/sci/ - Science & Math

no..... it wouldn't. also, the amount of rocket fuel needed to carry OCEAN WATER (which is heavy as shit) into orbit would defeat the purpose, if not make the problem worse

Or we could spend far less on launching up solar panels into geostationary orbit and wirelessly transmitting the power back to Earth, and we would have pretty much completely defeated AGW.

>>2705260
have the capsules fall onto a capsulemill which powers a turbine

But if somehow we could freeze huge volumes of ocean water and then drop it back into the ocean, wouldn't that cool us off?

>>2705281

How can power be transmitted wirelessly?

>>2705297
lasers/microwaves

>>2705297

>he's never heard of microwaves
>laughinggirls.exe

why not just build a giant freezer and put all the water inside, and then bury the freezer at the bottom of the ocean? (thus cooling the ocean around it)

>>2705311

But how would you "channel" these microwaves to make them heat up what you need?

>>2705297
http://www.witricity.com/

>>2705342
high gain antennas
also, don't heat, rectify directly!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

>>2705241
>So /sci/, could this one be done? And would it save us from global warming?
>So /sci/, global warming?
>global warming

lol retarded

>>2705281

retarded idea as well

>>2705281
LET'S DO THIS.

seriously can we?

>>2705400
See >>2705390

this would be more affective.

>>2705407
Why not?

>>2705375
i approve of this idea because it reminds me of butt sex

if we speed up the rotation of the earth, the suns rays would have shorter contact in on spot.

>>2705422

Because solar power is still grossly inefficient. There are many, more efficient forms of energy out there. No point in launching panels into space, just adds to the expense. Also, wireless transmission of power is inefficient as fuck and doesn't allow anyone to monopolize.

Inefficient tech + inefficient power transfer = retarded.

if we used white concert in cities this would low the temperature in side the buildings, reducing the need for air con.

>>2705241
It wouldn't work due to heat energy taking a very long time to travel (it travels from the sun to Earth in the form of light which then makes heat)
the water would boil before it heaps up a slight amount.
tl;dr water turns to gas in space very fast

Microwaves are health hazards.
Funny how this entire board has no consideration for human well being.

>>2705443
>launch solar panels into space
>point power transmitters at earth
>absolutely free energy for the remainder of the satellite's working life

why so idiot?

>>2705400
Right now it is quite costly. However, as soon as Japan gets their space elevator up I expect the price of launching stuff into GEO to drop dramatically.

For now, geothermal would be a great 'green' power source.

>>2705468
Japan and tall things? o_O

>>2705456
Because as >>2705468 pointed out once more, there are much more viable options.

Simply put, spend billions on retarded panels in space or spend it on fusion reactors? If you vote panels you're even more retarded than you let on in your previous post

>>2705485
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4799369.ece

>>2705447

No. Some of the water would turn to vapor very fast, but the energy the water gives by chaging to vapor would freeze the liqiud water that hasn't changed yet.

The water would freeze not because of the temerature in space, but because the vacum of space would make it give up the energy it has that makes it liquid making it solid.

>HUUUR DDUUUUR GLOBAL WARMINGZ

1. Plants fucking love co2. They need it to survive.
2. Every second you're exhaling co2. OMG such a horrible thing. Mother nature sure was dumb when she made mammals that give off a deadly gas that will destroy all other life on the planet huh.
3. Yeah, I'm sure co2 is what's causing a rise in temperature on the other planets/moons in the solar system.
4. A bunch of douchebag politicians say that if you give them more money everything will be alright. You'd have to be fucking retarded to believe that shit.

>>2705468

afaik, they can't produce nanotubes of any significant length. This is the only thing holding a space elevator back

>>2705497
Solar panels in space are safer, generate no waste or other environmental damage, and have much greater scalability than nuclear energy. In 100 years when we need shittons of energy to make antimatter fuel for starships, we aren't going to be using effing earth-based fusion reactors.

>>2705532

Geothermal doesn't have negative impacts either.

Fusion will be awesome.

By the time we're a Type I civilisation we'll have more efficient means to capture solar energy. Also, fusion is safe as shit and doesn't require as much space as a fission reactor

>>2705553

I should also add that fusion can use some of the most abundant minerals on Earth

>>2705241
The water wouldn't freeze as fast as you think it would since the heat can't go anywhere, as a matter of fact you can float through space without protection for minutes without any harm done.

>>2705497
I vote geothermal and then solar panels as soon as it becomes cost-effective. But the technologies required to make it cost-effective should be invested into heavily.

>>2705565
If you include fusion reactors in that timeline, I agree with you

>>2705575
Fusion reactors as useful as well, but they are more suited to more remote locations where GEO solar and geothermal are not viable options. Alsonotinventedyet

I hope ITER works well, however.

>>2705586
are useful as well*

>>2705494
i find thing published in the times hard to believe.

>>2705593
http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/09/22/japanese-space-elevator/
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=7382.php
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/japan-plans-first-space-elevator-ready-20080923/

>>2705586
Once the tech matures it'll be much smaller/portable. Greater scalability

Also, there's shit like the Bloom Box out atm which seem pretty damned neat to me.

Again, all of my suggested options are better than the suggestion that we should put panels into space now

>>2705616
We SHOULD put panels into space. However with the current monetary system doing so would be economic suicide.

I'm a big supporter of geothermal.

>>2705601
talk is cheap.
anyway the country is in no position to even consider the idea till their economy recovers and recent events have probably set that back by 5 years.

>>2705625
Yes, just not now. I don't care about the monetary aspect of it, it's still too inefficient to do anything with. The most efficient means of capturing solar energy is achieved by the conversion of light to heat. Even then, it's only about 20% efficient

>>2705630
They were in massive debt before the quake/tsunami. shit sucks for them

>>2705677
>Even then, it's only about 20% efficient
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/28/caltech-gurus-whip-up-highly-efficient-low-cost-flexible-solar/

>>2705703
My post is still valid until that comes out of testing. At that point, it'll be much, much more viable to capture solar energy

>>2705728
Agree.

Still, GEOTHERMAAAAAAAAAL

>>2705736

We're starting to go around in circles. I'm leaving this thread.

>>2705757
Bye bye.

GEOTHERMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL