The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 8    Average: 3.3/5]
34 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 5130
Rating: 3.3
Category: Tech
Date: 12/02/13 04:59 PM

34 Responses to Japan Plans To Supply World`s Energy From The Moon

  1. Profile photo of drawman61
    drawman61 Male 50-59
    7751 posts
    December 2, 2013 at 5:00 pm
    Link: Japan Plans To Supply World`s Energy From The Moon - Then all the Oil men who want to grind us into the dirt can kiss my shiny metal a$$
  2. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    December 2, 2013 at 6:50 pm
    I think it sounds like a great idea. Too bad the Japanese will be the ones benefitting from the technological advances and pocketing the profits since most American Republicans consider AGW a "hoax."
  3. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    December 2, 2013 at 7:09 pm
    You`re a hoot, squirz. I`m sure space would be very high up on any hypothetical budget of yours. Right below all that free stuff that I`ve seen you advocate that would probably cost more than all tax receipts, even at higher rates.

    Plus, Japan has been screwing up their economy with Keynesian nonsense for the past 25 years. They`re done.
  4. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14654 posts
    December 2, 2013 at 7:20 pm
    This Death Star is already fully operational.
  5. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33134 posts
    December 2, 2013 at 7:58 pm
    @Squrlz4Sale: because lifting thousands of tons of robots into space is CARBON NEUTRAL TOO! They`ll fuel the rockets with bio-diesel, right? Or unicorn farts...

    It`s only bigger than all the mass lifted into orbit... EVER! Just to get the robots up there. And building all those rockets and burning all that fuel won`t produce a trace of carbon, heck no!

    Nevermind HOW they`ll build "solar panels" on the wastelands of the Moon... (out of materials they`ll find there, the article says.)

    A much saner idea is building space-power stations at one of the Lagrange Points yes? Same idea, shorter distances, even easier to build.
  6. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    December 2, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    @ Andrew155: "Keynesian nonsense." LOL. Says the nitwit who falls asleep with a copy of *Atlas Shrugged* beneath his pillow every night and thinks it makes him an intellect.

    Honestly, Andrew, once you explained that your "great plan" is to shut down 90% of the federal government (EPA? FDA? Centers for Disease Control? NASA? Be gone, all of you!), I stopped taking anything you say seriously.
  7. Profile photo of FontFace
    FontFace Male 18-29
    91 posts
    December 2, 2013 at 9:39 pm
    The moon doesn`t rotate on its axis...
  8. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    December 2, 2013 at 9:52 pm
    @ FontFace: "The moon doesn`t rotate on its axis...."

    Actually, it does, albeit slowly. The Moon rotates in a counter-clockwise direction (from the perspective of Polaris) every 27.5 days. We don`t see this rotation from Earth because the Moon is tidally locked to our planet, always presenting the same side to Earth.

    (Today`s a happy day for me because a version of a Google application I helped develop, Lunar Phases, was just published. So I`m bubbling over with Moon-related trivia.)
  9. Profile photo of toeachhisown
    toeachhisown Male 50-59
    418 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 12:24 am
    "Then all the Oil men who want to grind us into the dirt can kiss my shiny metal a$$"

    No, then the Japanese can grind us into the dirt!
  10. Profile photo of MrOrange
    MrOrange Male 30-39
    2402 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 1:19 am
    "Japan has been screwing up their economy with Keynesian nonsense for the past 25 years. They`re done."

    Yeah and the american economy is just peachy...
  11. Profile photo of MrOrange
    MrOrange Male 30-39
    2402 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 1:21 am
    I do love that another one of Asimovs science "fiction" is used as a basis for this idea.
    oh and the 2009 movie Moon, is slightly based around this idea
  12. Profile photo of New_Guy
    New_Guy Male 30-39
    406 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 1:56 am
    I`m in!
  13. Profile photo of drawman61
    drawman61 Male 50-59
    7751 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 3:32 am
    No, then the Japanese can grind us into the dirt!

    But you`re assuming the Japanese will behave like the oil dictators.
  14. Profile photo of Vimto
    Vimto Male 40-49
    2853 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 5:45 am
    What MrOrange said about Azimov and Moon. Also, maybe better the Japanese than the Chinese.
  15. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33134 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 7:42 am
    @FontFace: Mr.Squrlz is correct: It does rotate, just not from our Earthly perspective.

