> It makes far more sense to build data centers in the arctic.

What (literally) on earth makes you say this? The arctic has excellent cooling and extremely poor sun exposure. Where would the energy come from?

A satellite in sun-synchronous orbit would have approximately 3-5X more energy generation than a terrestrial solar panel in the arctic. Additionally anything terrestrial needs maintenance for e.g. clearing dust and snow off of the panels (a major concern in deserts which would otherwise seem to be ideal locations).

There are so many more considerations that go into terrestrial generation. This is not to deny the criticism of orbital panels, but rather to encourage a real and apolitical engineering discussion.

▲

PurpleRamen 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> A satellite in sun-synchronous orbit would have approximately 3-5X more energy generation than a terrestrial solar panel in the arctic.

Building 3-5x more solar plants in the Arctic, would still be cheaper than travelling to space. And that's ignoring that there are other, more efficient plants possible. Even just building a long powerline around the globe to fetch it from warmer regions would be cheaper.

	▲	Kuinox 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Building 3-5x more solar plants in the Arctic, would still be cheaper than travelling to space. Well first you have to make solar panels works in the polar nights, in winter they have a few minutes of sun in the day at most.
	▲	IsTom 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Sunlight is unevenly distributed in the arctic during the year to say the least.