this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
119 points (85.6% liked)

Technology

74296 readers
4014 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 1 hour ago

lol, what an insane idea...
A physical cable back to Earth is impossible, otherwise we'd already have space elevators.
Any other wireless transmission would have all the same weather problems and energy losses, it would be WAY cheaper to just build more solar panels on the ground.

[–] TheWeirdo@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 hours ago

Countries will do everything except build nuclear power plants ig.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

This is an idea from the 1960s back when they thought solar panels would be like computer chips and remain super expensive in terms of area but become exponentially better at the amount of sunlight they could convert into electricity.

It makes absolutely zero sense to spend billions of dollars putting solar panels in space and beaming the power back to earth now that they are so cheap per unit area. The one thing you could argue a space based solar array could do would be to stretch out the day length so you need less storage, but that's easier to accomplish using long electrical cables.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago

So could a fucking Dyson sphere. This article is PopMech-tier speculative trash. A flying car in every driveway, any day now since the 1960s…

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 9 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

This energy would then be transmitted to one or more stations on Earth. It is then converted to electricity and delivered to the energy grid or batteries for storage.

How is the energy transmitted to Earth?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah this article is severely lacking in any concrete details.

I'd also like to know how exactly it is that they plan to deploy massive arrays of solar panels to space. Most earth-based solar farms are huge and take up entire fields, some are a few kilometres across in size. That's many orders of magnitude more massive than anything we've previously ever launched.

Plus whatever power transmission system they come up with would have to be powerful to be of any use but if it's that powerful would present an active danger and would effectively constitute a space-based weapon system.

It's a cool sci-fi idea but it is all pie in the sky.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Back of the napkin math:

Largest solar sail (much lighter than panels, but doesn't produce electricity) 2000 sq meters

200w/sq meter

400kwp

Also iirc the space solar farms plans I've seen call for re radiating the energy back via microwaves to dedicated receiving towers on the ground

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 5 hours ago

Yeah I've seen that. Microwave power beaming would work in theory it's just electromagnetic radiation after all. But the vast majority of it is going to get absorbed by water molecules, because that's what microwave radiation does, that's why it cooks your food.

They're probably going to bake a lot of seagulls as well.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 6 hours ago

Solar energy gathered in space is less likely to be affected by cloud cover and is safe from natural disasters such as flooding and earthquakes

You don't say. However I suspect that the chance of being hit by a micrometeorite is significantly higher.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 16 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I think climate change mitigation can be the next scam after AI. Once AI bubble bursts they will start looking for new investments and I think climate change is ready to start generating profits. People are desperate enough to start investing money in things that will limit effect of climate change. Who will profit? Corporation that will work on those projects. Anything space related (solar panels in space, geoengineering) will require Space X/Blue Origin. Google, Microsoft and Amazon are already invested in nuclear fusion and modular reactors. Tesla is an energy provider. Any CO2 sequestration projects will require new startups, obviously backed by the same corporations. My guess is very soon we will see governments paying those companies to solve the problem they created. Even more money will be pumped to the 1%. It went form "climate change isn't real", to "climate change isn't caused by humans", to "it is caused by humans but nothing can be done about it". Next step will be "we can fix it if you pay us".

[–] goatinspace@feddit.org 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Pay to win is always the default in corporate world.

[–] Pussycuntisseur@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 7 hours ago

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.

[–] phonics@lemmy.world 16 points 13 hours ago

solar panels on earth could reduce it 100%

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 84 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

The solar panel is easy, it's the cable run that's a real bitch

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 11 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

Yeah, sending it wirelessly would have massive loss, probably around 90%+

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 11 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Are they really losses when the leaking, unfocused energy turns all buildings in a kilometer radius into microwave ovens? Just fill them up with popcorn packets and invite everyone over for movie night. We could watch one of the James Bond movies where the villain has an orbital deathray. I think there's at least a couple of them.

I saw this documentary about a device that can concentrate solar energy, called a "Solex Agitator." The project went sideways when this guy, who looked an awful lot like Christopher Lee, stole the prototype and tried to sell it to the highest bidder.

The British government somehow got involved and sent a spy to...

Wait... maybe that wasn't a documentary.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 2 points 12 hours ago

It's less about the loss and more about the space required for the receiver and the environmental hazard

[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago

That, and wiping off the caked dust.

[–] PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz 6 points 13 hours ago

Or just provide more subsidies for solar panels at residential home roofs

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 57 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

That sounds like the least economical way possible to build out solar.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 13 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The article is actually discussing a feasibility study for the far future (25 years from now as per the article):

For the first time, researchers from King’s College London have assessed the possible impact that generating solar energy in space could have for Europe. They found it could cut energy battery storage needs by more than two-thirds.

