I am not as knowledgeable about intricate details on how solar energy works. If only there were some sort of "machine" that would allow me to "research" this.... Perhaps someone who knows a bit on the subject can enlighten me and others who care about this. My Muggle thoughts: Considering the size and energy output of the Sun, which is by far the largest body in the solar system, does it not seem obvious that tapping into that better and better = virtually infinite power source? Yes, it will go poof in 5 billion years but I'll take that. It seems to me mocking solar research funding only makes sense in how the funds might be allocated, but to mock the research altogether seems very illogical. How is NOT tapping into the largest power source at our fingertips the better way to go? Finally, I feel having an access to such immense power, any and all technological advancements would become that much more easy and more likely. "Need to power a high tech lab for 24/7 for a year? No problem whatsoever!" And yes, we could also just blow ourselves up. Isn't that always the real possibility we created since the 40's ?
I think as our technology advances.. solar will be even more commonplace, but you also need to remember.. what we get on Earth is rather limited. I mean, it's a lot and should be plenty.. but a lot of the energy that comes from the sun gets deflected by our magnetosphere and atmosphere. Tapping into the unfiltered energy would be great.. but several generations away. Once it makes it's way to the surface though, think it is something like 1 kilowatt per square meter.
all this talk about fusion power being the future. Meanwhile a collosal fusion reactor is already running 24/7 right there in the sky. How hard could it be to set up an array of satellites that harvest and beam energy wherever we need it? -yuri
This site is kind of depressing in terms of talking about solar energy.. lol, but funny cause I was looking for the amount of energy that hits the surface just now and they said something about the satellites. But I don't think it doesn't make sense.. cause you'd be gathering a ton of energy that would normally be deflected. I'd just be worried that that amount of energy condensed into a beam would pop holes in our atmosphere or magnetosphere or whateversphere. Edit: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html
Not to oversimplify the issue, but if a lot gets deflected, then put panels into space. Their building and energy transport could and should be a great job source for anything from engineering, transport, maintenance, distribution, etc. If not a lot gets deflected, then keep building bigger and better panels on Earth. Between this and Tesla, it seems almost obvious that energy in abundance only makes sense.
Tap the ionosphere and magnetosphere! I would think Haarp should be able to do that, as far as storing the funnelled energy... that idk.
Cause there is this going on out there.. The energy streaming from the sun clashes with our magnetosphere.. a lot gets deflected around, some sneaks in at our poles and breaks between magnetic lines. With satellites, they don't have a lot of mass or forward momentum against the sun.. so you'll want to keep them within the magnetosphere. The bow shock where the sun's plasma collides with the magnetosphere is about 1/4 the distance to the moon.. so if you want to gather up energy outside of that, you're going to have to figure in the fuel costs of whatever fuel would be used for the trips and return launches. Building better solar panels on Earth is a good step.. but again, only so much hits the surface. I tried looking it up and the numbers vary.. but seems like the best case scenario would be 1,000 watts per square meter. Our panels today are only like 20% efficient.. so with a panel that is a lil over 3 feet by 3 feet, you'd only get 200 watts. Even with near perfect efficiency, they'll take up a lot of space if you're trying to make them a main supply. Most the panels we have today are like 200-300 watts but mostly bigger than a meter squared.. like 5 feet by 5 feet. They work best as a main supplement where they can take up room that isn't needed or in the middle of the wilderness frying birds like it does here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/18/bird-deaths-solar_n_5686700.html Granted the was a slightly different kind of solar plant, gives you a good idea of what could happen if you somehow beamed the already intense energy from the sun in space down to Earth. That's not to say there isn't energy around us waiting to be tapped.. if Earth as a whole didn't have energy, Earth would of been roasted by the sun long ago. Just need to perfect what we got until we find new stuff to perfect.
I'm thinking build huge "plantations" above the ocean surface. 76+% of the world's surface is not used for anything else. Obviously the cost of such a project is gigantic, but once set up it would continue to yield infinite power. With further panel improvement, more and more power would be harvested. Otherwise, build a plantation in space. Again, huge cost but also huge reward. The cost would be recovered over time, but the benefit would continue, and just like with the plantations on Earth, further improvement would continue to yield more and more power. Call me fiscally naive, but I don't see any cost for this being too high. The bigger the project the better. Let it be a huge jobs program with the benefit of providing infinite power once completed. Its further maintenance should also employ a large amount of people, but the energy output gained would more than make up for it. Now to create a multinational coalition of the willing and scrap up a trillion $ or two and get going. If this were done in the magnitude I envision it could just be the project that brings this crazy ass planet closer together.
Not that I want to be a Debbie Downer, but constructive criticism is my thing. I don't really like the idea of massive floating plantations.. cause you're going to need a ton of area covered and the sunlight is important for our oceans' health. We are already doing a number on our oceans.. so if we end up killing them off then it wouldn't be an issue. I also remember reading that if we gathered up all the solar energy that hit the surface.. with the amount we'd get, mankind is already using like 20% the amount of energy. That means that if we currently wanted to switch everything over to solar power as we are now.. we'd have to cover 20% of Earth's surface with solar panels operating at 100% efficiency. If we wanted to use the solar panels we have today that are only about 20% efficient, we would have to cover 80% of the surface to generate all the power we need today. So if you wanted to do this with today's technology, covering the entire ocean from coast to coast would just barely give you enough power to run the world. Remember, it wouldn't be an infinite power source.. only a select amount makes it to the surface, best case scenario is 1,000 watts per square meter. That is your limit.. a limited amount for a virtually unlimited amount of time. As for space, who knows how that would play out. Sure, the sun kicks out a ton of energy.. but that is spread out all around it. A plantation in space is only going to capture what went directly to it.. which would be a minute fraction of the amount of energy. Without extracting actual matter from the sun to use as a fuel source, the energy from the sun wouldn't be a great main source of power. It is good to use what we can from it.. just don't think it'd be enough to power us as a main source.
I pointed out the 76% to illustrate just how much open space we have. Obviously we wouldn't /couldn't cover all of it with solar panels. We would also not just flop them on top of something that depends on sunlight and watch it die off. Harnessing more of sun's energy seems more of a tempting goal than blotching out the sun from the surface of the Earth seems a threat. The panels' efficiency is what it is today and now. That efficiency could rise exponentially with further development and discovery. Every additional % of efficiency we would achieve would then be multiplied by the fact that we have large plantations able to fully take advantage of it. Having large plantations also seems to be an added incentive for further research into how to make them more efficient. This, like every other major research, is still in its relative early stages. As such, it is financially draining and does not offer an immediate financial return. I feel as such, a lot of people tend to discredit it and even argue against further researching it. This is very unfortunate. This is how America lost the Large Hadron Collider to Europe, because it saw no immediate defense or financial benefit and only focused on the cost.
But like I said, if we had solar panels that were 100% efficient.. we'd still have to cover 20% of Earth's surface just to keep up with our current energy demand, that's a lot of surface area to be taking up. If we ever hit 100% efficiency, that's the end up the line.. can't add any % to it after that. As time goes on, our demand for energy will also increase exponentially.. so when the amount of energy demand doubles what it is now, we would need 40% of Earth's surface with panels at maximum efficiency. That is too much surface area taken up to really be feasible as a main power source.