A new NASA study seems to pull the plug on space solar power, by saying its vastly more expensive than Earth based solar. - eviltoast
  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    I think it makes sense in a Kardashev scale sort of way.

    In the distant future, human energy demand may exceed what we can gather from terrestrial solar, especially since we wouldn’t devote the entire Earth to solar panels.

    But it makes no sense in this century.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      It doesn’t even make sense in the future. Not only have power requirements decreased over the past two decades, fusion would be a much smaller and denser power generation method than space-based solar.

      If solar power improves and power requirements are reduced, eventually you might just slap a few solar cells on every electronic item and call it a day. Solar powered calculators were very popular.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Sorry, but I need some evidence for your claim that human energy use has declined in the last 20 years because it contradicts what I’ve heard from everyone else.

              • Malgas@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                Per the source you linked:

                Total U.S. energy consumption has increased, but energy consumption per capita has decreased

                • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago
                  1. They provided no evidence for their claim that energy use has increased. They just said “it contradicts what I’ve heard from everyone else.” Since my comment was about efficiency, energy per capita or per device used is the best measuring stick.
                  2. World population is projected to increase for a bit more and then stabilize around 10 billion. Population growth has been declining since 1963.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

                  1. Why am I the only person posting sources? Do your own research.
                  • Malgas@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Why is a direct quote from the article you yourself cited not sufficient for you?

                    It’s not even like it’s buried in there. The bit I quoted is a bold heading, right under a graph that shows the same thing.

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          We use more things, but each thing has become vastly more efficient.

          Cities have more street lights these days, but each street light is likely some form of LED now which is vastly more efficient than the street lights in the 80s

          Computers in the 90s were horribly inefficient for the computational capacity they had, now we have smartphones that are 50x more powerful while their power usage is practically 0 in comparison

          • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            So you’re agreeing that human energy use has increased despite efficiency gains.

            • cm0002@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              No, you’ve missed the point entirely

              I don’t think you fully understand just how efficient things have become.

              An iMac G3 with it’s 400MHz processor in 1998 consumed about 100 watts of power just running.

              In comparison an iPhone 15 pro max with it’s 3.7 GHz processor draws about 14 watts at maximum load and like <2 just idling

              That’s just the consumer end use electronics, power supplies themselves have gotten A SHIT TON better in the last 20 years. Through the 80s and 90s power supplies just were not efficient at all and a ton of power was… just lost…converting from AC to DC.

              On top of that my statement of we use more things might not actually be even true, after I thought about it, we replaced a ton of gadgets from the early 2000s with a singular efficient power-sipping device. We don’t carry MP3 players, CD players, PDAs, Digital Cameras etc any more nor do we really listen to a dedicated radio or stereo setup anymore (Audiophiles excluded).

              So no, I agree with the other poster (who actually provided solid evidence, where’s yours?) Total power usage is trending downwards thanks to efficiency advancements

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        You probably want a comparison to something other than fusion, which is and seemingly will forever be 20 years away.

        It can make sense also, for example, in parts of the world that aren’t a good fit for solar power. I’d argue for more nuclear before space solar, but it’s not like there’s zero sense in it.

        • Windex007@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Despite being perpetually “20 years away”, I still think we’ll crack it before we run out of room on the planet for more solar panels.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            It can make sense also, for example, in parts of the world that aren’t a good fit for solar power. I’d argue for more nuclear before space solar, but it’s not like there’s zero sense in it.

            wild how people literally can’t read more than one sentence before replying.

            • Windex007@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I thought based on your first sentence which implied fusion was a pipe dream, that the second paragraph suggesting “more nuclear” would be referring to fission. “More” implies some already exists, and as you’ve already noted, there is no fusion in use.

              • echo64@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                before we run out of room on the planet for more solar panels

                I’m responding to this, there’s potential uses outside of “we ran out of room on earth”

                It can make sense also, for example, in parts of the world that aren’t a good fit for solar power.