Re:Long term Issues (Score 0)

My first argument is that using combustion as a method of generating energy would arguably be less efficient than using microwaves as a way to generate energy. The conversion efficiency of microwave back into usable electrical energy is very very high , at or above 90% [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna]. Compare the efficiency of microwave->electrical energy with the efficiency of combustion which rates supercritical steam plants at a ~50% efficiency. My second argument is that it will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases that fuel the global warming process and increase the dissipation of heat from the planet. The proposed point of beaming in harnessed energy from space is to 1.) Allow a clever way to deliver energy to arbitrary locations without the need to build and maintain a massive infrastructure to deliver this energy. 2.) Provide a low emission way of generating this energy 3.)Arguably avoid having to combust a limited resource to generate said energy. So while it is true that this system will add energy to the Earth assuming that the satellite is collecting energy that would otherwise be irradiated into space...this injection of energy will 1.)Have less overall emissions 2.)Be potentially easier to transport and re-route to areas which need it 3.)Decrease the amount of net heat generated (due to the increased efficiency of a Rectenna vs a power plant fueled by fossil fuels)