar panels.
  - recursivecaveat 8mo ago
    This is really underselling it tbh. Any land that's growing corn in a developed country is likely top 1% of land on earth. Half of the earth is desert and tundra. Which is still incredibly easier to work with than space because you can ship there with a pickup very cheaply. Maybe when nevada and central australia are wall-to-wall solar panels we can check back on space.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- PunchyHamster 8mo ago
  the demand is pretty much fake and AI isn't actually making money, just gobbling investors money
- shagie 8mo ago
  Realizing the impracticality of it (and that such approaches often collapse under the infeasibility of it) ... wouldn't it be better to... say... cover the Sahara in solar panels instead? That's gotta be cheaper than shipping them into space. https://inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-solar-project-sahara-desert/ https://inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-solar-project-sahara-de... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/nov/01/solar-power-sahara-europe-desertec https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/nov/01/solar-power... (and a retrospective from 2023 - https://www.ecomena.org/desertec/ https://www.ecomena.org/desertec/ )
  - mr_toad 8mo ago
    From an engineering perspective, with today’s costs, yes. But don’t forget the political complications of dealing with all those countries that own the Sahara, that’s going to come at it’s own cost.
    - CamperBob2 8mo ago
      So now we get the political complications of dealing with all those countries that own ASAT weapons.
- henryfjordan 8mo ago
  Solar can always just go on the roof...
schiffern 8mo ago
The dominant factor is "balance of system" aka soft costs, which are well over 50%.[0] Orbit gets you the advantage of 1/5th the PV and no large daily smoothing battery, but also no on-site installation cost, no grid interconnect fees, no custom engineering drawings, no environmental permitting fees, no grid of concrete footers, no heavy steel frames to resist wind and snow loads. The "on-site installation" is just the panels unfolding, and during launch they're compact so the support structure can be relatively lightweight. When you cost building the datacenter alone, it's cheaper on earth. When you cost building the solar + batteries + datacenter, it (can be) cheaper in space, if you build it right and have cheap orbital launch. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_system
- gizajob 8mo ago
  No maintenance either
- IX-103 8mo ago
  Funny, I would have included transportation as part of the installation cost. You didn't mention that one.
  - schiffern 8mo ago
    I do say it's predicated on cheap orbital launch. Clearly they expect Starship to deliver, and they're "skating to where the puck will be" on overall system cost per unit of compute. But yeah, I didn't include that delivering all that stuff by truck (including all the personnel) to a terrestrial PV site isn't free either.
- ericd 8mo ago
  Yeah, soft costs like permitting and inspections are supposedly the main reason US residential solar costs $3/watt while Australian residential solar costs $1/watt. It was definitely the worst and least efficient part of our solar install, everything else was pretty straightforward. Also, running a pretty sizable array at our house, the seasonal variation is huge, and seasonal battery storage isn’t really a thing. Besides making PV much more consistent, the main thing this seems to avoid is just the red tape around developing at huge scale, and basically being totally sovereign, which seems like it might be more important as tensions around this stuff ramp up. There’s clearly a backlash brewing against terrestrial data centers driving up utility bills, at least on the East Coast of the US. The more I think about it, the more this seems like maybe not a terrible idea.

Right now it is. However, the amount of available land is fixed and the demand for its use is growing. Solar isn't the only buyer in this real estate market.

JeremyNT 8mo ago
We have so much excess land with no real use for it that our government actually pays farmers to grow corn on it to burn in cars. Availability of land for solar production isn't remotely a real problem in the near term.
- moralestapia 8mo ago
  This. I feel like everyone just lost their mind.
  - doctorwho42 8mo ago
    You just have to remember, most of these people live in high density regions and have little comprehension about how much surface area humanity truly occupies... And that isn't even accounting for offshore constructs.
- rainsford 8mo ago
  The Technology Connections Youtube channel recently did a great video arguing pretty convincingly that the land used to grow corn for cars would be vastly more efficiently used from an energy perspective if we covered it with solar panels.
- recursivecaveat 8mo ago
  This is really underselling it tbh. Any land that's growing corn in a developed country is likely top 1% of land on earth. Half of the earth is desert and tundra. Which is still incredibly easier to work with than space because you can ship there with a pickup very cheaply. Maybe when nevada and central australia are wall-to-wall solar panels we can check back on space.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
PunchyHamster 8mo ago
the demand is pretty much fake and AI isn't actually making money, just gobbling investors money
shagie 8mo ago
Realizing the impracticality of it (and that such approaches often collapse under the infeasibility of it) ... wouldn't it be better to... say... cover the Sahara in solar panels instead? That's gotta be cheaper than shipping them into space. https://inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-solar-project-sahara-desert/ https://inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-solar-project-sahara-de... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/nov/01/solar-power-sahara-europe-desertec https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/nov/01/solar-power... (and a retrospective from 2023 - https://www.ecomena.org/desertec/ https://www.ecomena.org/desertec/ )
- mr_toad 8mo ago
  From an engineering perspective, with today’s costs, yes. But don’t forget the political complications of dealing with all those countries that own the Sahara, that’s going to come at it’s own cost.
  - CamperBob2 8mo ago
    So now we get the political complications of dealing with all those countries that own ASAT weapons.
henryfjordan 8mo ago
Solar can always just go on the roof...

schiffern 8mo ago

The dominant factor is "balance of system" aka soft costs, which are well over 50%.[0] Orbit gets you the advantage of 1/5th the PV and no large daily smoothing battery, but also no on-site installation cost, no grid interconnect fees, no custom engineering drawings, no environmental permitting fees, no grid of concrete footers, no heavy steel frames to resist wind and snow loads. The "on-site installation" is just the panels unfolding, and during launch they're compact so the support structure can be relatively lightweight. When you cost building the datacenter alone, it's cheaper on earth. When you cost building the solar + batteries + datacenter, it (can be) cheaper in space, if you build it right and have cheap orbital launch. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_system

gizajob 8mo ago
No maintenance either
IX-103 8mo ago
Funny, I would have included transportation as part of the installation cost. You didn't mention that one.
- schiffern 8mo ago
  I do say it's predicated on cheap orbital launch. Clearly they expect Starship to deliver, and they're "skating to where the puck will be" on overall system cost per unit of compute. But yeah, I didn't include that delivering all that stuff by truck (including all the personnel) to a terrestrial PV site isn't free either.
ericd 8mo ago
Yeah, soft costs like permitting and inspections are supposedly the main reason US residential solar costs $3/watt while Australian residential solar costs $1/watt. It was definitely the worst and least efficient part of our solar install, everything else was pretty straightforward. Also, running a pretty sizable array at our house, the seasonal variation is huge, and seasonal battery storage isn’t really a thing. Besides making PV much more consistent, the main thing this seems to avoid is just the red tape around developing at huge scale, and basically being totally sovereign, which seems like it might be more important as tensions around this stuff ramp up. There’s clearly a backlash brewing against terrestrial data centers driving up utility bills, at least on the East Coast of the US. The more I think about it, the more this seems like maybe not a terrible idea.