Not addressed are the costs and considerable hurdles such a project would have to overcome
The energy beams sent from the moon would be directed at receiving stations on Earth
It's quite possible that Shimizu has no intention of actually attempting to carry out its proposed project
An added feature would be a manned presence for other activities such as large radio and optical telescopes on the dark side.
Ah. Cost and technology. It's those 'minor' details one should consider before proposing such a systemOne hundred years ago no one could have believed that the interstate highway system would have been possible. Robotics and AI will make construction projects such as this lunar project easy.
This is silly. For much less, the company could build a magnetic launcher to put (lunar produced) solar cells and microwave transmitters in geosynchronous Earth orbitWhy blast lunar material into orbit when it would be far easier and cheaper to use it in situ? You need to mine it and process it on the surface. The array will need to be serviced, repaired, and replaced. Much easier to do this in proximity to the raw materials.
One hundred years ago no one could have believed that the interstate highway system would have been possible. Robotics and AI will make construction projects such as this lunar project easy
One hundred years ago no one could have believed that the interstate highway system would have been possible. Robotics and AI will make construction projects such as this lunar project easy.
I'm really skeptical.
The far side of the moon is dark to radio interference from earth.
"Such a NASA array would electronically-link thousands of dipole antennas spread over a range of five to ten kms and combine their long wavelength signals in a way that would mimic the imaging resolution of one large kms-wide radio telescope."
By the time this is possible, it will be obsolete due to some technology that you or anyone else hasn't even imagined yetSo you're predicting the future now G? I thought that was against your religion.
One hundred years ago no one could have believed that the interstate highway system would have been possible. .
Put a boiler, turbine, and generator at the focus. One doesn't need an optically perfect mirror as long as the light hits the boiler. In fact, a perfect focus would probably burn a hole in the boiler. We've been building steam power plants since Mr. Watt invented the steam engine, and they're a lot easier and cheaper than square kilometers of solar cells and the wiring to connect them.
Did they get this idea from the onion?
but the thought that you could somehow beam that energy to earth is unbelievable.
This isn't even feasible on Earth much less the moon. Although given enough time it might be affordable. The only thing is that it will be more efficient on the moon because it has not atmosphere. As to being practical...well even Jim Hansen thinks phasing in solar power realistically is anything but pie in the sky nonsense....and that's here on Earth.
http://www.projec...-lomborg
Bob_Wallace: Not a bad idea at all. However, given the size of the receiving antennae most designs call for, the relay satellites would be as big as powersats.
a space-based mirror doesn't have to turn to keep facing the Sun. Without weight, it doesn't need an expensive support system. Make a mirror from aluminized plastic, with just enough support to keep it curved, and spin it for stability. Put a boiler, turbine, and generator at the focus. One doesn't need an optically perfect mirror as long as the light hits the boiler... steam engine... generator...-And then what? Convert electricity to microwaves and beam that to earth? Count the conversion steps and you will see that youve lost most of the energy you gathered.
The idea of positioning solar panels in orbit and beaming the 24/365 power back to Earth is intriguing. That makes more sense to me than stringing panels across the Moon.
If you do the calculations about how much energy you're using in order to place these in orbit vs. the total amount of energy you would get out of them over their lifetime then you quickly come to realize that burning the rocket fuel on Earth in a powerplant directly is much more efficientSo how come all the players who are currently researching this and investing much money, like japan and NASA and California, haven't done your calcs and quickly given up? Apparently they have different calcs than yours.
This isn't even feasible on Earth much less the moon. Although given enough time it might be affordable. The only thing is that it will be more efficient on the moon because it has not atmosphere. As to being practical...well even Jim Hansen thinks phasing in solar power realistically is anything but pie in the sky nonsense....and that's here on Earth.
http://www.projec...-lomborg
Jim Hansen is a climate expert. But he's been demonstrating that he doesn't know a lot about renewable energy.
Well the article explained how it's not feasible if you'd read it.
The guy is simply dishonest.
But if renewables were cheaper, they wouldn't need subsidies, and we wouldn't need climate policies.
So how come all the players who are currently researching this and investing much money, like japan and NASA and California, haven't done your calcs and quickly given up?
Japan and NASA and California aren't companies. Duh. More evidence that you'd rather write than read.So how come all the players who are currently researching this and investing much money, like japan and NASA and California, haven't done your calcs and quickly given up?
Because, as companies, they calculate cost vs. profit instead of energy in vs. energy out? Duh.
I think Denmark gets about 30% of its power from wind. I also know it pays more than 40 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity.
Where's the disconnect?
I think Denmark gets about 30% of its power from wind. I also know it pays more than 40 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity.
Where's the disconnect?
Taxes on residential users. Same as Germany. Look at their industrial electricity prices. Lower than the EU27 average.
Denmark 0.090 euros. Germany 0.086 euros. EU27 average 0.094 euros.
Germany 0.086 euros. EU27 average 0.094 euros.
Yeah, but that's still 12 cents/kwh. I thought we were talking about lower prices than that. Is it the cost of other power sources in the mix that brings it up to 12 cents? That seems hard to believe, because in Kuwait the cost is 1 cent per kilowatt hour, and if I'm not mistaken their grid is run totally off oil.
75+% of Germany's electricity comes from fossil fuels and nuclear.
Germany saved 8 billion euros in fossil fuel purchases in 2012 due to wind and solar on their grid.
If Germany's electricity is more expensive than the US's then one should look to fossil fuel and nuclear. That is what is making their electricity more expensive. You can't have renewables both cutting the cost and raising the cost.
I noticed something interesting on your Eurostat link. France was lower than quite a few other nations at .077 Euros. Isn't most of their power nuclear?
75+% of Germany's electricity comes from fossil fuels and nuclear.
Germany saved 8 billion euros in fossil fuel purchases in 2012 due to wind and solar on their grid.
If Germany's electricity is more expensive than the US's then one should look to fossil fuel and nuclear. That is what is making their electricity more expensive. You can't have renewables both cutting the cost and raising the cost.
Well, yes, that's basically what I was asking. Makes sense, and it would still be nice to see some clear numbers on the issue. The Kuwait numbers are a perfect example. There are no "clean" numbers out there AFAIK. There's always subsides, cost of import, refining, mining, land use costs, etc etc etc.
I noticed something interesting on your Eurostat link. France was lower than quite a few other nations at .077 Euros. Isn't most of their power nuclear?
Sure.
And if you can figure out how to go back in time and build some reactors and pay them off then after they are paid off we could get cheap electricity from them.
Electricity from a paid off reactor = 3c to 6c/kWh.
Electricity form a new reactor = 16c/kWh.
grondilu
Nov 29, 2013