How space-based solar power can save the planet | FT

Space launch costs are dropping rapidly. Solar panels are cheaper than ever. Could space-based solar power soon be price-competitive with nuclear? Promoted as a zero-carbon solution, classified military space planes have also been conducting experiments into wireless power transmission. The FT's Peggy Hollinger looks at whether space-based solar power can move beyond science fiction.
#solarpower
See if you get the FT for free as a student (ft.com/schoolsarefree) or start a £1 trial: subs.ft.com/spa3_trial?segmen...
► Check out our Community tab for more stories or to suggest videos.
► Listen to our podcasts: www.ft.com/podcasts
► Follow us on Instagram: / financialtimes

[@Misclaneous]

Seems like the price of space-based solar energy only really needs to compare with nuclear before it becomes competitive for large scale use. Certainly an interesting concept.

[@ALBERT-oj1vn]

It has an risk of becoming an microwave weapon as well for mass destruction of not only cities but entire countries with an push of an button. I hope it will be used for peace purpose only.

[@DanielRichards644]

@Andrew Musk's targets for Starship costs pretty much makes it the perfect vehicle for this type of thing.

[@kathleenmann7311]

Elon wants to keep profits for himself. That’s why he’s been discouraging others.

[@Elliot_97]

Exactly. Its a mistake to think this is operating in the same competitive landscape as Earth based solar. It’s a base load source, not an intermittent source, therefore it only needs to beat the next best base load option.

[@bobshakor8184]

Orbital solar farms along with space energy storage capacity , comprised of flywheels , could be employed as laser propulsion system to power spacecraft to other planets. The design could also supply power to hard to reach areas on earth.

[@coolneseths9551]

)))))))l)) Pm Lxm

[@Pongant]

This documentary here was actually really well done, and excellently researched.

[@thesuit4820]

I remember this from Sim City. Always tried to build one in hopes of actually seeing the corresponding disaster...

[@devpatel8453]

Great video on Space based solar power 👍

[@ekbergiw]

Fascinating presentation. Are there any issues with atmospheric activity that might change the reliability or vary the intensity of the beam? For instance, the increase in the electromagnetic activity of the daytime atmosphere interferes with AM signals and decreased activity at night allows for a larger radius for AM transmission. (Am reflection happens at greater altitude) Would this increased activity during the day interfere with penetrating radio waves from space in a similar way as it interferes with AM transmission?

[@madebi85]

This is a very nicely edited video, hats off to the producers

[@serversurfer6169]

*"…so the receiver would be about 6km in diameter."* _"Wow! A 6km radius is pretty big!"_ 🤦‍♂️

[@jvs333]

We already have large scale mirror plants. So it’s a feasible build.

[@hydrangeadragon]

sounds great, I'm all for it!!

[@backpocketmedia3479]

Where did the animation for this video come from? Did you create them FT? @financialtimes

[@xzh2270]

the Blue Danube 2001 Space Odyssey~

[@ninadsheth8422]

Nice video looks like a long shot especially if grid connectivity and economics of solar on the ground continue to improve...

[@DanielRichards644]

Ground Based Solar is horribly inefficient, only works at peak efficiency for a few hours a day, works better the closer to the equator you are, is completely unusable for half the day or more, this would be always on, always at peak efficiency, it's just a matter of an affordable large scale launch platform like oh say STARSHIP.

[@Melvin-cy1wn]

I agree with elon and that lady said. It doesn't make sence in large scale application so elon is right. But it can be used in small scale operations like military. Another fact: If this works in large scale elon is the guy that can make it most profitable.He have solar in Tesla and Cheapest rockets at SpaceX.

[@yikwonjang2978]

Future warfare with electrically charged weapons and who knows robots recharged from space. That sounds about right. We have most of the technologies already. Even in a small warfare in Ukraine-Russia conflict they use low tech drones. Imagine those drones could fly infinitely by being recharged continously from space charger. No wonder China wants to dominate this technology.

[@keliannesnape7510]

All I could hear repeating in my mind whilst watching this was "we just wanna charge you for something that should be free, or theres no point doing it"

[@prolarka]

Nothing is for free and the only thing really is worth doing what generates profit.

[@user-xx2lk3yo7l]

this seems good perspective for future Mars settlement. Or for space objects power supply. This is not so big power impact as compare to other perspective energy sources on earth

[@efrenleonar5954]

Love it!

