If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

•       •       •

1879 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Dec 2013 at 12:27 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

I'm confused.

If you're trying to solve the baseload problem that solar is unavailable between sunset and sunrise, aren't you creating the same problem by putting the transmitters on the moon, which also rises and sets?  How do you get the power when the moon is on the other side?

Also, that's an insane amount of solar panels even by "power the whole world" standards.  It's over a thousand times what you'd need to meet the world energy budget if you just placed the panels in a desert on Earth.  Why not simply have 4000 sq km of panels spread in desert locations around the Earth, and try to solve a distribution problem that doesn't require lifting everything into space?

Xcott: I'm confused.

If you're trying to solve the baseload problem that solar is unavailable between sunset and sunrise, aren't you creating the same problem by putting the transmitters on the moon, which also rises and sets?  How do you get the power when the moon is on the other side?

Also, that's an insane amount of solar panels even by "power the whole world" standards.  It's over a thousand times what you'd need to meet the world energy budget if you just placed the panels in a desert on Earth.  Why not simply have 4000 sq km of panels spread in desert locations around the Earth, and try to solve a distribution problem that doesn't require lifting everything into space?

Putting stuff in space is cooler.

Slaxl: Xcott: I'm confused.

If you're trying to solve the baseload problem that solar is unavailable between sunset and sunrise, aren't you creating the same problem by putting the transmitters on the moon, which also rises and sets?  How do you get the power when the moon is on the other side?

Also, that's an insane amount of solar panels even by "power the whole world" standards.  It's over a thousand times what you'd need to meet the world energy budget if you just placed the panels in a desert on Earth.  Why not simply have 4000 sq km of panels spread in desert locations around the Earth, and try to solve a distribution problem that doesn't require lifting everything into space?

Putting stuff in space is cooler.

Besides did you miss the Self-replicating robots?  I mean how exactly are we supposed to doom humanity with our technological hubris without throwing a few Von Nuemann machine into the mix.  Do you even READ Saberhagen?

Xcott: I'm confused.

If you're trying to solve the baseload problem that solar is unavailable between sunset and sunrise, aren't you creating the same problem by putting the transmitters on the moon, which also rises and sets?  How do you get the power when the moon is on the other side?

Also, that's an insane amount of solar panels even by "power the whole world" standards.  It's over a thousand times what you'd need to meet the world energy budget if you just placed the panels in a desert on Earth.  Why not simply have 4000 sq km of panels spread in desert locations around the Earth, and try to solve a distribution problem that doesn't require lifting everything into space?

There are parts of the Moon, near its poles, called "peaks of eternal sunlight". The Sun never sets on these peaks. Also, I think the plan is to build the solar panels as a huge ring circling the Moon, so that half of them are always in sunlight. Since the Moon is tidally locked with Earth, the transmitters only have to be on the side facing us, which is nice.

How do you activate your trap card in space?

Why all the hate?  I for one LOVED that anime.   Plus, she was totally kuwai!

Nice try Japan.

We all know you're just trying to build an orbital space cannon.

Xcott: I'm confused.

If you're trying to solve the baseload problem that solar is unavailable between sunset and sunrise, aren't you creating the same problem by putting the transmitters on the moon, which also rises and sets?  How do you get the power when the moon is on the other side?

Also, that's an insane amount of solar panels even by "power the whole world" standards.  It's over a thousand times what you'd need to meet the world energy budget if you just placed the panels in a desert on Earth.  Why not simply have 4000 sq km of panels spread in desert locations around the Earth, and try to solve a distribution problem that doesn't require lifting everything into space?

The moon iois only blocked from the Sun's light when it is in eclipse... As far as generating power in space, it's a great idea. Take the Moon, for example. A nuclear plant there would not have an atmosphere to pollute or an ecosystem to ruin is something went wrong. With a weak gravitational field, most of what would occur in an explosion would leave the Moon's surface. If you launched all of your waste material into a decaying orbit of the Sun, you'd also have a pretty low-cost method of dealing with trash, since the low gravity of the moon is much cheaper to launch from.

