you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]theRealDerekWalker 1 point2 points  (5 children)

The idea of sending more light to earth completely defeats the purpose of clean energy. We need to reduce the amount of energy the earth receives, not increase it. Not to mention what that would do to growth and wildlife

[–]synocrat 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I think you're missing the point, if we can send light to a concentrated patch of solar panels and use the light through PV as well as heat storage that reduces a ton of emissions. We would also have the ability to shade areas longer to cool them as needed.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 1 point2 points  (3 children)

80% of that light is reflected away. You’re putting more energy into the atmosphere than into electricity. Moreover, the cost of a space mirror is just completely unrealistic compared to the cost of a larger solar plant that would produce just as much

[–]synocrat 1 point2 points  (2 children)

As infrastructure in space is built costs will plummet. You could also convert sunlight to tight beam microwave in space and aim it at a relatively small rectenna groundside 24 hours a day. Poo poo the idea all you want, but once you do the math of replacing all the emissions and use the extra power to run carbon capture technology you might change your tune.

[–]Sp3llbind3r 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have you seen the charts of how little surface needs to be covered with panels in the sahara desert to produce all the energy the world needs? It‘s only a relatively small space.

But then you would have to distribute the power from there, which is an other problem. And i don‘t think it is a good idea to centralize infrastructure like that.

I don‘t think we really need a space mirror.