Discussion on the Future of Energy Policy

I'd been assuming it was a propaganda campaign against orbital solar. Look at the propaganda anti-nuclear anything already receives, they want something similar with hordes of morons protesting against powersats because the petrodollar can't have credible competitors.

Bassoe said:

I'd been assuming it was a propaganda campaign against orbital solar. Look at the propaganda anti-nuclear anything already receives, they want something similar with hordes of morons protesting against powersats because the petrodollar can't have credible competitors.

Click to expand...

It's been ingrained in people's minds for generation that nuclear power = an apocalypse waiting to happen. The recent fuck-ups (on a historic time-frame, I mean) at Chernobyl and Fukishima didn't help public perceptions, either.

Current generation nuclear power plants are incredibly safe and effective, if they're not built and maintained by cowboy builders and engineers.

"But, but nuklear waaste!!!!1"

The same nuclear waste that can be (mostly) recycled back into viable nuclear fuel now?

"But it's not a renewable resourcessss!"

No, but you need such a tiny amount of the nuclear material required that it may as well be -- Hyperbolic example, but if you only need something the size of, I dunno, a fucking penny for years, and there's enough of this "non-renewable resource" that it could all fill up a moderately-sized US state from bedrock to sky... Yeah, I think it's safe to say you're not going to run out of it any time soon.

What's even more hilarious is that the wind turbines people champion for? You can't recycle the blades, so they're literally just dumped to (not) rot somewhere at the end of their life-cycle, can't be repaired or maintained all that easily(and it often costs more to repair than to just dump and replace them), and the blades take up so much resources (power, carbon footprint, materials, et cetera) to create that they're actually a fucking net negative from start to finish.

But, of course, "windmills good, nuklea powa bad!!1"

Case in point, windmills aren't a credible competitor to the petrodollar. Nuclear reactors or orbital solar would be, therefore the petrodollar's masters must preemptively prevent their adoption via their usual tactic of giant hordes of brainwashed morons.

Bassoe said:

Case in point, windmills aren't a credible competitor to the petrodollar. Nuclear reactors or orbital solar would be, therefore the petrodollar's mastes must preemptively prevent their adoption via their usual tactic of giant hordes of brainwashed morons.

Click to expand...

They really don't want to hear the issues with solar on the ground, that's for sure.

Nuts. Just crazy.

Bassoe said:

I'd been assuming it was a propaganda campaign against orbital solar. Look at the propaganda anti-nuclear anything already receives, they want something similar with hordes of morons protesting against powersats because the petrodollar can't have credible competitors.

Click to expand...

Eh, it's more that powersats/orbital mircowave transmission for wireless energy transfer from orbit also has a..secondary use as orbital weaponry that anyone who isn't blind can inuit, even lay people, and not a lot of people want a a network pf powerstations that double as 'death rays'.

Anything that can transmit enough mircowave radiation to make remote power tansfer viable also could effectively act like a magnifier glass on an ant if the beam is focused down and not on a receiver station.

Bassoe said:

Case in point, windmills aren't a credible competitor to the petrodollar. Nuclear reactors or orbital solar would be, therefore the petrodollar's mastes must preemptively prevent their adoption via their usual tactic of giant hordes of brainwashed morons.

Click to expand...

I'm curious why you think that orbital solar would be a viable source of grid-level energy production?

Bacle said:

Eh, it's more that powersats/orbital mircowave transmission for wireless energy transfer from orbit also has a..secondary use as orbital weaponry that anyone who isn't blind can inuit, even lay people, and not a lot of people want a a network pf powerstations that double as 'death rays'.

Anything that can transmit enough mircowave radiation to make remote power tansfer viable also could effectively act like a magnifier glass on an ant if the beam is focused down and not on a receiver station.

Click to expand...

Well, if people start spontaneously combusting out in public, vanishing with a comical look and a "poof" of ash and smoke, we now know why.

LordsFire said:

I'm curious why you think that orbital solar would be a viable source of grid-level energy production?

Click to expand...

because putting it in Orbit solves like, 90% of the problems with it? It still doesn't work at night, but the rest of the time you can have it operating at max efficiency regardless of time of day or weather. Assuming the power transfer systems actually function reasonably well it would absolutely be a viable source of grid level energy production with scale limits of "how well can we transmit?"

