dlkf writes: "There is an article on Space.com that talks about some of the benefits, costs and current research relevant to using satellites to generate and store power. This surplus of power could then be beamed via laser or microwave to earth or other satellites."
- It would be more cost-effective to build a solar power station 10 times larger on the ground
- It could cause atmospheric problems, heating etc. What if a plane flies through the beam, would it's electronics get mucked up?
- The reciever station would be massive anyway
- It would be better to give every house a solar roof
David
is that so? Let me go out and take a look...
by
jason99si
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So what happens when something doesn't work right? Are they going to take a quick skip into the outer reaches of our atmosphere to cold boot the power server? Something nice about power generation on Earth, you can walk there. (or at least use a ladder).
On the plus side, a new Incredible Hulk movie is coming out, there could be an interesting cross marketing campaign... hey.. wait a second...
will we be reading this again 25 years from now
by
hagbard5235
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This was first seriously proposed by
Gerald K. Oneill of Princeton University in
1975! It was feasable ( and even profitable )
then, but the capitalization was to high for
any organization on earth but the US Government
to undertake. The only reason we haven't done
it already is because of a defect of will, a
myopy of purpose, and inability to look further
ahead than the next election.
When will we, the citizens of the United States,
have the vision to demand these sorts of
projects from our government? Oneill's initial
proposal had an estimated 20 year pay back time, for
the first powersat. Subsequent powersats would
have been much cheaper. If the proposal Oneill
made had been taken up seriously in 1976, and taken
say 2 years to get it's political legs so that
actual work began in 1978, and it took ten
years to build, we would have had cheap abundant
energy by 1988.
Given cheap abundant energy it would be feasible to
produce, for example, metal hydride or fuel cell
powered cars. Given a 10 year ramp up and phase in
for those technologies we would have in 1998
been largely petroleum free ( at least for
power ).
Does anyone question that this would be a better
place to be... and we could be there by now, if
only we had the vision, and the will.
Re:Back off of our Desert!
by
sam_handelman
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's a common misconception that the Nevada desert is a wasteland. Guess what: It's not. There is a rather intricate ecosystem. Covering the desert wipes out this system.
This is true. Furthermore, there's the power transmission problem. Until we get room temperature superconductors, only California can benefit from Nevada's ecological destruction. Beaming the power from space is about as feasible as killing people with orbiting laser satellites.
The only real wasteland is in the open ocean. It doesn't look real different from other stretches of ocean but if there's no algae, you can cut off the sun (it only penetrates about 40 meters anyway). You float the things on the water. It's the only ecologically sound place to put them, and there are stretches of this sort of ocean comparatively close to all of the world's coastlines, which is where most people live.
-- The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Space power 1000+ times more expensive (Zubrin)
by
Chuck+Messenger
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Robert Zubrin makes the convincing case (in Entering Space, for example), that space-based power is an absurd idea. Launching stuff into space is outrageously expensive -- alot more than you probably think. The advantages to be gained, in terms of solar power efficiency, from space basing vs ground basing is only on the order of 2 or 3. The disadvantage in terms of cost of building in space vs on the ground is on the order of 1000 or 10,000 (or was it even higher? Can't remember -- I only recall it was multiple orders of magnitude greater).
In short, space-based power is a red herring. Just build a ground-based power station that's 2 or 3 times bigger. It will be hundreds or thousands (or more?) times cheaper to build and operate.
Re:Why bother when there are better alternatives!
by
angel'o'sphere
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Uh, hum....
Rated interesting:-) but wrong.
A space stationed power generator will by very effective in relation to a ground based.
By fabricing everything in space (yes yes, for that we would need a source for the needed resources, e.g. the moon and it is a much bigger undertaking ) it can be made unlimited big.
A lot of constructive problems we had on ground fall away. (No need to have something taking the weight of the constructin etc.)
Allways directed to the sun, so more yield.
Combination of power generation with the cooling system (if one is needed).
New thin film technices, e.g. not based on silicon , but paint like, would only require a thin sheet to be painted in space.
Bigger problem: the ground station receiving the beam.
Also: military abuse of the beam.
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
-- Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
SSP pretty secure from terrorist attack
by
GPS+Pilot
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have many friends living near Three Mile Island, so when I heard on the news there was a "credible threat" against it (which was later discredited) I was pretty concerned.
That points up a benefit of Space Solar Power: Space Solar Power and nuclear energy are the two forms of power generation most benign to the environment. BUT, it's virtually impossible for terrorists to attack a SSP satellite. And if some future terrorist does aquire anti-satellite weapon, blowing up a SSP bird would have far fewer consequences than blowing up a nuke plant.
-- That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Some reasons why this would be bad:
- It would be more cost-effective to build a solar power station 10 times larger on the ground
- It could cause atmospheric problems, heating etc. What if a plane flies through the beam, would it's electronics get mucked up?
- The reciever station would be massive anyway
- It would be better to give every house a solar roof
David
So what happens when something doesn't work right? Are they going to take a quick skip into the outer reaches of our atmosphere to cold boot the power server? Something nice about power generation on Earth, you can walk there. (or at least use a ladder).
On the plus side, a new Incredible Hulk movie is coming out, there could be an interesting cross marketing campaign... hey.. wait a second...
This was first seriously proposed by
Gerald K. Oneill of Princeton University in
1975! It was feasable ( and even profitable )
then, but the capitalization was to high for
any organization on earth but the US Government
to undertake. The only reason we haven't done
it already is because of a defect of will, a
myopy of purpose, and inability to look further
ahead than the next election.
When will we, the citizens of the United States,
have the vision to demand these sorts of
projects from our government? Oneill's initial
proposal had an estimated 20 year pay back time, for
the first powersat. Subsequent powersats would
have been much cheaper. If the proposal Oneill
made had been taken up seriously in 1976, and taken
say 2 years to get it's political legs so that
actual work began in 1978, and it took ten
years to build, we would have had cheap abundant
energy by 1988.
Given cheap abundant energy it would be feasible to
produce, for example, metal hydride or fuel cell
powered cars. Given a 10 year ramp up and phase in
for those technologies we would have in 1998
been largely petroleum free ( at least for
power ).
Does anyone question that this would be a better
place to be... and we could be there by now, if
only we had the vision, and the will.
It's a common misconception that the Nevada desert is a wasteland. Guess what: It's not. There is a rather intricate ecosystem. Covering the desert wipes out this system.
This is true. Furthermore, there's the power transmission problem. Until we get room temperature superconductors, only California can benefit from Nevada's ecological destruction. Beaming the power from space is about as feasible as killing people with orbiting laser satellites.
The only real wasteland is in the open ocean. It doesn't look real different from other stretches of ocean but if there's no algae, you can cut off the sun (it only penetrates about 40 meters anyway). You float the things on the water. It's the only ecologically sound place to put them, and there are stretches of this sort of ocean comparatively close to all of the world's coastlines, which is where most people live.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Robert Zubrin makes the convincing case (in Entering Space, for example), that space-based power is an absurd idea. Launching stuff into space is outrageously expensive -- alot more than you probably think. The advantages to be gained, in terms of solar power efficiency, from space basing vs ground basing is only on the order of 2 or 3. The disadvantage in terms of cost of building in space vs on the ground is on the order of 1000 or 10,000 (or was it even higher? Can't remember -- I only recall it was multiple orders of magnitude greater).
In short, space-based power is a red herring. Just build a ground-based power station that's 2 or 3 times bigger. It will be hundreds or thousands (or more?) times cheaper to build and operate.
Uh, hum ....
:-) but wrong.
Rated interesting
A space stationed power generator will by very effective in relation to a ground based.
By fabricing everything in space (yes yes, for that we would need a source for the needed resources, e.g. the moon and it is a much bigger undertaking ) it can be made unlimited big.
A lot of constructive problems we had on ground fall away. (No need to have something taking the weight of the constructin etc.)
Allways directed to the sun, so more yield.
Combination of power generation with the cooling system (if one is needed).
New thin film technices, e.g. not based on silicon , but paint like, would only require a thin sheet to be painted in space.
Bigger problem: the ground station receiving the beam.
Also: military abuse of the beam.
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I have many friends living near Three Mile Island, so when I heard on the news there was a "credible threat" against it (which was later discredited) I was pretty concerned.
That points up a benefit of Space Solar Power: Space Solar Power and nuclear energy are the two forms of power generation most benign to the environment. BUT, it's virtually impossible for terrorists to attack a SSP satellite. And if some future terrorist does aquire anti-satellite weapon, blowing up a SSP bird would have far fewer consequences than blowing up a nuke plant.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.