The study, published in Joule, analysed the potential of a design by NASA for solar generation, which is planned to be in use by 2050. The findings show the design could also save money by reducing the cost of the whole power system in Europe by up to 15%, including energy generation, storage and network infrastructure costs – an estimated saving of 35.9 billion euros per year.

Space-based solar power generation involves in-space continuous collection of solar energy. This involves placing large solar panels on satellites in orbit, where they are exposed to much more sunlight and can continuously collect energy without being affected by clouds or the day-night cycle. This energy would then be transmitted to one or more stations on Earth. It is then converted to electricity and delivered to the energy grid or batteries for storage.

It's a cool idea and I'd imagine we'd need an array spanning the globe rather than just over one continent

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

You could build a circle of satellites on the dawn dusk line, just have them do polar orbits. I think there's such a thing as a solar stationary orbit.

The thing is, 25 years isn't really that far in the future. Not when you count all the lead in time. Firstly you have to invent the microwave power transmission array, that's probably going to take it a decade, and that's been optimistic, then you've somehow got to arrange to launch hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of solar power satellites, then you have to figure out a way for the satellites to transmit the energy to the transmission array, and you have to build the receiving array on earth.

It took them 10 months just to build our companies new building, and it's the most generic thing you've ever seen. How are they going to do all this in 25 years?

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 20 points 18 hours ago

(25 years from now as per the article)

Anything 20 years or more away is a pipe dream that isn't likely to happen anywhere close to speculation.

[–] sefra1@lemmy.zip 27 points 18 hours ago (5 children)

This energy would then be transmitted to one or more stations on Earth.

And how do you suppose to do that?

Beam the power from space like they do in Mirai Shounen Conan? Or space shuttles with batteries? Or a giant cable that somehow doesn't break?

It's not possible.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Microwaves or even Masers. This is nothing new, lot's of studies and experiments. It's not infeasible, efficiency not that bad either. But solarpanles on earth have only advantages, especially integrated in roofs or walls.

[–] Blade9732@lemmy.world 21 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

That’s a real genius plan.

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 15 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Feasible? Only time will tell. Possible? Caltech did it two years ago. Look up MAPLE. Wireless energy transfer to/from space was achieved.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 11 points 17 hours ago

At what scale? Milliwatts? Watts? On cloudy days?

This seems very much to fall into the "technically" possible, but impossible to scale realm.

[–] BlazeDaley@lemmy.world 13 points 18 hours ago

RD1 generates power 99% of the year and collects solar radiation by autonomously redirecting its reflectors toward a concentrator to focus sunlight throughout each day. RD2 uses flat panels, with solar cells facing away from Earth and microwave emitters facing toward the Earth. RD2 generates power 60% of the year due to its limited capability to reposition itself or redirect solar radiation toward its solar cells.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230017756/downloads/ASCEND%20SBSP%20Final%2005162024.pdf

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 3 points 18 hours ago

It would probably be done with lasers. Its not perfect tech rn but it is possible. If not the most efficient for its price

[–] Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world 14 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

All fun and games until a piece of space junk knocks into the satellite and you accidentally cut through the Dutch sea wall.

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 22 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I think this was one of the possible disasters that could happen in Sim City 2000

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 12 points 20 hours ago

There would absolutely have to be safety measures on this to avoid that exact scenario from occurring. I cannot remember the author of the book right offhand, but there's a book called PowerSat that goes through something very similar to this. As long as the beam is diffuse and not incredibly focused, it should be fine if something flies through it like a bird or if the beam gets knocked off course, it wouldn't damage infrastructure. There would also need to be good auto cut off functionality built into the thing so that if it realized it was off target, maybe by like a focusing laser or something, it would automatically shut itself down.

[–] RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz 2 points 16 hours ago

Or until sabotage happens, like with the baltic cables and pipes

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Fusion would be much more practical than beaming back power from space. I think the chance of seeing either of those by 2050 is about 0%.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 3 points 12 hours ago

Fusion does not exist and wouldn't be in time if we started buildong commercial plants today. Low lead time is the only shot we have.

Space based solar has already been demonstrated, but will not provide substantial power since the receiver is basically a giant solar array and dead zone where life gets toasted.

[–] BlazeDaley@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

NIMBYies in panic mode.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago

that's some easier said than done statement there

[–] morto@piefed.social 5 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Wouldn't that bring more solar energy to earth and contribute to energy imbalance?

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago

Trivial amounts compared to the solar energy hitting the entire surface of half the Earth.

The problem isn’t incoming energy, it’s outgoing energy. Greenhouse gases reduce the amount of energy radiated back into space and that’s what increases the mean global temperature.

Adding a few hundred square miles of surface area wouldn’t change much.

[–] Part4@infosec.pub 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

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.