If you could get a properly set up transmission chain with reasonable losses it'd even work at night, and then you REALLY can have an actually solar grid.

Of course, the big question mark is that transmission step, how well does it do with clouds? Does transmitting it result in any other problems? How do you avoid weaponization? If weaponized, how do you defend against it? How do you keep the satellites safe from hostile interference?

Honestly, there's enough problems that I don't think it'll actually pan out just yet, but if those problems were solved it WOULD.

Jormungandr said:

Well, if people start spontaneously combusting out in public, vanishing with a comical look and a "poof" of ash and smoke, we now know why.

Click to expand...

It's those damn Jewish space lasers

ShadowsOfParadox said:

because putting it in Orbit solves like, 90% of the problems with it? It still doesn't work at night, but the rest of the time you can have it operating at max efficiency regardless of time of day or weather.

Click to expand...

It'll still work at night. When it won't work is when it's in the Earth's shadow. Not sure how long that is for something geostationary.

ShadowsOfParadox said:

because putting it in Orbit solves like, 90% of the problems with it? It still doesn't work at night, but the rest of the time you can have it operating at max efficiency regardless of time of day or weather. Assuming the power transfer systems actually function reasonably well it would absolutely be a viable source of grid level energy production with scale limits of "how well can we transmit?"

If you could get a properly set up transmission chain with reasonable losses it'd even work at night, and then you REALLY can have an actually solar grid.

Of course, the big question mark is that transmission step, how well does it do with clouds? Does transmitting it result in any other problems? How do you avoid weaponization? If weaponized, how do you defend against it? How do you keep the satellites safe from hostile interference?

Honestly, there's enough problems that I don't think it'll actually pan out just yet, but if those problems were solved it WOULD.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure know how to begin addressing this.

Let's try the cost of getting something into orbit?

It's expensive. It's really bloody expensive. It's so stupidly expensive, that a quick google tells me that in 2021, it cost over 1.5 *thousand* dollars per *kilogram* that you want to put into orbit. Solar panels aren't particularly efficient at energy generation, so you're going to need a lot of the bloody things if you want to get a meaningful amount of energy generation.

So we're talking about trillions to quadrillions of dollars just to get enough into orbit to generate the energy.


Next up, let's talk about energy transmission.

First off, orbital tethers/space elevators are not currently a thing. I have guarded hopes that they might be in my lifetime, but construction hasn't even started, we don't even have a known cost estimate or completion date if a project were started. That means that actual physical power cables are out for getting that energy from orbit to the Earth. Even if we do get a space elevator up, geosynchronous orbit is about 35 thousand kilometers up. That's a hell of a lot of power line to run, and you can't just run cable, you also have to reasonably protect it from space debris, which is a known problem that does not have a currently known solution for something with that much surface area.

On top of that, you have the issue that you lose energy as it is pumped down a cable, the longer the cable, the more you lose. 35k kilometers is a loooooong way to lose power over. I'm not an electrician, so I can't tell you how much, but given that's enough to wrap around the entire Earth, we can assume it's a bloody lot. I'd give good odds it's enough to lose basically everything, but again, I'm not an expert in the field, just someone who knows the basics.


Since wired power transmission is out, we're left with wireless transmission, and that's a problem.

Because simply put, this technology barely isn't science fiction. Some apocrypha about things Tesla may have gotten up to before he died aside, it's only in the last ten or twenty years that wireless power transmission has been a thing that people can do at all, and if you want to use indirect conversion methods like giant mirrors or laser beams, you're both adding another entire layer of infrastructure you need to ship into orbit, and you're going to lose power both converting to the alternate transmission method, and converting back.


Simply put, the technology to get electricity from orbit to the ground, does not exist. It's science fiction. We (last I checked) don't have the ability to transmit power one kilometer, certainly not ten, a thousand, or ten thousand.

And even if we did, the cost of setting up the infrastructure to do so would be more than the entire combined GDP of the world several times over.


