Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe
Artificial satellites could do that. Anyone advanced enough to build an artifical satellite large enough to house thousands or millions would possess superior energy technology to solar. Solar is a primitive energy source. Nuclear fusion is the next step up for humans as a viable energy source.
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/sc...2%80%99-energy
The only way I could see solar being viable as a supplimentary energy source, is if someone could create structures with solar cells built in. We're not talking about something as unyieldy as 'solar panels'. Like for example, you got a skyscraper, and every part of the exterior of the structure, including the windows, is capable of drawing solar energy. I'm talking about doing it in a way that doesn't dumb down the aesthetics of the design for solar power. |
Fusion is a great power source, it's what powers the Sun (the Sun is just a giant fusion reactor), and I'm hopeful we'll have viable fusion reactor technology soon, although there's no guarantee. Solar power in and of itself isn't primitive, what's primitive are the solar cells we use to convert the sunlight to electricity. If we could develop solar cells that were near 100 percent efficient, lasted a long time, and were easy to manufacture and recycle, solar power wouldn't be primitive at all. Also realize in space solar is consistent, dependable, and quite strong (a football field receives about 5 MW of power in space at Earth's distance from Sun, and the power density is four times greater twice as close to the Sun).
But on Earth, fusion power would probably always be economically superior to solar due to the inconsistency and unreliablity of solar.