Solarmodule im Weltraum könnten bis 2050 um 80% Europas terrestrische erneuerbare Energienbedürfnisse reduzieren, so eine Studie
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/21/solar-panels-in-space-could-provide-80-of-europes-renewable-energy-by-2050
Von nohup_me
29 Kommentare
so many questions, where, how, who pays, what of the degrading satellites, what of impacts from debris, this, that, and the third.
this is science fiction
Or, and I’m just putting this out there, solar panels on the ground would help *right now*.
As they are doing, happily.
just need to invent some magic, and this will be a piece of cake
*Note to self:*
*Do not write papers for publication whilst having a good time in a coffeeshop.*
Hopes and wishes.
Pipedreams..
Maybe, and hear me out; *maybe* it’s cheaper to build sustainable energy on earth. Wind, solar and different forms of fission reactors comes to mind.
Other news: Putting the sun into a Dyson sphere could cut Earth’s terrestrial renewable energy needs by 100%. by 3050, a study has found.
A Dyson Sphere could cut Earth’s renewable energy needs by 100%!
Stop trying to postpone the fucking solutions.
This is just giving China new ideas.
Most commenters seem to react negatively to this article. But the article is not about a country deciding to pause their terrestrial solar panels because they are waiting for spaced-based solar panels in 25 years. It’s a space agency (which has no business with terrestrial solar panels), studying under which condition would SBSP be cheaper / less carbon intensive than solar panels. To see if it’s worth studying further / making partnerships.
In their „beyond“ scenario, SBSP would become both cheaper and less carbon-intensive than ground-based solar panels. I am no specialist, but the hypotheses they make don’t strike me as crazy. For instance, they only assume that the cost of launch would decrease by 50% in 25 years. That would be a slowdown of progress : [according to this graph](https://www.futuretimeline.net/data-trends/6.htm) the costs decreased 68% in 14 years (1981->1995), then 79% in 21 years (1995->2016), and 83% in 4 years (2016->2020).
Are we sure this will work? No. But I think it’s a good idea that NASA is studying technology which could both decrease carbon emissions and save money, in the long term. Powering the world with solar panels + wind + batteries would have looked like science fiction 40 years ago. Something looking hard, and counter-intuitive doesn’t mean it’s not worth studying it.
I’m no expert and you probably are, but when it comes to technology I would never discount the ability of humans to overcome hurdles with creation of new tech or inventions. Technology is our crowning achievement as a human race but it has not been used wisely or responsibly for the most part.
only way europe gets solar panels in space is if the US says so
Solar panels in soace for ground power needs never works . Can we stop with this bullshit already ?
You know what’s also neat? If you put them in space lowly peasant can’t get the sun for free anymore. Also combats global warming.
Wouldnt tiny rocks and debris damage them continuously?
I feel like I’ve seen this fantasy before, are we moving into Gundam 00 universe now?
Tabernas Desert is closer
Leaders with spine could cut Europe’s reliance on America by 100%, a study has found.
Then Earth will become Trantor and we’ll have an elevator and infrastructure to get us to these solar panels.
They could also all very easily be destroyed by an enemy nation with access to space.
I’m not sure how to express it but this seems related to the shitty NFT ideas
Another European fairy tails
The argument for space based solar panels makes sense: The power supply wouldn’t be weather-dependent which would reduce the need for battery storage capacity in our grid. After reading the article, however, I’m not convinced (yet)… All they seem to have done was analyzing future grid development and how much battery storage and renewables „on the ground“ could be replaced by this SBSP technology. I’m much more concerned with cost (which other commenters have mentioned), efficiency and – most importantly – maintenance. Am I the only one wondering how we’re going to clean and repair those things? As far as I know there is a constant need to do that for the solar panels on the ISS. Maybe the newer technology is past that stage, but I have a hard time imagining any piece of technology just sitting around in space for years or even decades without ever needing an engineer checking it a single time..
Solar panels on roofs work now, and for real. Focus on energy transition now.
Yeah and it will also save the baby pandas an other study has found
Fucking how? How do you transmit a massive amount of solar energy from orbital solar panels to the electric grid?
I appreciate your arguments, but I do not accept your basic premise, which is technology needs to be separated from it’s users. My point is exactly the opposite; technology and it’s users are inseparable. Technology is good. Users and uses can be good, bad or neutral. Capitalism is a system that has no ethical or pro social aspects, and no boundaries beyond what the market will bear. You are probably a scientist or student of science and your view is not a holistic one, because science and technology are not holistic, but closed systems by nature. So unless humans can form societies which use technology wisely, then technology will probably destroy humanity. Ok, done now! Interesting discussion. Cheers
Putting solar panels in orbit and relying on it to supply a substantial part of energy would be the biggest energetic vulnerability for Europe since the Nord Stream