[@AZ-hj8ym]

How can it produce power 24*7 facing the sun when aims at an receiver on earth at the same time?

[@bradynmelser8983]

Dang…I literally had this 30 minutes ago. This video was the second one that showed up as I began research.

[@jacoboku]

James Webb telescope seems a piece of cake in comparison, but the idea is beautiful

[@lecturesfromleeds614]

UK space agency is a strong supporter of this

[@jacoboku]

It's only that a power RF generator in space is a huge maintenance free challenge

[@billionairesinsightrow5801]

in winter we can try

[@bongdiego8837]

Cost effecient?

[@JLneonhug]

Deg of equipment is significant. A "beam of energy" is science fiction.. I'm also a space engineer

[@Mihai9985]

Me too but in China is already building and is feseabele if phisics permit it can be build and China will demonstrate this soon enough.

[@DanielRichards644]

Microwave Radio Transmissions from satellites to ground based equipment are "beams of energy" and those seam to work just fine.

[@yikwonjang2978]

Wow. I use wireless charger to charge my phone? Also, there's already technology ti charge devices from 100 ft? Wow, just wow.

[@Planet_Xplorer]

Egypt's BenBan solar farm is already 6 square kilometers!. You can see it from space.

[@Linkwii64]

this is like you use magnified glass to cook ants.

[@andreavaleri0]

Nice! One consideration: what about debris in space? How "high" should that be to avoid being wasted? Other would be about safety to maintain it (e.g. rocket attacks, cybersecurity), but maybe they are still too far-fetched questions.

[@andreavaleri0]

@@Charlie-gf4mvyou are probably right. It would make little sense to deploy it in lower layers of the atmosphere, at least in this regard. Let's see!

[@TheMagicJIZZ]

It's in Meo or geo doesn't matter

[@DanielRichards644]

same thing the ISS does, simply alter it's orbit to avoid the debris and as for anti-satellite rocket attacks, well that same risk applies to ground based power generation too.

[@andreavaleri0]

@@DanielRichards644 good point. Thanks!

[@spacechannelfiver]

it would need to be in geo synchronous orbit, so about 37000km up., so quite a lot of energy to get something up there.

[@vspatmx7458]

If Musk finds it crazy then it can only mean one thing. Its the future and will happen over a period of time and the idea must Be explored and definitely not discarded.

[@bestintentions6089]

Then it follows that America needs to keep buying Russian boosters for space program and bow to Putin😂

[@GonzoTehGreat]

If Musk genuinely believes Space Solar Power is a bad idea then he's a shortsighted fool. It's probably still decades away from becoming technologically feasible and perhaps even a century from becoming commercially viable, but it's the future.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

@@bestintentions6089 No, it doesn't. The USA is already years, if not decades, ahead of Russia, in rocket and space technologies, but after the Space Shuttle was retired it became more cost effective for NASA to use Soyuz to transport crew to and from the ISS. Until recently NASA and Roscosmos continued collaborating closely by avoiding US-Russian politics and this continues to be the case, even now, despite Putini's best efforts.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

@Andrew Who is "they"?

[@DanielRichards644]

@@GonzoTehGreat Putins best efforts? Joe the Kid Sniffer is the one trying to start a war with Russia when America shouldn't be involved at all in the conflict between Russia and the Ukrainian Nazi's (according to TIME) bombing the ethnically russian areas of Ukraine.

[@morpher44]

Unlike Tesla's idea, this still has a buyer and a seller. Tesla would want you to beam it down to the ENTIRE planet, and have anyone on the planet be able to receive the power. Tesla was using much longer waves at Colorado springs. Also, Tesla needed only a receiver, as the cosmos was the transmitter.

[@EuDouArteHipHopArtCulture21]

i want this.

[@TheWadetube]

They haven't answer the basic questions of solar power conversion rates per square meter. The NASA guy didn't contradict Elon Musks claims that there is only double the intensity of the sun in space. We don't know how much of the solar electricity generated will make it to Microwave energy, what the efficiency rate of that is. I heard in a recent video that it is only 66%. Then how much of that beam is going to land on your antenna? Geosynchronous orbit is close to 24,000 miles if I recall correctly, and microwave beams are not a slender line like a laser beam is. That beam will disperse over that distance. Fourthly, how much of that energy that falls on the antenna will be converted to electricity and how much will pass through into the ground. Fifthly, if the power is only one quarter of the sunlight you could get as much power from solar panels with the same land area. We don't need much electricity after midnight, a simple battery could meet our nocturnal needs. This idea is insanely expensive and large. Sixthly, this could be weaponized , concentrated and be used to kill people, destroy airports and cities and maybe military bases. Or it could just miss the antenna and burn the grass a mile away.