There's an awful lot of people on this board who keep thinking that stuff that's science-fiction is either current technology, or 'just around the corner.' I get that there's some propensity for this due to spinning off from SB, but people could do a little more research, you know?

Solar Farms in Space!

BBC said:

But it's something that could be happening as soon as 2035, according to Martin Soltau, the co-chairman at Space Energy Initiative (SEI) - a collaboration of industry and academics.

SEI is working on a project called Cassiopeia, which plans to place a constellation of very large satellites in a high Earth orbit.
Once deployed the satellites would harvest solar energy and beam it back down to Earth.

He says the potential is almost unlimited.

"In theory it could supply all of the world's energy in 2050," he says.

Click to expand...

Jormungandr said:

It's been ingrained in people's minds for generation that nuclear power = an apocalypse waiting to happen. The recent fuck-ups (on a historic time-frame, I mean) at Chernobyl and Fukishima didn't help public perceptions, either.

Current generation nuclear power plants are incredibly safe and effective, if they're not built and maintained by cowboy builders and engineers.

"But, but nuklear waaste!!!!1"

The same nuclear waste that can be (mostly) recycled back into viable nuclear fuel now?

"But it's not a renewable resourcessss!"

No, but you need such a tiny amount of the nuclear material required that it may as well be -- Hyperbolic example, but if you only need something the size of, I dunno, a fucking penny for years, and there's enough of this "non-renewable resource" that it could all fill up a moderately-sized US state from bedrock to sky... Yeah, I think it's safe to say you're not going to run out of it any time soon.

What's even more hilarious is that the wind turbines people champion for? You can't recycle the blades, so they're literally just dumped to (not) rot somewhere at the end of their life-cycle, can't be repaired or maintained all that easily(and it often costs more to repair than to just dump and replace them), and the blades take up so much resources (power, carbon footprint, materials, et cetera) to create that they're actually a fucking net negative from start to finish.

But, of course, "windmills good, nuklea powa bad!!1"

Click to expand...

You're missing another aspect of why globalist dislike nuclear power, especially for America:

It MASSIVELY decreases American dependence on foreign nations for power. Further, of those foreign nations that have major Uranium reserves that the US could trade with? The most uranium reserves in the world is Australia and the third largest is Canada. Oh, and that assumes we can't supply our own needs from our own generous reserves, it's not like the US is low in Uranium reserves ourselves either. Basically, if the US went full nuclear it wouldn't have to even pretend to give a fuck about Europe, the Middle East or Asia, we could literally just sit comfortably as the middle of the Anglosphere trading with our Hat and Down Under for fuel for our power. Europe can go die in a fire, as we wouldn't need them as stepping stones to the Middle East anymore.

Likewise, if China managed to go full nuclear they wouldn't be as dependent on oil and gas, and they have considerable reserves themselves as well as nearby neighbors with considerable reserves they could "trade" with.

Basically, for globalist, if the world went nuclear they think it will ALSO go multipolar AND the decreased interdependence would lead to regional conflicts flaring up... except now everyone involved would have the capability to have nuclear weapons.

Remember, for as much evil globalism brings their underlying motivation is to ensure no conflict on the scale of WW2 ever happens again and to prevent nuclear war. Their focus is on a global scale, so the suffering of individuals and even nations, against the potential devastation of global thermonuclear war, is nothing.

S'task said:

Remember, for as much evil globalism brings their underlying motivation is to ensure no conflict on the scale of WW2 ever happens again and to prevent nuclear war. Their focus is on a global scale, so the suffering of individuals and even nations, against the potential devastation of global thermonuclear war, is nothing.

Click to expand...

I'm sure a few think that, and it might have been a common excuse, but right now, there's a bunch of people pushing really hard to make Russia desperate enough to nuke somebody.

Simonbob said:

I'm sure a few think that, and it might have been a common excuse, but right now, there's a bunch of people pushing really hard to make Russia desperate enough to nuke somebody.

Click to expand...

Yes, which makes sense when you consider all the surrounded circumstances with Russia.

