you seem to think that solar panels can be protected from even MILD winds in the desert by
wrapping paper

you are using a completely ONE SIDED analysis! pointing out ALL the faults of the seemedly odd idea, ignoring its OBVIOUS and GREAT benefits, and claiming that the IMPOSSIBLE alternative IS CHEAPER

I cannot believe that you even trust the crap spewing from your mouth, I could bring in ten physcisists, ten meteorologists and ten NASA employees who would agree with me WITH MINIMAL EFFORT.

I'm going to try to break this down ONE more time for you.

WHY dont we build these things in deserts?
1) getting power from there to someplace else is costly
2) the effects of a dry atmosphere are minimal
3) upkeep would range in the millions for a few solar panels, even mild winds (which desert winds are always happening and RARELY mild) would damage the panels so severely they would lose effectiveness at well over a few percent per day, you cannot shield against dust here unless you want to build a HUGE plastic cylinder, which would cost MILLIONS as well, or if you want to cover everything with a sheet of protective material, which would drastically reduce effectiveness AND not last all that long
WHY do scientists and the military consider space as a nice alternative:
1) as said before, time in the penumbra is precious and could provide a lot of extra energy
2) absolutely no attenuation from atmosphere: the atmosphere attenuates solar energy severely even at high noon, solar panels have a dramatic increase in output (regardless of their efficiency, its like getting rocket fuel instead of diesel for your car, the car's engine matters not) over ground based, whether in a dry atmosphere or otherwise
3) there is almost no need for protection, damage from space debris is rediculously few and far between, and any damage would be restricted to a few panels instead of degrading the whole complex (on hte very off chance something hits, keep in mind how many satellites we have up in space) why are we relatively protected from space debris? because Earth is a planet, and by definition it sweeps its orbit of all big large materials, in turn smaller materials either are swept in or are brought "with the flow" and then become relatively harmless
4) energy can be distributed ANYWHERE even mountains or isolated communities, all it needs is a gamma ray accepting antenna
5) gamma rays are hardly, if at all attenuated by the atmosphere, so less energy is lost than if the same output had to travel on wires

YES there are some catches in the system, YES getting the BS up there would be costly, but this isnt just some kid looking STARRY EYED INTO THE SKY. THIS STUFF WORKS
I am ashamed that you would look down onto the intellectual community from your high chair "mr. pertinent"

there are a HUNDRED different articles on the topic, and they do address the downfalls, but THESE ENDS JUSTIFY THE PATHETICALLY CHEAP MEANS.

this thread will never turn in your favor until you can pull up some empirical thought other then "damn, its costly"
MANY things are costly carbon, high rises are costly, dams are costly, satellites are costly, but this thing could cut out hundreds of billions of dollars and be more or less perminant and pure clean energy.

(Remember, I gave you a chance to cut your losses!)



Why would you be ashamed, when my high chair has lasers too?



Pchoo pchoo! It cost seven hundred billion dollars to build and burns out in one tenth of a second of sustained use, but isn't it cool?

Anyway, I'm not going to argue the sand point anymore. It was simply a way of pointing out land exists on Earth that is pretty much useless otherwise. Besides, I'm obviously pretty ignorant about deserts, I've only been to Hawaii and it's mostly just a bunch of black rocks there.

Instead, please argue how investing hundreds of billions of dollars into a system that relies on giant space microwave lasers that have never been built or seriously tested in a lab, much less a vacuum which takes another tens of billions of dollars to get up into is 1. scientifically valid, 2. economically valid for the consumer and 3. economically valid for companies. And no, you can't argue that throwing money at the private sector to build this stuff will benefit the general public. And why this money shouldn't be spent on, again, nuclear reactors and research into fusion technology.



The Hubble's solar arrays were replaced TWICE in TWELVE YEARS. Each launch cost BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. What are you talking about?



Yeah, there are thousands of different articles from astrophysicists and engineers detailing the fact that this is a sci-fi Star Wars idea based in no way on sustainability, economics, or reality itself, balanced with the expert opinion of MSNBC writers also covering the latest Britney Spears fiasco. It's a good thing your saying the scheme is pathetically cheap automatically makes it so, I was worried with the whole "government deficit and weakness of dollar due to subprime mortgage crisis" thing that three-quarters of a trillion dollars, whether public or private, might be relatively difficult to spare.