    >>That makes it LESS effective, since half the time it will face AWAY from the Sun, eh? Not 24/7 like the article claims... even if it does always face the Earth.

    Congratulations @Squrlz4Sale! I hope a dumptruck full of money visits you soon! :-)
  16. Profile photo of SavageChef
    SavageChef Female 50-59
    2692 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 9:04 am
    Yep. This could totally work.
    poo. the bourbon`s all gone.
    guess i`ll start in on the vodka.
    yeah, what? lunar panels blah blah, yep.
  17. Profile photo of iamatree
    iamatree Male 18-29
    551 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 9:12 am
    But does it include free global Wi-Fi?
  18. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33134 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 10:02 am
    @iamatree: Free Global Wi-Fi was with high-altitude balloons. Well, cheap Wi-Fi, not completely `free`...

    Sorry, cannot find the IAB posting of that idea.
  19. Profile photo of toeachhisown
    toeachhisown Male 50-59
    418 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 10:57 am
    @drawman61, The only assumption I am making is that by "The Japanese" you mean monopoly.

    OPEC doesn`t even have that kind of power in the energy market.
  20. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 12:27 pm
    ...and beam the carbon-free energy back to Earth in the form of microwaves...

    Shouldn`t they focus on cleaning up fudgeishima before turning the earth into a giant bag of microwave popcorn?
  21. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 12:29 pm
    fudgeishima

    Lol, fuggin censor.
  22. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6267 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    FontFace-"The moon doesn`t rotate on its axis..."

    Not enough facepalm in the world.

    MrOrange-" do love that another one of Asimovs science "fiction" is used as a basis for this idea."

    Now if we can just get a Beanstalk in operation... (as per Tsiolkovsky, Clarke, Heinlein, Niven & Gerrold.)
  23. Profile photo of uatme
    uatme Male 18-29
    1074 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 2:32 pm
    I had this idea but gave up when I realized all the safety issues with aiming that much power at earth.(I was thinking microwaves, but lasers would work too, its really the same thing anyway)
    I wasn`t planning on using the moon tho.
  24. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 3:25 pm
    Insanely expensive to build, insanely expensive to maintain, insanely dangerous to operate (beaming that much power to Earth would be a death ray straight out of sci-fi, as well as being inefficient).

    I`d say it was pie in the sky, but it goes past that.

    The idea might sound good in a very superficial way, but it`s not. Not until we have far better technology than we have now (and by then there will probably be better ways anyway, e.g. viable fusion).
  25. Profile photo of Runemang
    Runemang Male 30-39
    2676 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 7:36 pm
    Actually, mathematically speaking ... no, the moon rotates on the Earth`s axis (well think about it :) ).

    But semantics aside, for the purpose of this topic, no, the moon does not rotate from the Earth`s perspective (which is kinda important to this power idea). It`s not perfectly spherical and the "bulbous" portion is kept facing the Earth via Earth`s gravity. It "wobbles" very very slightly, but "rotate" is about as accurate as saying Mt Everest rotates on it`s axis (cuz it`s attached to the Earth) ... eh, no.
  26. Profile photo of FontFace
    FontFace Male 18-29
    91 posts
    December 3, 2013 at 11:04 pm
    All right, so it rotates on it`s axis once every time it rotates around the earth.

    @MeGrendel Don`t palm yourself too hard on my account. :-)
  27. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    December 4, 2013 at 1:13 am
    @ Runemang: "Actually, mathematically speaking ... the Moon rotates on the Earth`s axis."

    Not true at all: If it did, there would be no such thing as solar eclipses. The Moon orbits the Earth, but that orbit has no relation to the Earth`s axis.* Furthermore, the Moon`s orbit is not spherical, but elliptical, which is why we have perigees, syzygies, and supermoons.