[@robertmanheim5330]

;760

[@dolphinboy9717]

weaponization was my exact thought too.

[@JFrazer4303]

Anyone who could weaponize the beam could make their own weapon, much better and cheaper. That's a red herring. Conversion losses mean nothing when collector size is arbitrary. 100% of the beam is caught by the antenna. The wavelength cannot pass through.

[@PhilipJackson03]

Are there not any concerns about malfunctioning, damage and what would be done to fill the gap if that happens? It’s an interesting idea but I’m surprised that wasn’t even addressed.

[@adrianthoroughgood1191]

Emergency backup can always be gas for whatever power source you are using. Governments likely will need to buy the gas power plants to use for backup because it won't be economical for private companies to maintain them just for emergencies.

[@DanielRichards644]

the same thing that would happen if the baseline Nuclear Plant was damaged and went into meltdown, or if you had enough of these platforms on orbit you could redirect one to compensate for a damaged one

[@Atipat12]

AMAZING 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎

[@ivanskorak1686]

Nice to see everyone clicking "likes" on each other while lamenting childish daydreams - it takes me back 60 years - to my childhood. In the meantime, I recommend looking out the window at the real world at least once a day!

[@peredavi]

It is all interesting,but mow small modular nuclear, thorium, molton salt. and continue with fusion R&D is much wiser.

[@petepete2284]

Hu. People say my ideas are out there. I typed in ,Collecting solar energy from space and found this. It cant be that far out there now can it?

[@Yotrek]

What is the cost (excluding financing costs) to generate 100% of the world’s energy needs using spaced base solar? $100b? $500b? $1t? Edit: what is the cost to build one unit, enough to power a city with one million homes?

[@eduardkasa2697]

Taking into account the cost from the international space station, and the recent developments from starlink with due regard to reusable rocket technology, the trial for a million homes would cost about $40-$50 billion. Scaling that up; 8 billion people / by 4 people per household (average) then you get 2 billion houses need it. By the time that happens, we will have "fast and furious: the 69 story" out in cinemas

[@Yotrek]

@@eduardkasa2697 that is not what the Proponent of space solar at CalTech estimates. He says he could build proof of concept for $500m to $1b.

[@eduardkasa2697]

@@Yotrek hey; proof of concept is alright for that price and might actually be even lower if left to elon. I think proof of concept as shown in the video is already a done deal. I think even Tesla himself had a proof of concept to certain degree. However, cost for a million homes i think goes beyond proof of concept and more towards getting equipment manufactured and throw into space.

[@JFrazer4303]

Since 2003, the US has spent $14 trillion+ on military, mostly to fight over oil.

[@subvet657]

it doesn't exist? then why has PG&E signed a purchase agreement with Solaren to do just that?

[@AndyLowe-net]

this is an interesting concept but if you start to rely on this as your baseload then it seems like it leaves you vulnerable as all an adversary needs to do is destroy your satelite(s) and they take away your power. we need to be thinking in terms of energy security and independence... unless you can somehow defend your space assets againt all threats but with USA and China looking into this, it is going to lead to the militarisation of space. Looking at the Russia Ukraine conflict, Russia is able to target Ukraines power stations and even though they are unwilling to directly attack nuclear power stations (due to fear of political backlash) there would be no such problem with destroying a solar space satellie as it would not cause nuclear consequences. so perhaps its better to just focus on more and more efficient localised and decentralised solar + storage. by the time this space satellite concept can be deployed at any meaningful scale, terrestrial solar + storage will have already become cheaper and more efficient which will make the space solar unnessesary

[@JFrazer4303]

Anyone who can attack it in geosynch, can attack you directly. That's a red herring. They can also build their own, rather than try to conquer your land for oil pipelines and your industrial capacity.

