Does anybody remember the game SimCity2000?

[Adsibob]

This used to be a favourite of mine. If i remember rightly, one of the energy systems you could build was a satellite to receive microwave energy from space, that was generated by giant PV in space.

 

Well, it seems some scientists have been playing a little bit too much of this simulation game: https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-discuss-using-satellites-to-beam-solar-energy-collected-in-space-to-earth-12752937

 

If i recall correctly, if something when wrong with your microwave satellite, the microwaves would hit a neighbouring supermarket or, even worse, school. It was a fun game. Doesn't sound so much fun in reality though! 

[Onoff]

Icarus from Die Another Day brought to life!

 

 

[Onoff]

...alright, I know it's not microwave technology.

[Radian]

I think it'd be a better investment that trying to replicate the fusion reactor that generates that energy down here on the ground.

 

A tiny bit more detail about some proposed systems:

[SteamyTea]

Won't it turn all the 5G conspiracists into robots, and give the rest of us (an unspecified) cancer (it is always cancer, never something more mundane but equally as deadly).

[Radian]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

and give the rest of us (an unspecified) cancer (it is always cancer, never something more mundane but equally as deadly).

Just as much chance it could cure cancer.

i.e. zero.

[ProDave]

Stupid idea.  There is enough space on land for solar panels and wind turbines for all our needs.

[Radian]

10 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Stupid idea.  There is enough space on land for solar panels and wind turbines for all our needs.

 

Except that this collects and beams down solar PV from a geostationary orbit that's constantly illuminated.

[Nick Thomas]

.cn is working on this too: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202206/1268326.shtml . LEO test in 2028 if all goes well.

[SteamyTea]

6 minutes ago, Radian said:

Except that this collects and beams down solar PV from a geostationary orbit that's constantly illuminated.

It is always 5 PM somewhere.

 

Not exactly a new idea, and a lot of technical challenges to overcome.

 

But as @ProDave says, we are not short of land (even in the UK).  Think I worked out once that half the area of Cornwall would produce enough GWh (but may have been enough to electrify all out transport, really can't remember).

The middle bit of Cornwall is pretty miserable, so no loss, but anyway, they would not be installed in one contiguous block.

 

I think I read about beaming power from space in Jerry Pournelle's, 1981, A Step Further Out, and it was not a new idea then.

 

Also a bit hard to replace the inverter when it goes wrong.

[Kelvin]

The flight from FF is going to have to consider every possible option including this. It wasn’t possible until we had reusable rockets with big payloads which we now have. Whether it make’s commercial sense vs terrestrial PV solutions is to be determined. 
 

Everything based in space is hard and costly and that isn’t going to change much. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Kelvin

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

consider every possible option including this

The astronomers will be upset, they are upset enough with the current number and orbit of satellites.

I wonder how much energy would be saved by turning off all street lights in the UK.

[Onoff]

The Solex Agitator is what we need. 

[Radian]

I'm not advocating it as a great idea. It would be very vulnerable to hostilities for one thing. I just think it beats the ongoing development of nuclear fusion on all counts - anything that makes use of the gigantic fusion reactor in the sky gets my vote, be it solar PV or wind power. For a fraction of the cost, interconnects around the equator might make more sense.

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, Radian said:

beats the ongoing development of nuclear fusion on all counts

Like perpetual motion machines, they just need to be a bit bigger.

 

6 minutes ago, Radian said:

For a fraction of the cost, interconnects around the equator might make more sense.

Probably not the best route.  Better to take the shortest route between major population centres, which would predominantly be Northern Hemisphere, and over more land than under the sea.

The most productive 'sunshine' belt is on a latitude with Toronto, Madrid, Shenyan, Aomori, Eureka and Harrisburg.

Basically Lat40°.

 

[Radian]

24 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Probably not the best route.  Better to take the shortest route between major population centres, which would predominantly be Northern Hemisphere, and over more land than under the sea.

