Solar panels in space could cut Europe's renewable energy needs by 80%
Technology
67
Beiträge
50
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
A good reminder of the definition of a parasite is it cannot live without a host. These corporations and capitalists can't live without us but we can live without them which makes them a parasite.
Yep. Crying about the world no longer having billionaires would be like holding a funeral for a tapeworm.
-
cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36081990
How's that coming along?
Oh.
" Solaren has since announced that the contract with PG&E has been forgone"
This is just Space Nuttery. Never, ever, EVER, going to work. Strictly sci-fi.
-
Naw, you just beam it back to earth as a laser. That way you could highjack the signal and fill a house with popcorn kernals a
to start a huge neighborhood block party.Deathray!
-
cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36081990
Might as well just start building the dyson sphere instead
-
Or make more use of renewables. Nuclear has never been cost-efficient, it's just that the costs have been buried in state subsidies to the industry and its supply chain.
Nuclear has never been cost-efficient, it's just that the costs have been buried in state subsidies to the industry and its supply chain.
A lie repeated again and again.
French Cour des Comptes has released a report, back in 2012, the costs of the french nuclear fleet, everything included: 121 billions of euros between 1960 and 2010.
2,4 billions a year. To provide decarbonized and reliable electricity for decades.
To put in perspective, Germany is more than a trillion of euros in for their Energiewende, or about 40 billions of euros a year for ~25 years, and they still have one of the costliest and dirtiest electricity or Europe, while still not being close to stop coal and having no plan to get out of gas.
And for more perspective, EDF had 118 billions of dollars of revenues in 2024, mostly coming from nuclear, and 11 billions of net results, including the payback of the interests of the debt that the french government imposed on EDF.
Anyone claiming nuclear has never been or can’t be profitable or cost-efficient is either uneducated or a liar.
When done right, nuclear is profitable as fuck, that's empirically proved.
-
How's that coming along?
Oh.
" Solaren has since announced that the contract with PG&E has been forgone"
This is just Space Nuttery. Never, ever, EVER, going to work. Strictly sci-fi.
Some sci-fi comes true. Sadly usually only the dystopian ones.
-
cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36081990
Is this the microwave power from space idea again? /wcgw…
-
Nuclear has never been cost-efficient, it's just that the costs have been buried in state subsidies to the industry and its supply chain.
A lie repeated again and again.
French Cour des Comptes has released a report, back in 2012, the costs of the french nuclear fleet, everything included: 121 billions of euros between 1960 and 2010.
2,4 billions a year. To provide decarbonized and reliable electricity for decades.
To put in perspective, Germany is more than a trillion of euros in for their Energiewende, or about 40 billions of euros a year for ~25 years, and they still have one of the costliest and dirtiest electricity or Europe, while still not being close to stop coal and having no plan to get out of gas.
And for more perspective, EDF had 118 billions of dollars of revenues in 2024, mostly coming from nuclear, and 11 billions of net results, including the payback of the interests of the debt that the french government imposed on EDF.
Anyone claiming nuclear has never been or can’t be profitable or cost-efficient is either uneducated or a liar.
When done right, nuclear is profitable as fuck, that's empirically proved.
That might have been true in the past, but right now renewable energy is by far cheaper and faster to build than nuclear energy. (Just look into the final end user prices they produce)
As I believe you are German or at least can read it: here is something well written to read https://quellen.tv/energie#aber-frankreich2025
Also there is more to Germany having costly electricity than not building nuclear power plants as you make it to be.
-
That's not what they are talking about.
They're talking about instability in the electrical grid. If we could just snap our fingers and have instant fusion power tomorrow we still couldn't actually use it because the demand of electricity wouldn't keep up with the supply.
Yes you can store power in batteries and via other methods but only to a certain point, you can consider that storage to just be demand, but beyond that you start to have issues with grid stability. You have to start inventing ways of wasting that power just to get rid of it. As more energy intensive technologies come online you make less and less use of that mitigating technology. Of course the better thing to do would be simply to keep supply roughly in line with demand, which means we don't invent massive energy generating systems if we don't yet need them.
They’re talking about instability in the electrical grid. If we could just snap our fingers and have instant fusion power tomorrow we still couldn’t actually use it because the demand of electricity wouldn’t keep up with the supply.
I’m not sure I understand. Our problem isn’t that we have too much electricity, it’s that the demand for electricity exceeds the production from renewable sources and forces us to rely on burning fossil fuels.
If we replaced all of the coal and gas generation with fusion it would be an immediate improvement. The energy output of controlled fusion can be adjusted in real-time to match the grid needs, exactly like fossil fuels generation.
One of the points of space based solar was that you don’t need batteries.
Terrestrial solar needs energy storage technology because the sun doesn’t shine at night. That’s not true for space based solar, it is always in the sun so the power output is reliable and controllable.
-
They’re talking about instability in the electrical grid. If we could just snap our fingers and have instant fusion power tomorrow we still couldn’t actually use it because the demand of electricity wouldn’t keep up with the supply.
I’m not sure I understand. Our problem isn’t that we have too much electricity, it’s that the demand for electricity exceeds the production from renewable sources and forces us to rely on burning fossil fuels.
If we replaced all of the coal and gas generation with fusion it would be an immediate improvement. The energy output of controlled fusion can be adjusted in real-time to match the grid needs, exactly like fossil fuels generation.
One of the points of space based solar was that you don’t need batteries.
Terrestrial solar needs energy storage technology because the sun doesn’t shine at night. That’s not true for space based solar, it is always in the sun so the power output is reliable and controllable.
Space-based solar would generate orders of magnitude more power than we actually have a use for.
-
Space-based solar would generate orders of magnitude more power than we actually have a use for.
It would generate as much or as little power as we design it to. As little as a single solar panel or a multi-gigawatt array.
Even in operation it wouldn’t overproduce electricity. We have people, grid managers, who’s entire job is to coordinate all of the generation sources on the grid so that they adjust their output in order to match demand and maintain grid stability.
Our generation capacity is always higher than normal demand, but all generation methods have the ability to control their output.
-
Some sci-fi comes true. Sadly usually only the dystopian ones.
Because they don't need warp drive and tritanium...
-
Countries will do everything except build nuclear power plants ig.
Don't feed the troll
Renewables are going so hard, it's not even a competition anymore -
cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36081990
This article feels like AI, generated from one sentence.