[@zyme4569]

2:10 one farm enough for 1million homes... There's approximately 8 billion people in the world. Let's pretend you want this to be the only source of power that provides energy for homes. Let's try and do some rough maths. Let's say 4 people per home that's 2 billion homes. The solar farm provides enough power for 1 million homes. So that would mean you'd need 2000 solar space farms. 2:20 The ground receiver needs to be 6km wide that would be 12000km. That's larger than the circumference of the moon. The amount of land you would need to use wouldn't be practical without taking up farmland or destroying natural habitats. I think overall when combined with other energy sources. It has potential to contribute to the global energy needs. It's a huge project to undertake

[@JFrazer4303]

It's a straw man to try to depict it as a single receiving antenna. Now go on about the scale of industry needed for _any other _ power source, providing grid power. We'll wait.

[@GroverAU]

Please explain why when asked about the powerloss issue, they didnt elaborate only explained that "Musk is wrong". Thats fine if he is wrong, but why not answer the question? Based on _current_ microwave technology, the losses are at least half of the captured energy in space. Conversion and atmosphere is a _real_ problem, especially in space, since conversion needs heat management which is not easy to do. The other "undiscussed" problem all the time, is the impact on the upper atmosphere it has (ionosphere is impacted by microwave radiation) and the problem of atmospheric dispersion means a large portion of the energy is _actually_ going into heating up the atmosphere? Thats insane by itself. Where are the "scientists" simply explaining how these key problems are going to be addressed?

[@eclipsenow5431]

Build a solar panel factory on the moon where the launch costs are 1/24th of here on Earth - and you could have an economic rationale for a moon base as well! A moon base fed by the $10 TRILLION energy market.

[@LG-xp6fn]

A = pi*r^2, move the solar panels closer to the sun, halve the distance = 4x the power, move 10x closer = 100x the power, move them 1000x closer to the sun than earth = 1 million times more power (for the same size panels).

[@Atipat12]

Make Deep #Space Economy !!!! 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@dac545j]

Walter Sobchak ... "Eyebrows, Dude."

[@kkrolik2106]

Space solar Yes but if build from recurses acquired in Space /Moon, Build Automating Mines and factories on Moon and launch Ready Power satellites to Earth Orbit via magnetic catapult.

[@bojackhorsingaround]

WTP is extremely inefficient over distance and dangerous in many ways than its feasibility.

[@Atipat12]

More #Space Government Bonds !!!!

[@saraswatkin9226]

I just want to know of it will be cheaper or else forget it.

[@yikwonjang2978]

They don't need your money. Wireless charging anywhere in the world. Do you not see the concept? It's robots that do not need charging stations. Or drones. Can you imagine a drone flying 24/7 being recharged from space charger and what it will be used for? What's stopping it from making manless flight jets or warships that can roam around the earth without needing oil or recharging? How about flying cars that currently can only fly few hours at most? What if those cars could be recharged as the fly? No, they don't need your money.

[@David-ug9gv]

If if if it works

[@terenceharvey6432kong]

wireless baby its the only way too go

[@TheEmpowerment1]

Its impossible because you cannot transmit the power back to earth, esp. While it's spinning at 1000 mph. Also the losses thru the atmosphere of energy would destroy its viability.

[@DanielRichards644]

there are plenty of satellites in GEO STATIONARY ORBIT (always pointing at the same place on earth), so you are WRONG on that part, also ALL COMMUNICATION SATELLITES use either lasers or microwaves to transmit data back to earth, this is just that scaled up to higher power levels, it's not a question of could it be done, we actually have the technology to do it today, it's simply a question of economic viability, what needs to happen to make it cheaper and/or more efficient.

[@TheEmpowerment1]

@@DanielRichards644 don't forget safety. Civilian complaint and worry is why we don't have a ton of safe, affordible nuclear power rampant across the US. Also, lasers (photonic emission) is a terrible means of carrying energy and is very very lossy. MICROWAVE Is also quite inefficient and is very dangerous to human health a high amplitude, as in blasting radiation through the air. If citizens won't let you have nuclear reactors due to irrational radiological fears, they certainly aren't going to let you blast huge amounts of radiation thru space pointing at the earth. This is why it's impossible.

[@grobsop6688]

Well, most of the inventions we use in civilian society, came from military research.

[@joshuafletcher3107]

Economics shouldn't be as important as survival, and that's literally what's going to be at stake if we don't start working together to save the planet. there is not one solution. we basically have to use all means available to us to generate power which will in turn help us survive whilst maintaining our living standards.

