• aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s not efficient, a huge amount of it gets diffused or absorbed

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It doesn’t need to be efficient. Capture all the light that hits earth for 5 minutes and that’s the world energy demand for a year.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s not efficient, a huge amount of it gets diffused or absorbed

        The amount that’s left over though is more than enough, especially with today panels which only convert a very small percentage of that remaining energy.

        As the panels improve even more they’ll be a very large energy surplus, even with how much solar light actually gets through the atmosphere.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Wow, you’re right! We should just build a Dyson sphere around the sun. 100% efficiency achieved. What could possibly go wrong?

        • GojuRyu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          Did you understand the person you respond to as saying its inefficient because the sun shines in other directions than the array proposed?
          I’m pretty sure the person talked specifically about the beam from the array to earth being inefficient.

    • excitingburp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The nice thing about space is that there isn’t any weather up there to make the solar panels dirty etc. There’s also a lot of space, which solar panels need a lot of.

        • nymwit@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          10 months ago

          Microwave transmission is what’s usually said, then someone says anything in the beam’s path will get zapped, then it’s pointed out the energy density isn’t that high. Just wanted to shortcut that for ya

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          How would you move the power down to earth?

          Last time I read up on it it was via converting the energy into microwaves and beaming it down.

          • excitingburp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 months ago

            I think masers (microwave lasers) are the new theory for achieving this, previously it was beaming microwave down much like your microwave oven beams your food.

        • cygnosis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Funny thing is, no matter how you arrange to do that it becomes a de-facto death ray. Stick a terawatt of solar panels in space, use the power to shine a laser/maser down to earth, then build a station to turn the laser power back to electricity? Great, until some hacker figures out how to control where the laser is pointed. Then you get Dr. Evil holding the world for ransom.

          • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Nah it’s not really bad at all:

            The use of microwave transmission of power has been the most controversial issue in considering any SPS design. At the Earth’s surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its center, of 23 mW/cm2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1 mW/cm2 outside the rectenna fenceline (the receiver’s perimeter). These compare with current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves, which are 10 mW/cm2,[original research?] - the limit itself being expressed in voluntary terms and ruled unenforceable for Federal OSHA enforcement purposes.[citation needed] A beam of this intensity is therefore at its center, of a similar magnitude to current safe workplace levels, even for long term or indefinite exposure.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power?wprov=sfla1

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        The nice thing about space is that there isn’t any weather up there to make the solar panels dirty etc.

        There’s a lot of junk though can that can damage those panels.

    • TIMMAY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      We dont need to collect it in space, just direct more of it to certain ground based collectors?