Lights out for London: Giant space mirror to replace street lights by 2050?

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I'm putting this in the Gray area as I don't have a source I can link to. A close member of my family holds a high up position in the EU Energy Efficiency Directive and this is one of the ideas presented to him from a group of scientists in a "Behind closed doors" talk.

The premesis is simple, put a 100-meter wide mirror in space and use it to reflect light from the sun to light up London all night long. It would be constructed from 200 smaller pannels which would be constructed once in space. Think Ikea flatpack furniture. It would light up a 13 mile diameter area from space with the intensity of up to 20x that of the moon.

This is not an unheard of concept either. The Russians successfully managed a 5km lit-up area in 1992 (I hate to use wiki, but): en.wikipedia.org...(space_mirror)

And here's some science. www.triz-journal.com...

"Blinders" will be put on various points of the mirror to keep parks and other wildlife areas in the dark to preserve wildlife, and streetlights will still be kept available as a back up incase the mirror was destroyed either by way of a natural disaster or by an enemy.

There are a few pros and cons to this.

Pros:
Energy free.
Non-reliant on the powergrid so doesn't need to worry about blackouts.
Mirror can always be moved to help other areas and other countries during a blackout or disaster.
Military implications of being able to eliminate darkness anywwhere in the world.
Potential agricultural benefit of providing plants with 24/7 sunlight.
Improved solar panel efficiency

Cons:
Very high initial cost
Damaged mirrors from space junk would be difficult to replace and methods to mitigate the risks from space junk are still in their infancy.
Application is limited (Although not removed entirely) on a cloudy day.

So what do you think? Is this a good idea? Would you support it if proposed? Are there any pitfalls or other cons you can see from such technology?
edit on 8-2-2013 by sajuek because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2013 by sajuek because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Not sure why any country would spend that enormous amount of money to light up a city. Its not like its going to help people indoors.

Are they afraid of the dark or something?

I have to call this one as unlikely.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


I say this is nonsense and someone is pulling your leg because they know you are a member of this site.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I'm sure there were lots of ideas presented.

I doubt this one was on the short list.

edit on 2/8/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Sounds interesting I wonder what would happen to the planet if we had enough mirrors to keep the whole surface in daylight, I mean like wildlife, plants and the ecosystem.

Still it might be good for areas of crops and farming I suppose, I actually think it entirely possible to achieve this but wonder if the work they have would have to put in would outweigh the gains.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   
This could never happen.

Too many vampires in the Royal family.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
Not sure why any country would spend that enormous amount of money to light up a city. Its not like its going to help people indoors.

Are they afraid of the dark or something?

I have to call this one as unlikely.


Well, to light London for 50 years it costs the taxpayer £75,000,000 GBP. (15,000 street lights, street lights cost 27p a day to maintain, just over 4,000 a day x 365 x 50. Add about 2 million more for new streetlights in that time.)

The proposed cost of this project, including maintainence is £50,000,000 over a 75 year lifetime. It's actually a money-saver.
edit on 8-2-2013 by sajuek because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by penninja
This could never happen.

Too many vampires in the Royal family.


No, I've seen underworld, they have like catacombs and stuff to hide in and hold court with the lycans.

I think they are known as paparazzi to normal day walkers.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


I dunno though, the light would be very dispersed. I doubt it would do away with all artificial light in that area, so it would only cut costs not eradicate them.

the mirror would have to constantly shift position to match the location.

it's bad enough getting a broke street light fixed in most places let alone calling up to complain that the space mirror is stuck.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
OP, your first link is for a Russian newspaper, nothing about the topic. From your second link, it was a complete failure when they tried it. It sounds like a good idea but not viable, unfortunately. My emphasis on the gist of failure in below infor.


Abstract. The article analyzes the failure of the Russian project 'Znamya', which is better known as "Space Mirror". When unfolding, the space mirror membrane caught on the antenna that projected over the space station body.

Using TRIZ, the causes of the failure were analyzed and a number of solutions for improving the reliability of the flexible membrane unfolding under weightlessness were proposed.