[@uriabinenshtok]

why would this be better than simple solar panels

[@ingbtc]

lost in transmision ?

[@TheMagicJIZZ]

It's a double loss Photon to electron to photon to electron

[@nohedsheikh3764]

Reason is not capability of we can't do but the reason is political and trust because every country will think they can use as weapon. Engineering is not issue but political . Politicians are not mature enough to harness this engineering Marvel they only think how we can use as weapon.

[@morpher44]

It makes sense for the space-based solar station to also provide EYES on the sun like NASA-ESA Solar & Heliospheric Observatory mission -- SOHO.

[@maheshcheulkar213]

Sun is only energy part not a gravity

[@howardgray6407]

looks like the receivers would be the footprint size of Lahaina...

[@davidwestwater2219]

Wouldn't it burn the atmosphere

[@TubersAndPotatoes]

What are the cons of this? Light pollution during night time?

[@alanboulter7319]

Lol. Do you KNOW what microwaves are??

[@JFrazer4303]

A new constellation of "stars" across the southern sky. If they are brightly reflective towards the ground.

[@christopherscobie]

Oops zapped a city

[@JFrazer4303]

And all you achieved is to blank out some portion of the TV portion of the spectrum, temporarily.

[@hermangarrett3486]

So, we need a BILLION of these in space to supply 1/100,000th of our need?

[@Atipat12]

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@solexxx8588]

What could go wrong with a high energy microwave beam pointed at earth? lol

[@spiridonnspiridonn4596]

Идея и планы построить космические солнечные электростанции и доставлять из Космоса энергию на Землю для обеспечения ими потребностей в масштабах континентов не представляются продуманными с общеметодологической ( ф и л о с о ф с к о й ) точки зрения. На протяжении 2-х миллиардов лет Природа при помощи фотосинтеза аккумулировала энергию Солнца, поступающую на Землю, и к о н с е р в и р о в а л а её в остатках растений, тем самым снижая окружающую температуру на Земле. Врезалось в память когда-то прочитанное, что если бы не поглощение растениями поступающей энергии Солнца, то на пустынной Земле установилась бы температура значительно выше 100 градусов. В обобщенном приближении можно считать, что в течение последних 200 лет разбросанные по континентам Земли тепловые электростанции (на угле, нефти, газе и другом топливе) обеспечивали энергетические потребности человечества, сжигая при этом законсервированные Природой энергетические ресурсы Солнца, поступавшие на Землю в течение 2-х миллиардов лет. Сжигание сопровождалось 1) выделением тепла; 2) вредными химическими выбросами. А потребляемая электроэнергия в конечном итоге практически преобразовывалась в тепло. Вот и получилось, что дополнительно к текущей солнечной, поступающей на Землю, энергия от работы электростанций способствовала медленному сдвигу теплового баланса (и, соответственно, температуры) на Земле. Расплата вылилась в ныне сплошной поток природных катаклизмов. В общем случае, заложенное в упомянутую идею д о п о л н и т е л ь н о е до существующего природного поступление энергии на Землю из Космоса , в конечном итоге (даже без вредных химических выбросов!) будет приводить к дальнейшему повышению установившейся температуры на Земле. А не к решению проблемы глобального потепления... Другое дело, если осваивать и массово использовать для земных потребностей аккумуляцию и консервацию солнечной энергии, природным путем поступающей с е й ч а с на Землю. [26.03.2024]

[@william2chao]

We can also use it too keep the world in peace.

[@maheshcheulkar213]

Planet has a how gravity

[@TheCJUN]

SimCity 2000 did this.

[@JFrazer4303]

Yes because tabloid media and video games are always an accurate representation of things

[@Etaoinshrdlu69]

You expect us to microwave our planet?

[@menassies3224]

Lmao

[@devpatel8453]

Did you know Banana 🍌 also radiat E.M waves? He said That this Rays have long wavelength so it won't harm

[@siredward9568]

RIP flying Birbs.. 🐦🐦🐦

[@JFrazer4303]

Not many birds are bigger than the wavelength, and if they loiter in the densest part of the beam for a few hours, they might warm up 1/10th degree.

[@Graeme_Lastname]

Will require acres of solar cells. Chances are damage from space junk over that area would be a common occurrence. I'm no expert, but, that's how it looks to me. B well all. 🙂

[@nadvga6650]

it sounded like a focused documentary. but then went on to popular subject matters.