You know, that gives me an idea. We should hook up kids to generators, then make them look at the sky all day. Stick a little rotating dealie in the floor and make them stand on it and we could rotate them to find the sun, moon, or the nearest light emitting ball of rock/gas in the sky. Hey, we could even implant solar panels in their retinas and shoot them into space for a measly ten billion dollars? Think of the children! The wonder-filled bionic children powering your lightbulbs!



Yeah, I wasn't going to pick on this, but I can't resist. No, gamma rays are only attenuated by blocks of pure lead. However, I can't really think of any way to:

1. send gamma rays down into the atmosphere as a directed current (gamma ray lasers don't exist)
2. absorb a gamma ray laser without having the atoms in the receiver go crazy
3. even produce gamma rays through solar energy. Maybe you're thinking of the quite related electromagnetic energy called "microwaves". And by quite related I mean they're on completely the other side of the EM spectrum from another, and a microwave's wavelength is millions of times larger than a gamma ray's.

Ooo! I know one way we could harness gamma rays here on earth though - through a NUCLEAR REACTOR or twenty. Who would have thought?

EDIT: A quick talk with one of my buddies made me realize something. Throwing wads of hundred dollar bills into a giant waste-to-energy incinerator will also create perhaps even more energy than this proposal. So let's get on that pretty soon too.

Here is the technical blueprint:

If its in you're bathroom, it must be a ped-a-file.

you want to make your argument, go to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite#Advantages_of_an_SPS
if you want to question its validity, look at the tons of sources it uses.
I shall now deluge you with quotes, as its the closest thing to a reliable source you'll ever see:

ever used a remote?
"Microwave power transmission (MPT) is the use of microwaves to transmit power through outer space or the atmosphere without the need for wires. It is a sub-type of the more general Wireless energy transfer methods"
its the same damn thing, but much bigger and on a different wavelength
aw, baby not know what a remote is?

there reason they replace the arrays is because they slowly degrade, and that they CAN replace them while they're up there doing other things

replacing bits and pieces gets extremely easy when you can use throw-awayable transit (which is the plan) which costs between 150-500$ per pound

oh, did I note that this is the way they plan on getting the thing up there and assembled? oh silly me, its well within economic range.

and you've done an amazing job backing yourself up
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-2.html

the fact that you've ignored my argument to focus on a mental fart speaks to your lack of "comeback"

cya later, "homie"

Things planned aren't things done.

The Internatinal Space Station is evidence of that.

Remotes use infrared.

Perhaps the example you were looking for was cordless phones or wireless network connections.

the effect is the same wedge, information is transmitted over distance, whether that information be gamma rays, radio or infared, "turn on" or simply power, etc. etc.

its remarkable how quick people on this forum are to forget that gamma rays, radio waves, infared, visual on and on are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum, there only real differences are in wavelength, frequency and their effect on matter.

I was actually going to point you to that article to show you the remarkable number of sources saying that this is a pipe dream but I guess you beat me to it in a bizarro way. Note that that section has absolutely no sources while the 60+ ones all discuss how it's a economic and logistical nightmare.



Did you miss the fiasco when the US Congress temporarily cut off Hubble's funding? They were saying it'd stay up there until 2012, gradually lose power due to array damage, then burn up in the atmosphere.



Where is that transit going to come from? As of right now prices are over ten times that amount. Even the private sector couldn't match that - you really think you're going to be able to launch a pound of something into space for the same price as shipping a refrigerator to Canada? Hell, even a billionaire like Branson still can't get a rocket into LEO without it blowing up half the time.



Again, that site says more about how your satellite is economically and technologically worthless than it backs you with.



One will fry your internal organs, one will give you radiation poisoning, one looks pretty, they all have unique characteristics that you're glossing over as though they're not important. You're made up of the same particles as a tree, that doesn't mean I can chop you into logs and make a house out of you.