The most productive 'sunshine' belt is on a latitude with Toronto, Madrid, Shenyan, Aomori, Eureka and Harrisburg.

Basically Lat40°.

I guess it would just depend on how close you could get to the ideal. Nothing says it all has to be on the same latitude. Shame about the Pacific Ocean.

[SteamyTea]

54 minutes ago, Radian said:

Shame about the Pacific Ocean.

Just go North and then a short hop across the Bering Strait, which will soon be Chinese.

Actually, don't really need to cross the Pacific, they can have local geothermal and wind energy.

[Adsibob]

11 hours ago, Radian said:

Just as much chance it could cure cancer.

i.e. zero.

can you explain this please. 

[Radian]

10 hours ago, Adsibob said:

can you explain this please. 

That sounds very ominous 😂

 

I just like to point out that unfounded associations between scary technology X and scary human condition Y are sometimes flipped on their heads as an equally unfounded positive association. The examples that come to mind are the miracle cures supposed to follow from doses of ionising radiation when it was first identified at the turn of the 20th century, and light therapy - a 21st century treatment using IR that is being used to treat a wide range of conditions. The assumption with the latter being that it has a positive effect, yet anything powerful enough to have any effect at all can't just be assumed to be beneficial or harmful to suit some other agenda.

 

We soon realised the harm that can be done with with exposure to ionising radiation. But in the case of IR light therapy, 5G or any other electromagnetic (non-ionising) radiation, the measurable effect is heating: as in microwave cooking or, in the case of measuring tiny amounts of RF power, a Bolometer which is sensitive to nano-watts. Heating is a kinetic response to such radiation. Whether it comes from lighting a log fire, cooking your porridge or sticking a cell-phone next to you head, it's all the same. So small are the power levels involved that if you were standing right next to a 5G antenna you would not notice that you were being ever so slightly warmed. But you would be. Just as you would be if standing next to a lit candle. Or out enjoying the Sun.

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, Radian said:

Or out enjoying the Sun

What is this sun you speak of?

None down here today.

[Radian]

50 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

What is this sun you speak of?

None down here today.

Oh, so far today, I've been able to divert a kWh or so to keep mouser nice and warm.

[SteamyTea]

21 hours ago, Radian said:

We soon realised the harm that can be done with with exposure to ionising radiation. But in the case of IR light therapy, 5G or any other electromagnetic (non-ionising) radiation, the measurable effect is heating:

It is strange how frequency always causes the 'damage' rather than energy levels.

Ionising means removing the electron from the atom, leaving an ion.  It happens all the time and at different energy levels how we make plasma).  Frequency has very little to do with the process, other than the speed and quantity of the processes.  It is all to do with the amount of energy needed to knock the electron into a higher orbit.

Ionisation is a useful process as we can create molecules that would not normally exist in large quantities, or decay into the constituent parts very quickly.  Ozone (O₃) is probably one of the most common ones made and has many indirect advantages (sterilisation), though in large quantises can be damaging (it makes the body 'rust').

 

[Radian]

23 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

It is strange how frequency always causes the 'damage' rather than energy levels.

 

 

In case anyone's worried that a powerful enough 5G signal might still be ionising, this diagram shows there's a lot of other harmless sources between radio and x-rays

 

[SteamyTea]

4 hours ago, Radian said:

 this diagram shows there's a lot of other harmless sources between radio and x-rays

It also reinforces the concept that frequently is important, it uses it as the z-axis after all.

Much better to explain it as small packets of energy (quanta) hitting the atom. 

The more packets sent to the target, the greater likelihood the electron is displaced. This can also explain efficiency quite nicely as most quanta will miss.

Common language breaks down in this realm as it is hard to describe a continuous bombardment of massless sub atomic particles without using the term frequency.

Even E=hv uses frequency to describe the energy.

I wish quantum physics had been explored before Newtonian Physics. We would have a lot less confusion.