Firstly Russia has been encouraging nations towards localizing their energy suppy and rearming by their self serving actions. Germany, who was well on its way to complete globalist submission before Russia started acting up, began turning around and reconsidering all those choices due to Russia. Likewise, the globalists hate Poland's nationalism and generally right-wing ways, but so long as Russia was acting as a rogue state nobody could really BLAME Poland either. Russia has also refused to submit to the globalist system, despite the globalist efforts to tie them to it.

Finally, there's the fact the Russians broke the unspoken (or perhaps it was spoken, who knows what's been said behind closed doors) deal. The globalist were going to let them get away with annexing Crimea, so long as they left the rest of Ukraine alone. Note how different the international response has been between the Russian annexation of Crimea and their later invasion of Ukraine. The globalist clearly didn't care about Crimea so long as Ukraine and Russia continued to develop ties to globalism, but now, with the Invasion of Ukraine, Russia has made it clear they don't care about the global order.

What this means is that short term risks need to be taken for long term security and stability. If Russia was allowed to get away with Invading Ukraine, it might well signal to other actors that such things are tenable. And while Russia appears to be a paper tiger, globalist are much more ennamoured with, and fear fisplacement by, another power that COULD trigger a much larger scale war: China.

So long as the Ukraine War stays mainly between Russia and Ukraine it is a regional conflict. Throughout the Cold War Russia never used nukes in such conflicts, nor did the US, and so they are gambling on Putin still playing by those rules (bearing in mind, the Soviet Union played by those rules even when losing conflicts and invasions it supported, IE the Korean Conflict and the Soviet Invasion of Afganistan). If he does or not? We'll see.

However, Chinese aggression in Asia would likely trigger a much, much LARGER conflicts, all of which would likely end up directly involving the US and our allies. This is the war they really want to prevent as even with purely conventional weapons, best US tactics for the conflict could end up killing MILLIONS of Chinese via infastructure destruction. Plus ut wiuldnforce Japan to fully rearm.

Something you have to note, the globalist have never truly forgiven the Germans and Japanese for WW2. A large amount of their efforts are based on the idea tha5 those countries should never again have that kind of military and political power. Germany is given more leeway to act politically through the EU since they have been sufficiently contrite, but the Japanese have continued to insit on being nationalistic and never really fully undertsanding the extent of evil they went to in WW2.

Thus, they have to e sure that Russia's invasion simply does not work out for them and that they are sufficiently punished. That way other countries who want to buck the globalist order do not get any ideas.

And here's the thing: they may have a point. Since WW2 the world has seen the least amount of major conflicts and wars in any period of recorded history we have. The Pax Americana is a THING, and preserving it, to them, it worth risking a smaller conflict over potentially triggering what would actually be WW3 if the US and China went to war.

S'task said:

And here's the thing: they may have a point. Since WW2 the world has seen the least amount of major conflicts and wars in any period of recorded history we have. The Pax Americana is a THING, and preserving it, to them, it worth risking a smaller conflict over potentially triggering what would actually be WW3 if the US and China went to war.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that.

There have been a LOT of wars out there. Less? More? I don't know. But, right this minute, Ethiopia is in a massive war, and most people don't know it exists.

WW3? Avoiding that seems good, but the costs might be too high.

Simonbob said:

I'm not sure about that.

There have been a LOT of wars out there. Less? More? I don't know. But, right this minute, Ethiopia is in a massive war, and most people don't know it exists.

WW3? Avoiding that seems good, but the costs might be too high.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't use the term massive. Especially comparing to the Ukraine war which is ongoing and everyone is hearing about.

S'task said:

And here's the thing: they may have a point. Since WW2 the world has seen the least amount of major conflicts and wars in any period of recorded history we have. The Pax Americana is a THING, and preserving it, to them, it worth risking a smaller conflict over potentially triggering what would actually be WW3 if the US and China went to war.

Click to expand...

The thing is, globalism did not bring world peace. the gun loaded with a can of instant sunshine pointed at the heads of every politician in the world did. The Damocles sword called MAD did more to insure world peace than any economic theory.

I think in the long run nuclear will be a thing.

Quite simply put its a developed technology that more or less solves all of the worlds energy problems and woes and its only become better with time. Sooner or later a pragmatist is going to look at the super obvious solution and use it.