|
|
|
|
|
|
by cletus
1704 days ago
|
|
|
A big issue with renewable energy, particularly solar and wind, is that the power output is variable and an electric grid needs a base load to operate. Now I firmly believe the future here is ultimately space-based solar power collectors. I've seen estimates that a panel in space around Earth can generate ~7 times the power it can on Earth. This is a deep topic but generating power in space for use on Earth isn't as crazy as it may sound. Anyway, another potential application is to use variable power output for useful purposes on-site. For example, you can extract CO2 directly from the atmosphere and with simply chemistry you can make gasoline from that. This is currently cost-prohibitive so no one does it. At some point this may become economic, in which case the variable power output won't be an issue. You're now only interested in the total output. You also don't lose power from transmission or require the capital cost of transmission lines. Perhaps CO2 capture is another potential such application. Either the CO2 could be processed on site with a process like this and the byproducts (pure carbon and oxygen) can be sold. |
|
|
Contrast it with the fact that that panel is 1,000x more expensive, and thats a net loss. We are constrained by capital cost, not lack of sunlight or anything else.
Also consider transmission losses, orbital solar collectors must convert that power into microwaves, which are made of photons, then they must be converted back into electrons on earth. That inefficiency is compounded by atmospheric water absorbing microwaves. (you are heating clouds) You have destroyed that 7x advantage.
If you can place a panel in orbit and deliver power to Earth, then you can put a million panels in Sahara Desert and relay that power anywhere on Earth. Solar panels are made of sand, we are not short on sand. If we covered 1% of uninhabitable deserts in panels, thay would produce more power than we could use, and it would be reliable.