[@fladave99]

ONLY THING - Its gonna cost ya

[@jvs333]

It’s funny for musk to call something crazy. This from a guy that thinks he can colonize mars (a planet with no breathable air, cold frozen geography, 300 mph planetary wind sand storms) with a million people. To terraform mars would take at the quickest centuries, but most likely millenniums. I think the ability to develop a solar energy system orbiting earth is more feasible

[@DanielRichards644]

Mars colonies would be mostly sub-terranian and the main point is to have humans in sufficient numbers on another planet in case Earth is hit with an E.L.E. (Extinction Level Event), but he also thought the Democrats where the party of "kindness", so I wouldn't take everything he says as accurate, he's also full bore into Lithium Batteries that are on the verge (next 10 years or less potentially) of being replaced by far superior battery tech that would cost less to make, have higher energy density, faster recharge and more charge cycles, so it's no surprise he's behind the curve on solar too.

[@mikeccuk2006]

If EVs could be charge this way anywhere on earth, then you can drive without stopping

[@Hamsteak]

Elon musks doesn't like it cause he won't profit off it.

[@palindromic7873]

Perhaps you might like to employ a few genuine professional engineers working in the real world. Your journalism might improve somewhat (a lot actually).

[@yikwonjang2978]

That's what people said when Bill gates said people will read magazines from the internet before the internet. They did not believe him. LOL. Whoever thought 30 years ago we would have a cell phone like this? Just in science fictions.

[@yctai6151]

FT, it must be some good stuff you're smoking!

[@my1vice]

Solar is the only future power source.

[@zayan3346]

who come here after watching druv rathee video

[@Muddyboimiami]

🙏❤️🙏🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@tanujSE]

It's good if we have something for future but antagonism of capitalism cannot be solved and is most dangerous to existence as its conflict with majority as Engels rightly said "abolition of anti thesis between town and village is utopia just like abolition of anti thesis between capitalist and wage workers"

[@Mihai9985]

I assure China is already building one, can't wait what US and EU will say after they build it up and start to take benefits from it while they will only stair at it and dram how beatifull would be to have their own.

[@TheMagicJIZZ]

The US had one. It's on the x378b Spaceplane It's in loe for sending power to autonomous planes

[@nohedsheikh3764]

USA only think about weapon system and rivalry they made. USA parliament is like ok we don't approve this budget of solar array space system and they will give safety and environment reason but if you tell them Sir Sir it can be use as weapon and Russia and china developing it ok ,where should i sign 😅😅😅😅 check the history

[@eleazarreyes1915]

wonder how many birds will this concept, kill. This thing can also be converted into a super weapon.

[@DanielRichards644]

you clearly didn't listen to ANYTHING IN THE VIDEO, the whole concept of the wavelength the energy travels on is that it is HARMLESS, running at a quarter the strength of simply standing out in the sun in terms of radiation exposure.

[@jonathanbartsch2938]

This is a joke, for so much infastructure for so little power in the 100's KW that's nothing to power a thousand homes? Are you kidding, are you an engineer or a dreamer? Nuclear salt reactors and the new fusion coming soon is the answer. This is a lot of rockets and fuel and expense for such a small ROI.

[@eddiestevenson-kaatsch6306]

Just to make a VERY fundamental point here... The Sun is space based and it sends us solar energy 24/7 to 50% of the world at any one time. A solar farm 200miles square could supply the United States with an excess of solar generated electricity, thus that it could even export the stuff it would be so awash with power. When you look how small a plot of land that is by comparison to the land mass, and the profligacy of American power usage, sticking stuff in space to do what can be achieved far more cheaply and easily on planet Earth makes zero sense. This is just more fluff and nonsense generated by those who want to slow the transition to green electrical power by making it seem like rocket science. Continuing with America as an example, that benighted nation has only just got its first wind farm at sea under way... just one. So wind power still has a huge way to go along with ground based solar generation. There is now a burgeoning industry in supplying and fitting giant battery farms around the world, using very inexpensive and reliable (but heavy) battery technology, which can keep the power flowing during those occasions when none is being generated (like at night). All this is available right now. It is being made and used ,right now. It is cheaper than using coal and oil,, right now. It takes about two years to payback the investment, right now. This technology was being discussed when I was a boy, over 50 years ago. It's so out of date it's pathetic, hearing this drivel from a news source that ought to know better for pities sake!

