'Drilling Up' Into Space for Energy

(AP) -- While great nations fretted over coal, oil and global warming, one of the smallest at the U.N. climate conference was looking toward the heavens for its energy.

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Planned emission cuts still mean far hotter Earth

Sep 24, 2009 | 1.6 / 5 (13) | 2

New climate forceasting system to be created

Sep 04, 2009 | 3.1 / 5 (9) | 7

US coal peak production: Point and counterpoint

Oct 20, 2009 | 3.3 / 5 (4) | 1

China: rich nations must cut emissions by 40 pct

May 22, 2009 | 2.4 / 5 (8) | 9

The need for fossil fuels will last for decades, according to BP's chief scientist

Feb 13, 2008 | 3 / 5 (5) | 1

   

• quantum_flux - Dec 23, 2007
  • Rank: 2.8 / 5 (5)
  That kind of unlimited rectenna energy supply could easily provide enough excess energy for the electro-hydrolysis of water (as energy storage), and thus it could easily launch us into a full blown hydrogen economy as well.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• out7x - Dec 24, 2007
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  solar energy in space can be pointed toward an interstellar solar sail. Lets not microwave the earth.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• nilbud - Dec 24, 2007
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
  Attenuation by the atmosphere.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• TJ_alberta - Dec 24, 2007
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
  Roast duck on the wing?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Seto - Dec 24, 2007
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (3)
  First you pollute the planet by launching the these to space, then you'll find out that due to the lack of experience with this technology, maintenance is needed much more frequently than you thought, you you'll have to ship some down and up again, send NASA missions to fix others and then you'll realize that you are doing all this for a few megawatts, and that it's still much cheaper to just open a few more coal power plants. How many are there is China? Oh right...
  
  To solve pollution problem you just need fossil fuels to get more expensive. OPEC is taking care of that for oil, now who will make coal expensive? Mother nature will - once we will just use up majority of the resource and then... then we'll switch to nuclear. Because our world is driven by profit-motivation, not save-the-planet motivation... (though obviously nuclear power has a great potential to become green - just build breeder reactors and transmutation facilities!)
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• stealthc - Dec 24, 2007
  • Rank: 3.3 / 5 (4)
  a teather would be a safer bet for those dollars.
  Then one could build conductive wires that run through the earth's magnetic field that generate more power. Power could be beamed to a satellite on the top part of the teather. This could also be used for lifting payloads into space on the cheap too. The DOD suffers from misplaced priorities.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• RobL - Dec 26, 2007
  • Rank: 2.5 / 5 (2)
  "Climate change" or "Global warming" these are problems that concern the amount of energy within are "earth system" increasing . what do you think is going think is going to happen when they take energy that is not supposed to enter are "earth system", and import it at a large scale?. its bad news!!! they did the math years ago.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• saucerfreak2012 - Dec 27, 2007
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Just declassify the alt energy systems already being "tested" by clandestine orginizations and keep them heavily guarded/regulated by an organization like the IAEA. Then let us have some cheap clean energy so we can do things like oh, say feed our families, heat our homes, and buy a bunch of crap we don't really need.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Ashibayai - Dec 31, 2007
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  Meh, It's a novel idea, but the efficiency is probably horrible in comparison to the costs. In fact, if this were economically feasible at the moment there wouldn't be much opposition to creating a moon based manufacturing facility within say...a few years.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5