Magorn: Slaxl: Xcott: I'm confused.

If you're trying to solve the baseload problem that solar is unavailable between sunset and sunrise, aren't you creating the same problem by putting the transmitters on the moon, which also rises and sets?  How do you get the power when the moon is on the other side?

Also, that's an insane amount of solar panels even by "power the whole world" standards.  It's over a thousand times what you'd need to meet the world energy budget if you just placed the panels in a desert on Earth.  Why not simply have 4000 sq km of panels spread in desert locations around the Earth, and try to solve a distribution problem that doesn't require lifting everything into space?

Putting stuff in space is cooler.

Besides did you miss the Self-replicating robots?  I mean how exactly are we supposed to doom humanity with our technological hubris without throwing a few Von Nuemann machine into the mix.  Do you even READ Saberhagen, Bro?

Fix

Xcott: I'm confused.

If you're trying to solve the baseload problem that solar is unavailable between sunset and sunrise, aren't you creating the same problem by putting the transmitters on the moon, which also rises and sets?  How do you get the power when the moon is on the other side?

Also, that's an insane amount of solar panels even by "power the whole world" standards.  It's over a thousand times what you'd need to meet the world energy budget if you just placed the panels in a desert on Earth.  Why not simply have 4000 sq km of panels spread in desert locations around the Earth, and try to solve a distribution problem that doesn't require lifting everything into space?

Why have 4,000 km2 of solar panels on the Earth when you can have 4.4 million km2 of solar panels on the moon?

It'd probably be easier to send Sam Rockwell up to mine Helium-3 and ship it back down to Earth for use in fusion reactors. Less chance of frying a major metropolitan area with microwaves that way.

That would be an elegant solution to the NIMBY problem, at least.

theorellior: It'd probably be easier to send Sam Rockwell up to mine Helium-3 and ship it back down to Earth for use in fusion reactors. Less chance of frying a major metropolitan area with microwaves that way.

The Gobi desert, and the Mojave, to say nothing of the great Sahara provide plenty of places to site the receivers with a WIDE margin for error,  and short of a asteroid impact or lunar quake, it's not like the source of the beam would move all that much.

So, pretty much the plot of Gundam 00, then?

Ah, delicious AI Tiaria.

The cost to wildlife of shrouding deserts has to be taken into account.

I say cut out the middle man.  Put the solar collectors on the sun.

Magorn: The Gobi desert, and the Mojave, to say nothing of the great Sahara provide plenty of places to site the receivers with a WIDE margin for error, and short of a asteroid impact or lunar quake, it's not like the source of the beam would move all that much.

Well, put it this way: if you're trying to match solar flux for your output, you'll be basting the surface with at least a kilowatt of microwave energy per square meter. That's pretty intense. And you'll get a lot of spread from GEO or lunar orbit, so the footprint will be pretty large. Finally, millimeter shifts from GEO or lunar orbit will result in kilometers of shift at the surface. I'm not so sure that's terribly safe.

Slaxl: Xcott: I'm confused.

If you're trying to solve the baseload problem that solar is unavailable between sunset and sunrise, aren't you creating the same problem by putting the transmitters on the moon, which also rises and sets?  How do you get the power when the moon is on the other side?

Also, that's an insane amount of solar panels even by "power the whole world" standards.  It's over a thousand times what you'd need to meet the world energy budget if you just placed the panels in a desert on Earth.  Why not simply have 4000 sq km of panels spread in desert locations around the Earth, and try to solve a distribution problem that doesn't require lifting everything into space?

Putting stuff in space is cooler.

There was an article here recnetly about how the glare solar panels in the desert looks like water and migrating birds dive into them and either crash die or get cooked. So if we were to do this to every desert, I guess we'd run the risk of a bird population collapse that may have other consequences.

