Solar and wind energy could fulfill energy demand 10-fold, Oxford study finds::undefined

  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’d use frequencies that can penetrate cloud cover in that case, it wouldn’t work otherwise because then it would still be subject to weather.

    • Psaldorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know for sure but it’s particulates that make it a nuclear winter, not just cloud (water) but would also need to penetrate the clouds as well.

      It’s probably not wise for me to Google “what frequencies of EM can penetrate a nuclear winter clouds” though 🙂

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s actually a pretty good point and I don’t know how it would work either. It would definitely interfere with the signal to some extent.

    • Alex@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some sort of orbital death beam? I seem to recall a 2000ad story around a space energy beaming facility that goes horribly wrong.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh sure, it sounds extremely dangerous, just like standing too close to a radar will poach your brain. The satellite beaming the energy back would have to stay on target and if it didn’t it would need a quick and safe way to shut off. Of course dissipation of excess energy in a ground-based grid is a serious issue, so how you would design a satellite to deal with the sudden stop in energy flow is completely beyond me. Maybe you just write it off and launch another one in that case, and you have a lot of redundant paths rather than one critical one.