This is the first justification for this I've seen that makes sense. The "free power all the time" is such utter bullshit when the cost will probably be at least 10x what it would cost to build a solar array on Earth that can produce 10x the needed power and push it to batteries so it can run 24/7.

"Chegg, an education and learning platform, claimed in its lawsuit that Google illegally scraped its educational content." Did they have any educational content besides students posting their professors' notes/labs/tests?

I think you may be replying to that Senator from Missouri.

Not that it makes things great, but your document about Y-12 said 2.4 million *pounds*, not tons, were missing, later revised to 2.0 million pounds, and that 700,000 pounds definitely went into the environment, the rest unknown.

The "just design a better reactor" is about 500x more reasonable than the other two. That said, perhaps there's a reason why no one has done it.Kinda like "Step 1: Design a gas engine that gets 800 mpg while making 400 horsepower."

I'm sure that really stings when delivered by a gutless fuckknuckle such as yourself.

And yet again, Anonymous Coward is an overly optimistic estimation of your value to the discussion.

It's the same reason he's such a tough guy with his military threats and actions. He would give 0 shits about invading Iran, nuking it, or whatever else since the deaths of non-Trumps don't bother him at all, and he's not spending his own money dropping bombs over there.

I hope to live long enough to see every toady in a prison uniform.

Yeah, I am in no way suggesting we need more of them down here. I (like the tech billionaires proposing these things) am completely ignoring everything except the cost to build and run them. I just don't understand how the financial part could make sense..

A 60 ft x 60 ft mirror will reflect (if perfect) about 500 kW of Sun. It won't all hit solar panels. If you replaced the mirror with solar panels at 25% efficiency, that's 125 kW. Google says you can get $0.03 to $0.06 for a kWh. That's $7.50 max for an hour of this satellite, assuming some kind of lossless power transmission to the grid. $180 per day, or about $65,000 per year from one satellite.

If you go with the reflector instead of the solar cells in orbit, you could spread that power out over a few million square meters, let's say 10% of which might contain solar cells. That would be $6500 per year, except for the fact that the inverters won't turn on for that pissant light intensity. Seems like launching one with a pretty average camera could make you more money and not requiring magic power beaming.

Of course, with 50,000 of them, you could lose your ass so much faster.

No, you're just a wannabe-edgelord 13 year old with no significant frontal lobe activity.

I get that the Sun doesn't shine all the time, and the wind doesn't blow all the time. What I don't get is that batteries exist. If you're planning a 100 MW data center, it's got to be cheaper, though not as eye-catching, to install 300, 400, 500 MW of solar panels and/or wind turbines and a big-ass battery here on Earth. Cooling is easier, no micrometeors to worry about, no need for radiation-hardened chips, the ability to go out and fix something that breaks, and, the largest benefit, you don't have to fling the whole friggin' thing into orbit. How is this even a serious proposal?

No one will "convince" you because reason didn't get you to where you are. If you think paying your share for a functioning society is robbery, you're not serious, you're a 12 year old edgelord or Elon Musk. "DIsagree with freedom and liberty". Go rub one out to some Ayn Rand, kid.

Incel Inside.