At a "random" place in space, yes, but on earth only for a few minutes every day.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
ofc it had no budget.
That does not change the fact that the math is pretty solid and it would work.
The problem is to build such a solar station in orbit, not to fund it, or to make a profit from it.
Or how exactly would YOU assemble a structure 100x100 meters or even 2x2 km in square in GEO?
Why do you seek problems where are none and are so blind to see the obvious obstacles?
Why do you assume "inefficiency" if it is beamed down by microwaves?
Wow, someone made a stupid blog and you use it as evidence?
If I shoot a 1kW solar "thingy" into space it can produce power like 22 - 23 hours, minimum, per day.
Not sure how good the orbit can be for a random place on earth.
Afterwards you only need to beam it down, the math is a no brainer.
The question is launch costs and what the delievered energy might cost in the end.
Your idea about coal plants is unfortunately rather wrong
The proclaimed problems where a hoax spread in the 60s and are debunked since 50 years or longer.
Also modern coal plants don't emit stuff in significant amounts, everything gets filtered out.
Certain coal ash indeed contains uranium concentrations similar to ores mined.
However not all coal is contaminated with uranium
Unfortunately all wrong SuperKendal.
Which only makes sense when you realize the whole Earth is a system designed to process CO2 in vast quantities.
No it is not. How do you come to that 'stupid' idea? The earth j
is running since billion of years in an equilibrium of 'production' and 'consumption' of CO2 with only very slowly shifting of the balance into one direction or the other.
There is no mechanism eating 'excess' CO2.
Regarding the 'feedback loop', wrong again.
CO2 leads to higher temperature, leads to melting ice (most glaciers are already gone, seems you did not pay attention the last 30 years) which leads to more heat absorption which leads to an acceleration of heating up, which leads to melting perma frost areas, which leads to release of methane, which leads to increased greenhouse effects, which lead to more water vapour which increases greenhouse effects, too, which leads to melting of polar caps, greenland ice etc. which leads to more ground that can absorb hear, which increases heat in the atmosphere
There are plenty of hooks for the current global warming to lead to a strong feedback
CO2 emissions have gone up and up over the last two decades with almost no increase in heat over that period of time.
Just because you had no heat record in summer at your place beating the previous heat record, does not mean no one had. Actually, most heat records in 2014/2015 happened in winter time on the northern hemisphere.
Of course when it is +10degrees C at a place where it used to be -30degrees C, that is not a heat record for the lot like you. As you still find it rather 'cold'
it still took an almost unprecedented natural disaster to break it.
No it did not.
1) the earth quake was 450 miles away, and did only very low damage, mainly simply breaking the power lines
2) tsunamis like this are common! and not 'unprecedented'
3) the main problem was human incompetence in not being able to place emergency power generators in time, no idea what the problem behind that was. But the natural german reaction to sent military with truck based emergency power, or fly stuff in with helicopters, or heck forbid: place a ship with enough power production capability in front of the plant: did not happen!
Not even to talk about the brain dead idea to place the original emergency power generators of the original plant at a more fail proof position.
So bottom line except for the occurrence of the quake itself, everything leading to or involved in the accident was human failure or miss judgement or taking no action.
The animals are not doing 'a lot better'. The first 20 years they had all the expected low lofe expectations, like cancer, birth deformations etc.
The wild life 'looks better' because there are no humans hunting it, and healthy wildlife is immigrating into the zone and replacing the ones who died young.
Also comparing a deer that only lives 5 - 6 years and has now plenty of offsprings with humans who live 10 - 15 times as long is quite difficult.
No one carss or even notices if a deer dies at 3 or 4 now, due to radiation. However we do notice: there is more deer now than 30 years ago, what a surprise.
Most nuclear plants are still running, get a damn clue.
Two or three are offline.
There is no replacement of nuclear by coal or brown coal going on.
Your idea is wrong.
The most active isotopes are long gone now, leaving caesium-137 with a 30-year half life.
Do you like to play games with the word "active" or what is your problem?
Most isotopes are poisonous
Hundreds live there illegally, and no-one has developed a 3rd eye or superpowers yet.
Obviously it is close to impossible as an adult to develop an extra eye
Nevertheless: would you risk to have a handicapped child because of easy to avoid radiation? Easy to avoid by simply not living there?
It is tragic and idiotic that Germany is replacing perfectly good nuclear plants with lignite.
Except: that Germany is not doing that. How do you come to that retarded idea?
Lignite mining in Germany has stripped some 1500km^2 so far and is still ongoing.
Yes, but the areas are re-forrested and artificial lakes are crafted. Former strip mines are now the most beautiful areas of Germany with low population, mixed deciduous woodland and a thriving wildlife.
The land is not "uninhabitable", it is only covered by water, hence birds and fish really like it.
A significant difference imho.