    *Actually, it`s a bit more complicated than this: Astrophysicists believe the Moon`s orbit may have a stabilizing effect on the angle of the Earth`s axis over the course of tens of thousands of years, but that`s a separate topic--of interest, primarily, to climatologists studying AGW and the Milankovitch cycles.
  28. Profile photo of Runemang
    Runemang Male 30-39
    2676 posts
    December 4, 2013 at 1:46 am
    "...but that orbit has no relation to the Earth`s axis."

    eh ... okay, touche`, I worded that in a way that wasn`t exactly what I meant ;) .... basically what I meant is NOT that the moon rotates on a perpendicular rotational plane to the Earth`s axis (which as you pointed out is not so), just that the moon "rotates" more akin to a tetherball tethered to a point at the Earth`s core (the same side of the ball is always facing the point of tether and rotating the Earth) than like a top spinning on its OWN axis.
  29. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    December 4, 2013 at 2:38 am
    @ Runemag: The tetherball analogy works for me--provided the tetherball rope has some elasticity to it. =^.^=

    Going back to the Japanese proposal, the idea is that over a period of 27.5 days, the Moon slowly rotates on its axis and exposes the entirely of its equator to the full force of the Sun`s rays. Consequently, to generate electricity full-time, the solar arrays would be arranged in a belt around the equator so that approximately half of them would be receiving solar energy at any moment.

    The concept seems clever to me. You`d start with a thin belt just 3 meters wide, say, then gradually widen it over the ensuing decades. The solar arrays would need no support orther than the Moon`s surface and the arrays could be made of elements in the lunar soil. The lunar gravity would make construction easier than construction in space and there`s no orbital decay to worry about, either.
  30. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33134 posts
    December 4, 2013 at 8:04 am
    @Squrlz4Sale: All valid points, but it`s still "unworkable".
    >Half the panels would produce no power at any given moment: just like on Earth!
    >>Lagrange Point stations operate 24/7
    >>There`s no orbital decay in a Lagrange Point! That`s the point of the points!
    >3 meters wide and 10,000 kilometers long? That`s freaking HUGE!
    A Lagrange solar panel would only need to be half that size for the same power output.
    >>Robots work just fine in Zero G. Humans like some gravity though!

    If needed? The robots could still build the panels on the Moon (out of "Moon materials") and send them into space... It`s really, er relatively, easy to launch stuff off the Moon, eh?

    I also recall "Moon Dust" being a factor. A tiny coating of dust drops a panel`s output by a large amount!

  31. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6267 posts
    December 4, 2013 at 9:02 am
    Runemang-"but "rotate" is about as accurate as saying Mt Everest rotates on it`s axis"

    The moon does indeed rotate on it`s axis. It rotates once per lunar orbit, thus presenting the same face toward Earth.

    You need to take Earth`s persepective out of this. Use the perspective from Sol (the sun).

    If the moon did not rotate, the same side would always present itself to Sol, (over a lunar cycle) but it does not. When you see a full moon, the Earth is between the moon and Sol. So the moon is presenting the same side to both.

    BUT, during a new moon, the moon is BETWEEN the Earth and Sol...so one side is to the Earth and the Other is to Sol.

    So from Sol`s persepective (and the rest of the universe`s), it does rotate.

    If it DID NOT rotate on its axis, each Longitude on Earth would see a slightly different face.
  32. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6267 posts
    December 4, 2013 at 9:03 am
    5Cats-"Lagrange Point stations operate 24/7"

    Taking into account the needed surface area and mass, an array would probably need to be a little deeper into the gravity well than the Lagrange point to offset Solar Pressure (think Solar Sail).
  33. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33134 posts
    December 4, 2013 at 10:03 am
    @MeGrendel: True that! It would need regular adjusting.
    Micro-meteors would be a problem too, but the same for both ideas: they hit the Moon just as often, eh? Perhaps more so.

    Both systems would need "around the world" receivers to collect the energy too, obviously. The energy could be split into multiple beams and bounced off relay stations to cover the Earth evenly at any given moment.

    It`s fun to think about! Sci-Fi is cool.
  34. Profile photo of Runemang
    Runemang Male 30-39
    2676 posts
    December 4, 2013 at 7:59 pm
    Fair enough. Whatever sends that energy back to Earth can only be on one side of the moon but the solar receptors can be all the way around it.

Leave a Reply