this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
128 points (86.0% liked)
Technology
74296 readers
3634 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wouldn't that bring more solar energy to earth and contribute to energy imbalance?
In short. Presumably the idea would be to 1. only beam down what is needed, and 2. have it replace fossil fuels, which are very much responsible for the change in the planet's energy imbalance.
It would also reduce the energy cost of less efficient 'on Earth' solar arrays, which have problems like intermittency that orbital solar panels wouldn't have.
IF this is anywhere near technically feasible it seems like exploring the idea publicly like this isn't a bad thing.
BUT, after a couple decades of watching proposed miracle tech going nowhere, I can say that ultimately hopium really isn't healthy: we needed to get real a decade or two (or three or four) ago. Relying on non-functioning future tech like carbon capture/storage (or this, if it isn't actually feasible) is nothing more than justification for not making necessary changes now.