Solar station in space

Now we have a reason for space. Got to get solar cell efficiency way up, tho. Even then, how the Earth will ever make it economically feasible?

Anyhow, here's a goal, better than Pres. Kennedy's goal of landing on the moon. Could even unite the world.

Other than this being a turned into a weapon with an quick responce and a global range, what would be the advantage over just building another nuclear reactor.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

Other than this being a turned into a weapon with an quick responce and a global range, what would be the advantage over just building another nuclear reactor.

No kidding about the weapon part. But they would almost have to use microwaves since lasers would be affected by clouds and particles in the air. Of course the receiver and the area around it would be a terror on the enviroment. After all it would take is just a little to microwave everything in the area to well done.

Actually from a relaiblity and saftey angle the nuclear reactor would be a better bet. Espically if you were going to place it on a cloating platform at sea or in a lake since that would provide cooling without the massive cooling tower.

tina anne wrote:

Actually from a relaiblity (sic) and saftey (sic) angle the nuclear reactor would be a better bet. Espically (sic) if you were going to place it on a cloating(sic) platform at sea or in a lake since that would provide cooling without the massive cooling tower.

tina anne loves the phrase,'dilution is the solution to pollution' in case a storm sank the nuke plant,

This is coming, make no mistake. The energy potential of fission is limited by uranium supplies and waste storage. There is only so much wind available. There is a finite amount of land on which to build solar arrays. But the potential for gathering solar energy in space is positively vast.

Northie wrote:

This is coming, make no mistake. The energy potential of fission is limited by uranium supplies and waste storage. There is only so much wind available. There is a finite amount of land on which to build solar arrays. But the potential for gathering solar energy in space is positively vast.

What do you think the lifespan of the uranium reserves is for the world? I think that anything more than a few hundred years should suffice, until they work out fusion power. I know folks have been predicting fusion will be available in fifty years, for the last fourty years (just like when the contractor says it will take two weeks) but a hundred to two hundred years sounds like a good bet.

Also why would putting a hundred few tons of solar arrays in space be less expensive than putting a few hundred tons of nuclear waste in space.

There is an actual good ue for a devise like this, that is to remotely power spacecraft as they are leaving earths orbit. That and the weapon thing.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you think the lifespan of the uranium reserves is for the world? I think that anything more than a few hundred years should suffice, until they work out fusion power. I know folks have been predicting fusion will be available in fifty years, for the last fourty years (just like when the contractor says it will take two weeks) but a hundred to two hundred years sounds like a good bet.
Also why would putting a hundred few tons of solar arrays in space be less expensive than putting a few hundred tons of nuclear waste in space.
There is an actual good ue for a devise like this, that is to remotely power spacecraft as they are leaving earths orbit. That and the weapon thing.

Peak uranium has already occurred in the US, Europe and Japan. Like oil, it is now an increasingly imported energy resource. Globally, supplies are definitely finite as well, with perhaps a century of economical production left. Meanwhile, economical fusion is still a pipe dream.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379

Given the limits of Earth-based power production, space-based power is a certainty. It is merely a question of time.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Peak uranium has already occurred in the US, Europe and Japan. Like oil, it is now an increasingly imported energy resource. Globally, supplies are definitely finite as well, with perhaps a century of economical production left. Meanwhile, economical fusion is still a pipe dream.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379
Given the limits of Earth-based power production, space-based power is a certainty. It is merely a question of time.

You know I am more of a numbers person and don't simply buy the "its peaked" argument without actual data and reasoning.

The IAEA says that current known reserves are enough for the next century (not including new finds).

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/uran...

Wikipedia has lots of estimates (as it often does)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_depletio...

"The IAEA estimates that using only known reserves at the current rate of demand and assuming a once-through nuclear cycle that there is enough uranium for at least 100 years. However, if all primary known reserves, secondary reserves, undiscovered and unconventional sources of uranium are used, uranium will be depleted in 47,000 years"

"The OECD estimates that with 2002 world nuclear electricity generating rates, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough conventional resources to last 270 years. With breeders, this is extended to 8,500 years"

Fusion is a pipe dream, just like this solar station in space.

Much more feasible than a space elevator...

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

You know I am more of a numbers person and don't simply buy the "its peaked" argument without actual data and reasoning.
The IAEA says that current known reserves are enough for the next century (not including new finds).
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/uran...
Wikipedia has lots of estimates (as it often does)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_depletio...
"The IAEA estimates that using only known reserves at the current rate of demand and assuming a once-through nuclear cycle that there is enough uranium for at least 100 years. However, if all primary known reserves, secondary reserves, undiscovered and unconventional sources of uranium are used, uranium will be depleted in 47,000 years"
"The OECD estimates that with 2002 world nuclear electricity generating rates, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough conventional resources to last 270 years. With breeders, this is extended to 8,500 years"
Fusion is a pipe dream, just like this solar station in space.

Over the last 30 years or more, I've read many reports that oil will run out within ten to fifteen years and yet the same stories are doing the rounds:

WORLD'S OIL WILL RUN OUT IN TEN YEARS
The latest measurements confirm that the world's oil and natural gas supplies are running out too fast. At some time between 2010 and 2020 the world's supply of oil and gas will fall below the level required to meet international demand.

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp...
It's probably the same with uranium, there's plenty more available when it's locations are discovered.

Let's not jump the gun and say that fusion or a space based solar station are pipe dreams, when my father was a lad, he believed that heavier than air flight was an impossibility.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Over the last 30 years or more, I've read many reports that oil will run out within ten to fifteen years and yet the same stories are doing the rounds:<quoted text>
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp...
It's probably the same with uranium, there's plenty more available when it's locations are discovered.
Let's not jump the gun and say that fusion or a space based solar station are pipe dreams, when my father was a lad, he believed that heavier than air flight was an impossibility.

Just like oil it's price dependent (the more it cost the more is afforradable to recoverable. It's even in seawater and recoverable, if the price gets high.

Ok, point taken about calling it a pipe dream. Both fusion powered reactors and solar stations beaming power to earth for electricity are not even in the experimental stage yet.

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
tina anne loves the phrase,'dilution is the solution to pollution' in case a storm sank the nuke plant,

And litesongs answer is keep trying failed answers like wind and solar in hopes that dispite the fact that it has repeatedly faail it will work this time.

Litesong is also one who considers anyone disagreeing with him terrorizing him as well. The facts like the nuceal waste after processing is low level and no more radioactive than the orginal ore that came out of the mine.