Introduction. The space mirror that reflects the Sun's rays onto the nightside of our planet is one of the impressive space projects. In 1993, the spaceship "Progress M-15" placed into orbit a 20-meter film mirror (the project "Znamya"). The mirror unfurled and produced a light spot that was equal in strength approximately to one full moon. A huge plash of sunlight glanced over beclouded Europe to be seen only by astronomers on the top of the Alps.


edit on 8-2-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Just the weight alone would make this project undesirable, and not worth the cost. Not to mention all the fabricating problems that would arise. I just dont see the amount of work needed just to light up a city, worth the risk and cost.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel
OP, your first link is for a Russian newspaper, nothing about the topic. From your second link, it was a complete failure when they tried it. It sounds like a good idea but not viable, unfortunately. My emphasis on the gist of failure in below infor.


Abstract. The article analyzes the failure of the Russian project 'Znamya', which is better known as "Space Mirror". When unfolding, the space mirror membrane caught on the antenna that projected over the space station body.

Using TRIZ, the causes of the failure were analyzed and a number of solutions for improving the reliability of the flexible membrane unfolding under weightlessness were proposed.


Introduction. The space mirror that reflects the Sun's rays onto the nightside of our planet is one of the impressive space projects. In 1993, the spaceship "Progress M-15" placed into orbit a 20-meter film mirror (the project "Znamya"). The mirror unfurled and produced a light spot that was equal in strength approximately to one full moon. A huge plash of sunlight glanced over beclouded Europe to be seen only by astronomers on the top of the Alps.


edit on 8-2-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)


The links URL is fragmented by the brackets. Look at the disambiguation on the wiki page and click on the "Space Mirror" part just at the top.

I never said that a smaller, 20-meter mirror would provide as much intensity. To quote from the wiki page you couldn't find:

"The Znamya 2.5 was a successor to the Znamya 2, which was deployed on 5 February 1999. It had a diameter of 25 m, and was expected to produce a bright spot 7 km in diameter, with luminosity between five and ten full moons"

And I never said that this was full steam ahead, going to happen 100% without a doubt and I didn't even say that it was anyone's plan to even put in action. If you all bothered reading what I actually said, I only said that this was a proposed idea by some scientists to someone I know who is part of the decision making process in the EEED, notice that the title has a question mark? It was proposed as a practical solution to a practical problem and it has scientific theory behind it that it'd be possible, within the specifications of what they need it to do.

I shared it because it was an interesting concept.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks.
edit on 8-2-2013 by sajuek because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2013 by sajuek because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Those mirrors won't work because they reflect more than just visible light.

Also if a meteor or space junk hits it and alters it's aiming point on Earth....could have dire outcomes.


The tiny island country of Palau volunteered quite a few years ago to become the first place on Earth to have energy beamed from a satellite to one of their islands. The basis was similiar to yours....a "sun beam". The one onto Palau was going to reflect and direct a high energy beam.

Financing fell through because who's liable if that satellite gets nudged and that energy beam cooks everyone in Singapore?.......not plausible.


If you want to decrease Earth's power needs at night for light there's an easier way. Nuke the moon. Setting off nukes on the moon to turn its surface to glass. It would reflect more light to light us up at night. PLUS we'd get a little photosynthesis at night to start cleaning OUR atmosphere and create more Oxygen.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   
This will not happen, the cost will be too great to justify it, but more importantly the negative environmental impact will be astronomical. Wildlife will suffer as a result, so I highly doubt it will be done.



reply to post by penninja
 


Do you have proof that the British royal family are vampires, or are you just running your mouth of like an uneducated small school child?
edit on 9/2/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


I am not putting words in your mouth and I appreciated you bringing the concept idea to 'light'. I was simply pointing out that it was a failure when it was tried and it did not accomplish what they expected. Don't take it personal.
edit on 9-2-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   
What if the calculations are messed up and it ends up like when you burn ants with a magnifying glass. Talk about global warming
London's burning again.






top topics



 
3

log in

join