[@falconeagle3655]

Exactly energy export is 100 time viable and economic than this stupid thing

[@redseventyfiveprime5018]

200 square miles? You are at least 25 times off. Total USA energy consumption in 2020 was 93 quadrillion Btu (see US energy information administration). It equals 27 trillion kilowatt-hours per year. Or 75000 gigawatt-hours per day. Average daily insolation is about 6kWh/m^2/day. That is USA needs around 12 billion square meters or 4800 square miles of solar panels to match energy consumption on average. To supply demand in winter time you need to about triple energy capacity: 15000 square miles of solar. To store energy for the night you need at least 75000 gigawatt-hours of batteries or $7.5 trillion for batteries only, if prices will fall to $100 per kWh. The figures can be reduced by using wind, nuclear power and pumped energy storage, but it's a very large undertaking anyway. I wouldn't expect that we will be able to keep current standards of living and transition the entire economy into carbon-neutral at the same time. Oil and natural gas are versatile and energy-dense substances. Replacing them will require much doing economically and politically.

[@booperdooper1790]

A problem with only ground-based solar power is we do not have enough batteries to store what we need over times were we do not have access to sun. And you can't just transport power from one side of the planet to the other. It is expensive as hell and you lose some energy overtime when you have to transport it over very long distances

[@dnmurphy48]

@@redseventyfiveprime5018 4800 is a tiny fraction of the US land mass, . The build and running costs would be high though, especially in space.

[@DanielRichards644]

How Much FARM LAND would have to be converted to Solar Farm or how much FOREST would have to be clear cut to create the 200 square miles of solar farm? did you think about that? Also did you think about how much of the earth would have to be strip mined for raw materials to build that? FYI that long term goal would be on orbit construction from materials mined from captured asteroids so you wouldn't need to strip mine Earth for the raw materials. Yeah that part is probably 40-50 years out. The main point of this is the surface area of the earth based collector is much smaller and could potentially even be integrated with some types of farm land compared with ground based solar.

[@allwinaugustine]

Stop quoting that billionaire crazy man.

[@benjamindover4337]

Why not put nuclear reactors on the moon and beam the power down to Earth?

[@redseventyfiveprime5018]

Astronomical capital and operating costs. Higher probability of nuclear fuel scattering on an unsuccessful launch (there will be less short-lived active isotopes than in a reactor meltdown though). Misalignment of a power transmission beam can cause problems or it can be used as a weapon.

[@TheMagicJIZZ]

@@redseventyfiveprime5018 actually you're wrong. It's been done before with RTG and the Russian have satellite with nuclear power in loe Space power solar can be done lasers or Microwave but in can be done with nuclear reactor just aswell It wouldn't require the glass or mirrors. You could definitely do it

[@redseventyfiveprime5018]

@@TheMagicJIZZ I'm not sure what you disagree with. It makes sense to use kilo- and megawatt class reactors to power probes and interplanetary vehicles. It doesn't make much sense to move gigawatt class reactor to the Moon and beam energy back to Earth.

[@nohedsheikh3764]

😂😂😂 every problem solution for USA and Russian is Nuclear .

[@GonzoTehGreat]

Beam what exactly? Current nuclear (fission) reactors use the heat produced to create steam to drive turbines, so there's nothing to "beam" and any extra energy conversion will inevitably result in further loss (as no conversion is 100% efficient). Until there's an electricity grid between the Earth and Moon your suggestion doesn't make sense and by the time we're able to build one of those we should've solved Nuclear Fusion...

[@maheshcheulkar213]

That is not true sun is big star

[@Rocket_Man]

🍗

[@jimcrelm9478]

Is there a way of safely harvesting the cooked birds and insects from around the receiver site? 🍗

[@leomuller4716]

solve global warming by microwaving the earth? you must be joking

[@MegaBob222222]

Nuclear is the way.

[@sebastianwrites]

Is Elon Musk thinking in terms of 'himself' being in charge of this space solar... judging by his petty narcissistic behaviour since he took over Twitter, he'd be well on the way to wrecking anything he put his hands to?

[@contramendace]

Spaced based solar power is an IQ test. Did you pass or fail?

[@unnamedness]

We only talk. but China is executing it.

[@keithedwards9953]

Seems like a good way to microwave the planet. 🤨

[@textjoint]

everyone is drunk in this video