Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Earth has only 100m years left

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,790 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The moon is 400 times closer to the earth than the sun

    on average the moon is the same distance from the sun as the earth and so gets the same amount of sunshine as the top of our atmosphere


    the moon gets maybe 30% more light than the earths surface due to no athmosphere. BUT a solar panel on the moon would be exposed to solar wind and radiation and far more UV and greater temperature extremes and moon dust that's very sharp too. higher temps mean lower efficiency BTW


  • Options
    #33
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    The moon is 400 times closer to the earth than the sun

    on average the moon is the same distance from the sun as the earth and so gets the same amount of sunshine as the top of our atmosphere


    the moon gets maybe 30% more light than the earths surface due to no athmosphere. BUT a solar panel on the moon would be exposed to solar wind and radiation and far more UV and greater temperature extremes and moon dust that's very sharp too. higher temps mean lower efficiency BTW

    Not to mention, how are you getting the energy back to Earth, and what is the efficiency of that transfer?


  • Options
    #34
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,790 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Not to mention, how are you getting the energy back to Earth, and what is the efficiency of that transfer?
    best efficiency is maybe 50% with rectennas and that's in good weather from LEO

    The anti-mobile phone lobby would go apoplectic if it was explained to them just how many mobile phone masts it would be equilivent to.

    Next time you go to a fishing port count the radars, each one uses way more than a mast

    also solar panels are about 30c/watt
    getting to LEO for €5,000 a Kg is still something that hasn't happened
    then you've to get to the Moon, handwaving a hall effect drive 'cos you'll have loads of solar power , but you still need reaction mass and engines and stuff so lot's of Kg's

    then you've to land on the Moon, that task will require having 50% of your remaining mass as propellant,

    then you have to deploy or build the panels and all the mass for all the systems or grunts to do that.

    and add in redundancy , you can't just go on ebay and order more panels from China with free postage


  • Options
    #35
    euser1984
    Registered Users Posts: 1,977 ✭✭✭euser1984


    It would cost the current value of the entire energy industry as of now to implement.

    Microwaves can go through clouds, hurricanes etc.

    It's possible to send power via optical beams of light at the moment though not practical. The issue is finding the right way to do it.


  • Options
    #36
    Calibos
    Registered Users Posts: 7,807 ✭✭✭Calibos


    Because You know so little, you don't know how little you know. [Head Explodes]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Calibos
    Registered Users Posts: 7,807 ✭✭✭Calibos


    WRT the Subject of the thread. Asking what 'humans' are going to do about the event in 100million years makes as much sense as having asked a Stegasaurus 100 MYA what he was going to do about Climate Change in 2015. It would actually make more sense to ask a mouse what his intelligent descendant 100MLY hence is going to do.

    Do people not grasp the fact we went from a shrew like creature to human in the previous 100million years?


  • Options
    #38
    euser1984
    Registered Users Posts: 1,977 ✭✭✭euser1984


    Calibos wrote: »
    Because You know so little, you don't know how little you know. [Head Explodes]

    Who are you referring to and to what specifically?
    Calibos wrote: »
    WRT the Subject of the thread. Asking what 'humans' are going to do about the event in 100million years makes as much sense as having asked a Stegasaurus 100 MYA what he was going to do about Climate Change in 2015. It would actually make more sense to ask a mouse what his intelligent descendant 100MLY hence is going to do.

    Do people not grasp the fact we went from a shrew like creature to human in the previous 100million years?

    This has already been said.


  • Options
    #39
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 21,051 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    we should let it die...and allow earth rejuvinate


  • Options
    #40
    euser1984
    Registered Users Posts: 1,977 ✭✭✭euser1984


    I think so. People are attempting to somehow make me feel bad about myself and convince me I'm an idiot. I just see people with some sort of complex trying to satisfy some insecurities of some description. It's actually sad but it's not my life.


  • Options
    #41
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Come on science forum, talk pseudoscience, get offended when told it's nonsense. Makes sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    euser1984
    Registered Users Posts: 1,977 ✭✭✭euser1984


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Come on science forum, talk pseudoscience, get offended when told it's nonsense. Makes sense.

    Have you still not read the rest of the thread? What on earth is wrong with you?


  • Options
    #43
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭ps200306


    euser1984 wrote: »
    I think so. People are attempting to somehow make me feel bad about myself and convince me I'm an idiot. I just see people with some sort of complex trying to satisfy some insecurities of some description. It's actually sad but it's not my life.
    I don't think that's the case. It's just that some of your statements seem very naive. For example:

    • "there is an 'elite' planning to tap the moon, or the moons of Saturn, for energy resources"; there's no credible evidence of that.
    • "it would cost $200t to build out moon-based solar power"; it's nonsensical to suggest an estimate that has not been technically proven (by which I mean, developed, piloted, and demonstrated at scale -- most energy "magic bullets" fall at that last hurdle)
    • "you only need a fraction of the solar panels on the moon that you would need on earth"; can you put some numbers on that please? The solar irradiance on the moon is the same as at the top of the earth's atmosphere. How much are you suggesting is subtracted by the earth's atmosphere, and at what usable wavelengths? How does it compare to transmission losses in a moon-based system?
    There's a whole host of reasons why something might not get built, even if it's technically feasible. What is the up front spend before there is any return? What is the amortization period over which the cost is paid off? What is an acceptable payback time horizon for the investors? What is the political time horizon for the political backers? How long before it can compete with terrestrial power sources?

    And that's even before we address a host of technical unknowns. For one tiny example, what is the level of radiation and micrometeoroid damage to moon-based solar panels (there is half a gram of micrometeoroid dust per square meter of moon surface per year on average, but probably higher in the plane of the ecliptic, i.e. near the equator)?


Advertisement