And yes, putting stuff in space is cooler. But instead of this... can we do a dyson sphere? Not like the solid one on TNG, but as a satellite network that we get as close to the sun as possible and have it send energy back to us.

I assume the robots will look like samurai

But of course! Also, build a hotel in space! Hey Japan, where is that?

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/25/japan.space/

Tick tock! Only 6 years left!

Xcott: I'm confused.

If you're trying to solve the baseload problem that solar is unavailable between sunset and sunrise, aren't you creating the same problem by putting the transmitters on the moon, which also rises and sets?  How do you get the power when the moon is on the other side?

Also, that's an insane amount of solar panels even by "power the whole world" standards.  It's over a thousand times what you'd need to meet the world energy budget if you just placed the panels in a desert on Earth.  Why not simply have 4000 sq km of panels spread in desert locations around the Earth, and try to solve a distribution problem that doesn't require lifting everything into space?

When the moon is on the other side, the sun is up. Use the solar panels on the ground.

/We should start adding chemicals to airplane fuel to make contrails more reflective and longer lasting and just keep burning fossil fuels until they're cost ineffective.

When I started reading about wireless energy a while back, I though it would be cool to have nuclear power plant space stations in orbit beaming energy down to everyone. If the stations could also do a high capacity data connection, they could provide telephone/internet in addition to energy and basically bring  technology capability to the entire world. At least that's how the sci fi story I was working on went.

/but then they find out the radiation made the entire world sterile, and everything slowly dies. Then after years of a near fallow earth, one area starts to grow and the few remaining humans are able to reproduce, only to have a giant nuclear power plant fall on it and irradiate the entire area.

hardinparamedic: So, pretty much the plot of Gundam 00, then?

tjsands1118: When I started reading about wireless energy a while back, I though it would be cool to have nuclear power plant space stations in orbit beaming energy down to everyone. If the stations could also do a high capacity data connection, they could provide telephone/internet in addition to energy and basically bring  technology capability to the entire world. At least that's how the sci fi story I was working on went.

/but then they find out the radiation made the entire world sterile, and everything slowly dies. Then after years of a near fallow earth, one area starts to grow and the few remaining humans are able to reproduce, only to have a giant nuclear power plant fall on it and irradiate the entire area.

after having seen that website that collects selfies at funerals... i can get on board with this.

Quantum Apostrophe: But of course! Also, build a hotel in space! Hey Japan, where is that?

"If a human was meant to generate enough lift to counteract the forces of gravity and rise from the ground into the vaporous air, fetal development would have incorporated at the least a pair of shoulder mounted light-weight appendages of high tensile strength, possibly covered with an interlocking wispy material!  This ludicrous proposition should not be contemplated by persons of sound temperament or placid disposition. Expression of such inane ponderings shall be met with all due ridicule and Cheerio-pooping!  Phawww I say!!"

These folks are idiots! They even want to put them on the dark side! DUMBASSES!1!

I think it would be cheaper to find a more affordable and less toxic way to store solar power at night than to build a zillion rockets to send our power generation capability a quarter million kilometers away.

I dunno, how about a compressed air tank at the bottom of a body of water?

Article: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-big-story/compressed-air-en e rgy-storage-has-bags-of-potential/1008374.article

cranked: Quantum Apostrophe: But of course! Also, build a hotel in space! Hey Japan, where is that?

"If a human was meant to generate enough lift to counteract the forces of gravity and rise from the ground into the vaporous air, fetal development would have incorporated at the least a pair of shoulder mounted light-weight appendages of high tensile strength, possibly covered with an interlocking wispy material!  This ludicrous proposition should not be contemplated by persons of sound temperament or placid disposition. Expression of such inane ponderings shall be met with all due ridicule and Cheerio-pooping!  Phawww I say!!"