Yeah, a 17 year old kid who probably hasn't even taken Econ 101 or written a real academic paper in his life is suddenly lecturing me about adequate use of sources.

ah yes, because we're going to cut funding to our power industry

they all say that it would be an economical nightmare WITHOUT steps forward in technology, otherwise the outlook is very, very bright

bulk purchase my man
"However, economies of scale for expendable vehicles could give rather large reductions in launch cost for this kind of launched mass. Thousands of rocket launches could very well reduce the costs by ten to twenty times, using standard costing models. This puts the economics of an SPS design into the practicable range.[38] Reusable vehicles could quite conceivably attack the launch problem as well, but are not a well developed technology"
simply load up a 747 with a set of custom rocket pods, shouldnt really be much harder than that, and a few engineering technicallities

again you're twisting their words, its a matter of perspective

you're assuming that this will be some low stressor event where we dedicate our "standard" technologies. thats not whats gonna happen.

you're glossing over how easy it is to change one to another
ok, maybe not gamma rays, but how do you suppose we make radio? its not because we have a bunch of radio waves sitting in a box and we periodically let them out

you're made out of the same particles as a tree, if I make you into a tree and THEN chop you up, I get my log cabbin

says the kid who hasnt cited a single one, oh except mine.

go find yourself something you actually can understand before you start attacking me about my understanding of it.

*sing songy voice* Run-on



I still can't believe its not butter!!!

(o) <- The button taunts you Schem.

dont forget about their energies. You pretty much screwed up your definition since you only needed one of those three differences you mentioned

wavelength=frequency=energy=ability to punch through DNA

PS, yes, i know that they aren't EQUAL, i just dont feel like finding the correct symbol

Just to warn you guys...I'd give up trying to argue with Schod...he's immune to logic.

One thing I don't get is this. How did Scod come up with the idea that if you put a solar power plant in space it'd be cheaper than having one on Earth? Not only is there the significant cost of getting it up there, but you'll still need to build ground-based receiving plants. Furthermore, performing maintenence in space is far more exspensive than ground-based maintenence.

I'm sure Schod will try to come up with some rationalization against this. But, hey I figured I give it one last try.

Edit: Oh and just to let you know, solar planels work on homes in ENGLAND and provide most or all of that home's energy needs. There are few places on Earth more cloudy and gray than the British Isles...

scourge you and I have never met on the battleifield of minds, maybe you poked at me from the sidelines when supporting Emp, but no you and I have not argued. let alone logically (this forum is completely devoid of that)

again you think questions make answers

*sighs*

I'm no longer bothering with this mental dystopia, that is until somebody else comes up with a statement equally devoid of logic

seriously how can you say "logic" when you dont even understand the facts and figures?

you know, I should congradulate Carbon for at least having some sort of pseudo-logic to his posts... unlike the "you dont know everything" posts of Emp and SoG.

you know what? maybe I DO know everything! ever considered that?

poor shoddy

its schoddy dammit! SCHODDY!

poor shoddy

The synergy of the new paradigm lends itself to a dynamic efficiency of Web 2.0 immersion, using empowerment to enable outside-the-box win-win client-centric return on investment.

You remind me of a certain pointy haired boss that knows nothing of actual logic but throws around a lot of buzzwords to look intelligent.

you remind me of a lazy cubicle worker who thinks he knows the world, but wonders why his paycheck never gets raised.

the difference between us? I have an IQ higher than room temperature!   

Look in the mirror, you'll get the reason why...



The thing is you don't.

I stand firmly by my philosophy, things said aren't things done.

I will believe it is possible when I see it. I mean they haven't even consulted real economonist yet, or put it out into the free market as an idea, a plan. And even then I will speculate. The estimates they often make on any space venture seem to fall quite short of the actual costs.

The City Ship and the Tokyo Pyramids seem to be more bilievable at this point.



Nope, not for one second. Oh All Knowing One



Yep, you're right, its just about 1 point higher.

Congradulations, you're retarded

.^.
{ }
{ } <= ?
{ }
'

it beats yours by a mile.


thats a reference both to my IQ, and that pathetic penis drawing.

I see terror at the devoidness of logic from this forum...

yeah, that was helpful emp, real helpful.

didnt look at the wiki citations, tsk tsk tsk

*goes off to know many more things*

Its not a penis you sicko its a catarpillar.



Oh man Schem, you're right, how foolish of me to not go look at things on the Wiki and trust it as my ultimate source of information.

Guess I'll never learn, stupid Emp, stupid!!!

Politics on the Internet: Feeding you more bullshit than modern news channels.