Using solar panels in space and wirelessly transport electricity to certain battery bank on the ground or in orbit.

"wireless charger" isn't possibly the best term - I would suggest "power transmission network". We can establish this in readyness for requiring power beamed to orbtial locations, and so it's not wasted, sell power to Earth in the interim.

Solar panels are traditionally heavy(to lift from surface) and commonly only feature a lifespan of 15yrs or so. Without a protective atmosphere this can be sooner. For a long term power source this would need to be addressed.

Popular Science had an article back in the '70's about space based solar and beaming it back to earth using MASERs. I would not want to be caught in the beam, or put my head in a microwave oven. ;)

EyeR, SolarCity has developed rooftop replacement panels that last much longer. BTW having solar panels on earth is more difficult than space. In space you only have to worry about debris, CME's and gamma bursts. On earth they must survive the same as in space but also chemically reactive pollution like ozone, hail, ice, flying debris from storms, wind, rain and gravity account for most of the exceedingly high mass they must weigh to protect them. Typical life expectancy in space is in excess of 40 years.

Fifteen years may of been a poor estimate on my part, 25 closer maybe. Cant' see I've looked too deeply into the solar city panels. And definitely, two copies of the same panel the same distance from sol, one protected by a magnetic field and a few miles of atmosphere, and the other not, Sol will certainly kill the unprotected model first. There's some breeds of panel that can get longer than 40yrs in space, but these are made with uncommon techniques, and special protective materials.

The point I was actually trying to make is the constant requirement to replenish it. Which is the problematic part - apart from it's decreasing effectiveness with distance from Sol. But as a long term solution development in this area could make it a lot more viable - that's not to say it's unviable now, but "better" technologies could perform a similar task.

InfraRed might be a better choice than microwaves, I could be wrong here but I think they'll focus tighter for further. Additionally the Earth's atmosphere poses little resistence to IR. Somehow it just sounds overall safer, tho gigawatts is still gigawatts.

I agree with this idea. As the challenge for the solar panels in the space will be the protection against debris, I suggest that the solar panels are provided with sensors, probes and cameras to supervise the surroundings and detect debris moving toward the solar panels and are also provided with engines so that the solar panel will glance from the debris which may hit it.

I also suggest that a compaign should be launched and promoted to make the electrical power available and free for all people. I think that Asgardia will promote many humanitarian compaigns in the favour of Earth. The electric power is now so essential for the humanitarian to be charged for the home use.

I agree, power should be free. And not just for Asgardians.

However, this is impractical at least in the short term.

The "better" ways to entertain this provision would be those that rely on the minimal amount of launch weight - to reduce cost of the initative. Until we have our own launch facilities then this third party cost is difficult to reduce. Even with facilities it can only get pushed down so far. Design and development, construction, and deployment will likely cause initial model of sale. Design could in theory crowdsource and be of an open source nature, making costs 0.

The default option being to build and then lift required equipement, then place it into orbit. Could possibly have this done by 2020»2025(maybe for one unit, or a few and a relay). I'd personally be constructing energy farms with resources sourced almost entirely from asteroids - which can reduce the materials cost to almost nothing and even mitigate having it lifted from surface, as it can be constructed "up there". The catch is this will take longer. We would need to first get these resources and have facilities constructed in order to turn them into usable goods, which would form the components. In the early phases of this unfolding, resources would be difficult to consider infinite(another decade or two is another story. Assuming an exponentially increasing initative in place to acquire these resources - like seed factories - it's pretty much unavoidable) so incredibly likely to also result in a model of sale. However, it can be rendered "competitive" with ground-based generation methods and over time as facilities multiply and expand(which, if done from resources harvested "up there" by this stage should be "costless") this cost can be dropped further. Eventually to the point where we can force Earth away from the more destructive generation methods currently employed by nature of they cannot compete. I'm sure if a "cleaner", cheaper option was provided it'd be utilised. Especially once it's as cheap as "free".

The initial sale of this energy can be used to fund other initiatives whilst we're still operating in Earth's restrictive economic model of enforced scarcity. Once we're at a point where currency is literally meaningless to the supply of resources then it'd make sense to simply offload any excess to our consumption requirements(this could be easily engineered to encompass almost all, if not all of Earth's needs, on top of our own) quite simply as a gift. We'd be maintaining this infrastructure anyway for our own purposes.

The same rules apply to the previously mentioned manufacturing capacities. Initally sale to Earth as raw resources(as that's what'll hit us first), then refined materials(as our facilites expand), then actual goods. As this expands and we've lesser requirement(ie: none) for using their currencies we can quite simply donate our additional capacity (to our requirements, and again, this can be engineered to encompass all of Earth's needs - or thereabouts) as a gift. This should do something about things like "poverty". Gathering things exponentially will leave a large pile that needs to be dealt with, giving it to people in the form they want it sounds to me like a sensible use. There are numerous additional advantages to moving industrial processes from the surface of the Earth. By the time we're doing this they'll desperately need the space, let alone things like being free of the pollutants cause by "industry".

Equal applies to the likes of agricultural farms. It would be sensible to establish these in parallel with energy farms - providing for our needs before we actually need them and in the interim selling the excess to Earth. By the time we are able to do this, food will be a serious commodity and in much demand. And eventually as capacities allow for and as requirements for currency decrease - simply giving it to them can put an end concepts like hunger.

Yes Someone, I believe that Japan will be the first one to achieve this.

[HTML_REMOVED] http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/how-japan-plans-to-build-an-orbital-solar-farm [HTML_REMOVED]

A feasible plan, almost. They'd be beaming down power too close to inhabited structures. Misalignment could fry people. It'd ideally take place in remote locations - preferably offshore or in the middle of some desert or something.

Yes, indeed EyeR. I believe they are considering that a problem in the solar farm would be less harmful than radiation leak, as well as it was in Fukushima reactor.

Well, it'd certianly localise the damages - Unlike Fukashima which has lapped the globe several times and is still outputting. But my point was building it a little further away could almost entirely remove the possibility.