...And yet it took late 19th century bicycle tinkerers five years to strap a home-made engine to an overgrown kite to demonstrate the opposite.

Oh yeah. Nowhere. That's the difference. If there had been a space hotel 5 years after Apollo 11, I wouldn't be skeptical now would I?

It's amazing that anyone would still drag out your kind of tired, old and busted "counterexample".

Also, please compare and contrast the Boeing 747 from 1969 to 2013's. Now figure the size of space into that equation. Still think we're going anywhere?

/hint: our energy sources and propulsion technologies peaked decades ago
//you're squeezing single-digit improvements out of them these days

Pfft, why go so small.  We use self replicating nano bots to disassemble Jupiter and form a dyson sphere, then beam the energy to earth.

Quantum Apostrophe: //you're squeezing single-digit improvements out of them these days

You're gonna die someday.

Better Luna than Earth orbit... if something were ever to smack into them, goooooodbye orbital flights and equipment longevity for the next eleventy thousand years..

/i for one welcome our new Sauron-like lunar eye

Quantum Apostrophe:

/hint: our energy sources and propulsion technologies peaked decades ago
//you're squeezing single-digit improvements out of them these days

Your second point proves your first point wrong.  If we're still getting improvements, they haven't peaked.

That said, I generally agree that with physics and technology as we know it, moving large amounts of stuff from the Earth out into space is highly unlikely due to the extreme cost.

I do, though, disagree with your glee in pointing this out.  Frankly, I'm kind of sad to look up at the heavens above us and realize that there's basically no way to ever see more of it than this tiny little planet we're stuck on.

The main benefit of solar power is that it can be located directly adjacent or on top of the demand location, eliminating distribution losses and simplifying maintenance.

Yet for some strange reason, people want to eliminate the biggest benefits of solar power and place the panels where transmission/distribution losses are astronomical and maintenance is impossible. Because Space!

meanmutton: I do, though, disagree with your glee in pointing this out.  Frankly, I'm kind of sad to look up at the heavens above us and realize that there's basically no way to ever see more of it than this tiny little planet we're stuck on.

You just gave me a sad.

MrSteve007: The main benefit of solar power is that it can be located directly adjacent or on top of the demand location, eliminating distribution losses and simplifying maintenance.

Yet for some strange reason, people want to eliminate the biggest benefits of solar power and place the panels where transmission/distribution losses are astronomical and maintenance is impossible. Because Space!

The main benefit of solar power is that you can generate it without consuming any resources or creating pollution.

Quantum Apostrophe: It's amazing that anyone would still drag out your kind of tired, old and busted "counterexample".

I didn't drag out anything but an illustration of old and busted pooping on dreaming big.  Because you know... where'd dreaming big ever get anyone.

Tenga: meanmutton: I do, though, disagree with your glee in pointing this out.  Frankly, I'm kind of sad to look up at the heavens above us and realize that there's basically no way to ever see more of it than this tiny little planet we're stuck on.

You just gave me a sad.

Well, two things:

1) This world, while tiny in relation to the observed universe, still has more things to see and experience than one person could in a life spent exploring.
2) Robots can go where we can't and will bring us awesomeness.

meanmutton: The main benefit of solar power is that you can generate it without consuming any resources or creating pollution.

Well, that's true of almost all renewable energy sources, with exception of biomass. When it comes to solar specifically, you can use it on-site of almost any terrestrial location on the planet. It isn't dependent on fuel supply, tides, thermal features, falling water, or wind. Everywhere on the surface of the planet has sunlight - it only varies in intensity and duration over the year.

Being able to site it anywhere, without regard to available energy resources, is what sets it apart.

Saiga410: Pfft, why go so small.  We use self replicating nano bots to disassemble Jupiter and form a dyson sphere, then beam the energy to earth.

The Hydrogues aren't going to like that.

Saiga410: Pfft, why go so small.  We use self replicating nano bots to disassemble Jupiter and form a dyson sphere, then beam the energy to earth.

