It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan Wants To Turn The Moon Into A Giant Power Plant

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


You clearly missed the point..




posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Clairaudience

Japan Wants To Turn The Moon Into A Giant Power Plant




Shimizu Corporation, a Japanese architecture and engineering firm, has a plan to effectively turn the moon into a giant solar power plant, reports Inhabitat.

It proposes building a massive collection of solar panels (a "Luna Ring") 6,800 miles long by 12 miles wide on the moon's surface. That's certainly a heavy-duty construction job for human beings, so Shimizu plans to get the work done with robots, only involving humans in supervisory roles.

Once complete, this hypothetical plant could continuously send energy to "receiving stations" around the globe by way of lasers and microwave transmission. This idea gets around two major hurdles for solar power, as there is no weather or darkness to curb electricity production on the moon. If operating in ship-shape, Shimizu says it could continuously send 13,000 terawatts of power back to Earth. By comparison, the total installed electricity generation summer capacity in the United States was 1,050.9 gigawatts.





It's big thinking that we're skeptical will ever see fruition, but we like where Shimizu's coming from. It believes that "virtually inexhaustible, non-polluting solar energy is the ultimate source of green energy that brings prosperity to nature as well as our lives. Shimizu Corporation proposes the Luna Ring for the infinite coexistence of mankind and the Earth."


Although I respectfully disagree with the last paragraph it would be neat to see this idea become a reality. The hurdles and costs of constructing, placing and maintaining the panels on the moon far outweigh the potential benefits, not to mention all the unknowns, for instance how will the panels be shielded from the constant solar flare bombardment?! Personally I still believe, as some of you might know, that nuclear energy is the savior to the energy crisis, but I support any endeavors like this to find alternatives to the problems we face today.



It is all very great but my concern with this is the fact that people might need to pay indirectly within their pockets with this. We must not forget that Nikola Tesla did have the plans to have every human living on earth with free energy for a not so costy price, for the ones living in America of course.

The idea is great, but we do already have everything we need to be independent from energy companies, let's get to work folks.



Thruthseek3r



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I've thought about that for years. All the power we need forever, pretty much. But they'd need permission from its occupants.....



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 



Getting to the moon has cost more lives than the Fukushima incident which has a current death toll of zero.
But since Fukushima is not the subject matter I would like to ask any contributors after this post to refrain from any remarks to the Fukushima incident. Thank you.


Wow... gotta unflag for that one.

Why exactly do you think that comparisons are not appropriate?
You do know that the Shimizu Corporation assisted with the installation of the tanks that hold the spent fuel rods at Fukushima.... Right?
The same tanks that were built over a freaking fault line.
But then again, you already stated that you think that nuclear power is the way to go.

Shill much for the nuclear power industry?

There were 3 deaths attributed directly to going to the moon.

Link to Apollo 1.

There have been 5 deaths directly attributed to Fukushima.


Here’s a quick quiz, readers: how many people have died as a result of the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactor?
If you answered in the thousands, you’re way off. If you answered zero, you’re closer, but not quite right either.
The correct, but rarely seen answer is five.


link to source

And that is in 3 years.
How long did it take us to supposedly go to the moon?

The safety issues of this moon power plant need to be discussed.
Especially when the corporation wanting to build it is responsible for installation of the tanks at Fukushima.

The problem with radiation risk is long term exposure through mutated genetics in successive generations.
Study: 28% Increase In Thyroid Problems In Babies Born After Fukushima in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington.

Infants are much more vulnerable to radiation than adults.

However, radiation safety standards are set based on the assumption that everyone in the world is a healthy man in his 20s.

Now, a medical doctor (Janette D. Sherman, M. D.) and epidemiologist (Joseph Mangano) have released a study showing a 28% increase in thyroid problems in babies born in Hawaii and America’s West Coast after the Fukushima nuclear accident.


Fukushima comparisons are valid. Especially if one considers that the same people who brought us the tanks that could poison the world want to build this untested moon power plant contraption.

Nuclear power is not good.

You brought up your support for it in the OP. If you can't take people criticizing it then you shouldn't have mentioned it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Sure I'll support them, but first they need to figure out a solution to stop their Sushi from glowing in the dark.




top topics
 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join