[Thork]

A power plant that harnesses solar from space and sends it back to Earth with microwave lasers would have a fairly small environmental impact.

Except for heating up the surrounding air and killing any bird that passes through.

And aircraft passengers.

[Lord Dave]

A power plant that harnesses solar from space and sends it back to Earth with microwave lasers would have a fairly small environmental impact.

Except for heating up the surrounding air and killing any bird that passes through.

And aircraft passengers.

Well, I would assume planes would avoid such areas.

Though just imagine how easy such a "power plant" would be to turn into a deadly weapon.

"Oops, we accidentally put the deadly solar beam over Iran.  Well, no need to worry about those nuclear weapons now..."

[EnigmaZV]

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

At the Earth's surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its center, of 23 mW/cm2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1 mW/cm2 outside the rectenna fenceline (the receiver's perimeter).[73] These compare with current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves, which are 10 mW/cm2,[74] - the limit itself being expressed in voluntary terms and ruled unenforceable for Federal OSHA enforcement purposes.[citation needed] A beam of this intensity is therefore at its center, of a similar magnitude to current safe workplace levels, even for long term or indefinite exposure. Outside the receiver, it is far less than the OSHA long-term levels[75] Over 95% of the beam energy will fall on the rectenna. The remaining microwave energy will be absorbed and dispersed well within standards currently imposed upon microwave emissions around the world.

[Lord Dave]

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

At the Earth's surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its center, of 23 mW/cm2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1 mW/cm2 outside the rectenna fenceline (the receiver's perimeter).[73] These compare with current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves, which are 10 mW/cm2,[74] - the limit itself being expressed in voluntary terms and ruled unenforceable for Federal OSHA enforcement purposes.[citation needed] A beam of this intensity is therefore at its center, of a similar magnitude to current safe workplace levels, even for long term or indefinite exposure. Outside the receiver, it is far less than the OSHA long-term levels[75] Over 95% of the beam energy will fall on the rectenna. The remaining microwave energy will be absorbed and dispersed well within standards currently imposed upon microwave emissions around the world.

Is that milliwatts?

[EnigmaZV]

Per square cm, yes. So a 230MW power station would take up 10,000,000cm², or 1,000m², or a quarter acre, which would power about 75,000 homes.

EDIT: If you look at how big a solar, wind, or tidal plant has to be to produce that power, and it doesn't produce 24 hours a day, the size is quite reasonable. Also, please check my math if you think it may be inaccurate, it very well might be.

Also Thork, really? Aircraft passengers? A thin piece of metal with holes in it stops microwaves from getting out, I think an aircraft hull would do a sufficient job.

[Vindictus]

I'll take the party I have 1 or 2 policy disagreements with over a party I have 3092402394 policy disagreements with.

[Rushy]

At the Earth's surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its center, of 23 mW/cm2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1 mW/cm2 outside the rectenna fenceline (the receiver's perimeter).[73] These compare with current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves, which are 10 mW/cm2,[74] - the limit itself being expressed in voluntary terms and ruled unenforceable for Federal OSHA enforcement purposes.[citation needed] A beam of this intensity is therefore at its center, of a similar magnitude to current safe workplace levels, even for long term or indefinite exposure. Outside the receiver, it is far less than the OSHA long-term levels[75] Over 95% of the beam energy will fall on the rectenna. The remaining microwave energy will be absorbed and dispersed well within standards currently imposed upon microwave emissions around the world.

And think that nuclear power conspiracies are bad. I can't imagine what they'd say when the gubmint starts launching microwave satellites.

[Pete Svarrior]

Is nuclear power good for the environment?

Yes. Continue.

[Blanko]

And no, there was no debate to begin with. Blanko still has yet to admit that nuclear power is bad for the environment, because "coal is worse". That was never the point.

No, Vauxy, you don't get to pick what "the point" is because I started the conversation with my conditions. You seem to be insistent on saying that because nuclear power is potentially bad (very unlikely), we should instead be content with sticking to coal power until the distant future when renewable energy might become feasible. Otherwise, the matter of whether or not nuclear power is "bad for the environment" (it's not, and I've already said this), is completely irrelevant to the topic, as the main issue to consider is what's better for the environment.

The bottom line is, if with your stance you are enabling the use of coal power in favour of nuclear power, you are not considering what is better for the environment. And the way you do that is by opposing the building of nuclear plants.

[Fortuna]

Nuclear power will never overcome the stigma that it's a giant nuke ready to go off at any moment. As unlikely as that is, people don't want a reactor within a fatal radius of them. Solar will probably be the primary energy source in the coming decades.

[juner]

Otherwise, the matter of whether or not nuclear power is "bad for the environment" (it's not, and I've already said this)

Right, the 20-40 tons of radioactive waste generated annually per reactor is great for the environment. Especially when that waste has a 10,000 year half life and will ultimately corrode any container it is stored in.

I am a proponent of nuclear energy, though. It is cleaner for our immediate needs, and more efficient. It is also what the cool kids use.

[Ghost of V]

My stance isn't doing anything other than stating that nuclear power is bad for the environment. Which it is. Coal power being worse doesn't make nuclear power good for the environment no matter what you think. Nuclear AND coal power are being used to this day in tandem regardless.

Please explain the positive benefits of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment.

[Blanko]

My stance isn't doing anything other than stating that nuclear power is bad for the environment. Which it is. Coal power being worse doesn't make nuclear power good for the environment no matter what you think. Nuclear AND coal power are being used to this day in tandem regardless.

Please explain the positive benefits of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment.

Okay, your stance isn't relevant and I've already told you that. Go Rushy somewhere else.

[Ghost of V]

My stance isn't doing anything other than stating that nuclear power is bad for the environment. Which it is. Coal power being worse doesn't make nuclear power good for the environment no matter what you think. Nuclear AND coal power are being used to this day in tandem regardless.

Please explain the positive benefits of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment.

Okay, your stance isn't relevant and I've already told you that. Go Rushy somewhere else.

What were you expecting, some brilliant epiphany about alternative power? Coal power is bad for the environment. Nuclear power is bad for the environment. Do I have any idea how to reduce our dependence on these forms of power? No I don't. Good talk.

[Blanko]

My stance isn't doing anything other than stating that nuclear power is bad for the environment. Which it is. Coal power being worse doesn't make nuclear power good for the environment no matter what you think. Nuclear AND coal power are being used to this day in tandem regardless.

Please explain the positive benefits of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment.

Okay, your stance isn't relevant and I've already told you that. Go Rushy somewhere else.

What were you expecting, some brilliant epiphany about alternative power? Coal power is bad for the environment. Nuclear power is bad for the environment. Do I have any idea how to reduce our dependence on these forms of power? No I don't. Good talk.

Great contribution.

[Vindictus]

My stance isn't doing anything other than stating that nuclear power is bad for the environment. Which it is. Coal power being worse doesn't make nuclear power good for the environment no matter what you think. Nuclear AND coal power are being used to this day in tandem regardless.

Please explain the positive benefits of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment.

Okay, your stance isn't relevant and I've already told you that. Go Rushy somewhere else.

What were you expecting, some brilliant epiphany about alternative power? Coal power is bad for the environment. Nuclear power is bad for the environment. Do I have any idea how to reduce our dependence on these forms of power? No I don't. Good talk.

Human civilization is bad for the environment. It's about developing technology that is less bad than alternatives.

[Ghost of V]

I agree.