We use the nanobots to convert Venus into a fusion drive, ram the pickup into Uranus, and drive the whole thing to another solar system at relativistic speeds.

Quantum Apostrophe: Also, please compare and contrast the Boeing 747 from 1969 to 2013's. Now figure the size of space into that equation. Still think we're going anywhere?

Ah I see where you're coming from.  It's like that wheel thing... it hasn't gotten any rounder in freakin' centuries!  Science, you lazy skank!  What have you done for me lately!

Slaves2Darkness: Saiga410: Pfft, why go so small.  We use self replicating nano bots to disassemble Jupiter and form a dyson sphere, then beam the energy to earth.

The Hydrogues aren't going to like that.

Don't worry the Firios have our backs.

Magorn: Slaxl: Xcott: I'm confused.

If you're trying to solve the baseload problem that solar is unavailable between sunset and sunrise, aren't you creating the same problem by putting the transmitters on the moon, which also rises and sets?  How do you get the power when the moon is on the other side?

Also, that's an insane amount of solar panels even by "power the whole world" standards.  It's over a thousand times what you'd need to meet the world energy budget if you just placed the panels in a desert on Earth.  Why not simply have 4000 sq km of panels spread in desert locations around the Earth, and try to solve a distribution problem that doesn't require lifting everything into space?

Putting stuff in space is cooler.

Besides did you miss the Self-replicating robots?  I mean how exactly are we supposed to doom humanity with our technological hubris without throwing a few Von Nuemann machine into the mix.  Do you even READ Saberhagen?

Does this mean we get C+ cannons though?  That would make it worth it

meanmutton: Tenga: meanmutton: I do, though, disagree with your glee in pointing this out.  Frankly, I'm kind of sad to look up at the heavens above us and realize that there's basically no way to ever see more of it than this tiny little planet we're stuck on.

You just gave me a sad.

Well, two things:

1) This world, while tiny in relation to the observed universe, still has more things to see and experience than one person could in a life spent exploring.
2) Robots can go where we can't and will bring us awesomeness.

I gotta quit looking into space anyway. Need to stop dwelling on the past.

maniacbastard: I think it would be cheaper to find a more affordable and less toxic way to store solar power at night than to build a zillion rockets to send our power generation capability a quarter million kilometers away.

What does this even mean?

give me doughnuts: maniacbastard: I think it would be cheaper to find a more affordable and less toxic way to store solar power at night than to build a zillion rockets to send our power generation capability a quarter million kilometers away.

What does this even mean?

Current Batteries are pretty toxic.  I think they are mostly giant lead acid batteries.

Japan needs to finish cleaning up their last power plant failure before focusing on new ones

Mikey1969:

The moon is only blocked from the Sun's light when it is in eclipse... As far as generating power in space, it's a great idea. Take the Moon, for example. A nuclear plant there would not have an atmosphere to pollute or an ecosystem to ruin is something went wrong. With a weak gravitational field, most of what would occur in an explosion would leave the Moon's surface. If you launched all of your waste material into a decaying orbit of the Sun, you'd also have a pretty low-cost method of dealing with trash, since the low gravity of the moon is much cheaper to launch from.

They never learn....

meat0918: give me doughnuts: maniacbastard: I think it would be cheaper to find a more affordable and less toxic way to store solar power at night than to build a zillion rockets to send our power generation capability a quarter million kilometers away.

What does this even mean?

Current Batteries are pretty toxic.  I think they are mostly giant lead acid batteries.

The original statement is still a non sequitor. What does storing solar power for use at night have to do with sending a "zillion" rockets to the moon?

hardinparamedic: So, pretty much the plot of Gundam 00, then?

[www.watchcartoononline.com image 800x600]

Ah, delicious AI Tiaria.

I was thinking Bubblegum Crisis 2040 myself, but that's because I just finished watching it again last weekend.

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.