You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The scheme I have read about has some interesting underlying assumptions and provisions. It is based on the notion that FF consumption goes up with affluence; and that the rebate would be equal for all. So it attempts to make FF consumption a progressive tax on one hand, and on the other hand to motivate affluent people to invest in fossil fuel reductions.What if the US taxed fossil fuels and gave a check to every American?
Interesting Engineering: Caltech's New Space-Based Solar Project Could Power Our Planet.
Caltech's New Space-Based Solar Project Could Power Our Planet - Interesting Engineering
It's the stuff of science fiction but it's real.interestingengineering.com
Some may ask 'why', the right question is 'why not' LOL
And cost.The idea of solar panels in space is older than I am and suffers from one huge drawback - power transmission via microwaves from space to earth. It so happens that water vapor in the air would capture much of that microwave energy (just like the microwave oven in your kitchen) and warm-up/boil-away. There's also the issue of beam divergence where a narrow beam spreads out too wide to be effectively "received". From the article, it seems those problems haven't been solved yet. At this point, it's all just pie-in-the-sky distractions to take the attention away from the fact that we all just need to learn to reduce our energy consumption, while transitioning to renewables.
And cost.
Panels and microwave equipment in orbit plus ground stations.
Yes. Pretty easy to accidentally fry people and animals.And a MW to GW scale energy beam in open air. ggg...reat. Those beams are going to have a ... say Km wide safety radius from ground to space PV. That would be pi km^2 of land area. The energy density of land PV is on the order of 0.5x so the beam safety would take up ~ 1.5 E^6 * 0.2 = 0.3 GW of PV on land.
Then you have the cylinder of atmosphere to deal with. It would be a bad idea for a flying animal, let alone a plane, to fly through that beam. At least with CSP there is a bright light on the tower to steer planes away.
Yes. Pretty easy to accidentally fry people and animals.
Interesting blog. A few choice quotes:No really, space based solar power is not a useful idea, literature review edition
This blog is part of my series on countering common misconceptions in space journalism. It’s an extension of my post dismantling the case for space-based solar power. As a writer in the publi…caseyhandmer.wordpress.com
Space-based solar power is not a thing
This post is part of a series on common misconceptions in space journalism. It’s also part of the sub-series on space resources, and why commercial exploitation of space resources is less ine…caseyhandmer.wordpress.com
Interesting blog. A few choice quotes:
As Elon Musk has concisely pointed out, the fundamental problem with space-based solar power is that it’s obtaining a commodity, power, somewhere where it’s expensive and selling it somewhere where it’s cheap. This is not a good business. Indeed, it might make more sense to beam power from Earth to space stations, if they needed it.
I can grant a post-scarcity fully automated luxury communist space economy with self-replicating robots processing asteroids into solar panels, and even then people will still prefer to have solar panels on their roof, to avoid supply interruptions and utility bills. Or maybe they’ll all be post-humans living in some data center orbiting Jupiter. Let’s reel it back in a bit.
I can relax assumptions all day. I can grant 100% transmission efficiency, $10/kg orbital launch costs, complete development and procurement cost parity, and a crippling land shortage on Earth. Even then, space-based solar power still won’t be able to compete, because the antenna receiver alone is basically a solar plant in disguise.
I believe space telescopes have a vital scientific purpose.If we can send up massively expensive telescopes for fun, freaking Space Power has to deserve at least some blue sky money.
Or, to put it another way, more of us need to transition to renewables (solar, primarily) and batteries. Those of us who are already using solar and batteries don't need to transition to anything. With batteries, I don't send much back to the grid, and don't use the grid, except to fill in while I slowly charge my cars.At this point, it's all just pie-in-the-sky distractions to take the attention away from the fact that we all just need to learn to reduce our energy consumption, while transitioning to renewables.
Same here. I just keep adding more solar and switching NG to electric heat pumps, cars to EVs, etc.Or, to put it another way, more of us need to transition to renewables (solar, primarily) and batteries. Those of us who are already using solar and batteries don't need to transition to anything. With batteries, I don't send much back to the grid, and don't use the grid, except to fill in while I slowly charge my cars.
When I ask people why they don't drive electric, or use solar panels, I always get the same answer: "It's too expensive!" Well, let me tell you. My average monthly electric bill was over $300 per month. I paid $500 per panel, so my panels cost me around $25K. But that was ten years ago, and they've earned me around $36,000 now, with more coming every month in the form of free electricity. Now the loan is paid off and I'm tempted to go off grid what with PG&E turning off the power for hours or days with no notice. At least the batteries keep me running. And how do you value (in money) having your power stay on (like the last couple days, again)?
Transitioning to renewables is a good idea, but we've always managed with less so I don't feel I need to "reduce our energy consumption". I live the good life.
But buying those panels makes you start thinking, and the reduction in use comes automatically.