Solar farms in space could be renewable energy's next frontier

[progree]

7. Not clear to me, and I had a couple of electromagnetic waves and applications courses

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2019, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Just think about the change in wavelength and you'll have my objection, clarified.

The essence of climate change involves the absorption profiles connected to wavelength. Think about it.

They plan to "beam electricity down" in the microwave region.

Some is lost in the atmosphere (thus heating it up). I have no idea how much. Do you? I think it's far less than the 2/3 that thermal power plants waste heating up the oceans and atmosphere.

But I'll add that I wonder about the effect that electromagnetic radiation we're living with now on humans / plant / animals, and what increasing that by beaming a significant portion of the earth's electricity usage as microwaves will add to that.

The whole scheme is in "angels dancing on the head of a pin" regions.

It's useless, and it's silly.

I've made clear in two posts now that I think it sucks too. Make this number 3.

I only originally replied to your #2 only because your chief objection was "Change the solar flux by increasing area ... by increasing the absorption area of the solar flux and focusing it on the planet, it will further fry the atmosphere."

and I thought that was the silliest primary objection I could imagine to the scheme, something I was very surprised to read from you, and that you apparently didn't take a moment to think about how we're producing most of our electricity now -- wasting almost 2 GWH (which goes to our waters and our atmosphere) through releasing the energy of nuclear or fossil fuel for each GWH of electricity produced.

Your other objection in number 2 was the space junk problem which I totally and strongly agree with.

And your added objections in number 4 about all the launches and cost of those and GHG in the production of rockets and rocket fuel and burning it, I agree with too.

Maybe your time would be better explaining things to the "What Would It Take To Go 100% Solar?" gang https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017535536

and particularly https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017535536#post10 :

100% may sound out of reach, and it probably is. What about 10%?...or 50% over the next 5 years? These things are obtainable. As the price goes lower, the potential is greater.

-------------------------------------------------------------

You may think the rest of my remarks a "deflection," but they aren't..

On the deflection, I was referring to the title of your number 4, "The thermal output of power plants is trivial compared to the solar flux."

Of course it is. What does that have to do with the price or rice? What does that have to do with comparing the extra solar energy sent to earth by the satellite scheme vs. the energy released by burning fossil fuels and fissioning uranium? And as I've said in 2 posts, and lets make it the third now, yes, these energies are far less than what is being trapped by GHG increases.