Slashdot Mirror
Simcity Microwave Power by 2050?
Politburo writes "The Drudge Report supplies this interesting Senate testimony. Dr. David Criswell, director of the University of Houston's Institute for Space Systems Operations, proposes that we develop robots to assist in the construction of a lunar solar array. The power from this array would be beamed to recievers on Earth, either directly or via relay satellites. Dr. Criswell predicts that with this project, "the average American income could increase from today's ~$35,000/y-person to more than $150,000/y-person." He also attempts to put to rest the idea that microwave power is unsafe, saying, "Each power beam can be safely received, for example, in an industrially zoned area." I wonder if he's ever played SimCity 2000" And coming soon, Godzilla from a drop-down menu.
Details of that new income figure were a little light. Anybody got a more detailed explanation of what he meant by that, or should I chalk it up as "ooo people'll wanna make 150k, I'll get their vote!"
Can't say I'm terribly worried about mishaps relating to this type of technology. We've been working with Microwaves for a very long time. I'm sure a reasonably safe system can be developed and launched cheaply. I'm more concerned with construction on the moon. Seems like it'd be a PITA to both construct and maintain. Do we really want to put our energy dependency in a very difficult to reach place? What if an angry country figures out a way to fire a missile up there?
"Derp de derp."
Something that I've reasoned through, with my lack of engineering degree, is that the last satellite could be fixed so that in order to transmit, it must receive correct transmissions from strategically placed tight-beam ground signal transmitters. If it loses reception, it stops microwaving power. This way, if it drifts off course or is mis-aimed it won't send anything. Also, if someone were to attempt to take control of the satellite to aim it at a city or target, the satellite's repositioning would cause it to lose contact with it's ground-based failsafes and not function. It would also require a secure method of communicating from the ground, which would have to be kept secret so someone couldn't build their own ground based transmitters, but this would prevent the mis-alignment from being hazardous. If my idea works, which I have absolutely no idea if any of this is feasible.
I think that it sounds cool though.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Seems to me that the Moon is awfully far away for this to work.
First of all, you'd have to get all the equipment up there. Not only is that amount of equipment extremely expensive, but putting that much equipment on the moon is mind-bogglingly expensive.
Second, you have to get the power here. Now, it's all well and good to say "Let's just beam it with microwave" but the moon is a few hundred thousand miles away. Even a concentrated laser beam will diverge to a diameter of a mile or so over that distance; microwave will be even worse. You just diluted your power density a whole lot: is it still a higher power per unit area than simply placing your solar cells directly on Earth's surface?
...
If we all make an average of $150,000 (which we probably will in 2050), will we really be any richer, or is it just going to be inflation?
I just fail to see where that huge amount of money comes from. I know that I'm not spending enough money on electricity to jump my spendable cash from $30,000 to $150,000 should electricity become mind-bogglingly cheap or even free - my annual income is in the $20s, and I can afford to pay for electricity. What is the USA filled with rich bastards I haven't met who somehow succeed in finding wasy to jack their annual electricity bills up to $120,000 a year?
...is how this is superior to putting a network of power generation satellites in earth orbit. What's the benefit of taking them all the way to the moon?
--
CPAN rules. - Guido van Rossum
The sad thing is that SimCity 2000 did as much to demonize microwave transmitted power as it did to popularize the idea. Glaser's original design poses very little risk to life around the unit because the beam would be very diffused. Learn more about the idea here.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I remember the early ideas for solar power sats way back when, and they almost always involved geosynchronous satellites so you don't have to aim at a moving target. Not as optimal as an LEO, but I believe for a focused beam most of your losses are in the atmosphere anyway, so another 20,000 miles or so of space is a good trade for the issues of aiming or relaying.
Now in the past few years we keep seeing these wacky plans to put the arrays on the moon (very far away and down in another gravity well making servicing a really big issue, robots or not), and beam the energy around via realy satellites. It just seems so wastetful. The only advantage I can think of is that the lunar array could *maybe* be built so large that the transmission losses don't matter.
It just seems like geosync is such a better solution, though. You could incorporate the next generation of communication satellites into the power arrays.
--- Ban humanity.
I'm thinking probably we can't. A mate of mine used to work for ITN (Independent Television News - UK Broadcaster) and he said you'd regularly get birds falling out of the sky if they flew to close to (ie through) the microwave links.
Nice
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
150 = 35 * (1 + x) ^ 47
x = 3.14%
Yep, that's not an unreasonable average rate of inflation over the next half century. So implementing this project will result in wages only matching inflation, not growing along with GDP (about 5% - can't be bothered to lookup). As someone else pointed out - "a few billion apiece for the people who control the power".
But please, don't give the machines a power source that is solar based...
This reminds me of the nuclear debates of the late 1940s. Do we use one of the most efficient energy transmitters conceiveable to power our planet or empower our government? Though it sounds like science fiction, the US army toyed with the idea of using focus solar energy as a weapons system early in the cold war (I've seen the films where they built a prototype complex and incinerated large I-beams of steel as if they were Dreamsicles next to a lighter). The US Army proved that microwave solar technology could be used to relay electricity from extraordinary altitudes in the mid 1960s. In Japan the University of Kyoto is already toying with development of a space-based satellite using an area of 1km^2 to generate solar power then beam it back to earth. The potential for near-limitless energy is especially appealing, though fossil fules would sitll be used in most of our transportation systems for some time to come (no one I know has a mass-market purely-electrical car with over a 150 mile range or better speed than 60 MPH, please send in any info on e-cars that are better).
My concern is that any nation putting this sort of system into place risks misalignment of the beams and having a solar laser of incredible power strafing across the landscape. It would be extremely tempting for terrorists or rogue governments to either put these is orbit themselves, or more likely sabotage/take over those already in place. We would then be forced to either destroy the satellite or launch military strikes on the offending parties, mandating the development and refinement of rapid-deployment and anti-space missile technology. Granted, this is a dual use system whose benefits far outweigh the detractions, but the military application of such a solar energy system seems so obvious that it must be considered.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Dr. Criswell predicts that with this project, "the average American income could increase from today's ~$35,000/y-person to more than $150,000/y-person."
As an American, I'm happy to imagine my income going from "most affluent nation on the planet" to "even more affluent".
But as a human being I have to ask: what about the rest of humanity? Do they get a share?
-kgj
That whole post is misleading. Their website isn't that much better.
In case anyone thinks it's a "solar powered machine that produces 30MW or power", which I did the first few times I read it, it's actually a manufacturing plant that produces enough solar cells every year to generate 30MW of electricity combined.
Stupid grammar... of course, the first thing I though of was "One (American) football field = 48,000 sq.ft. * ~100 watts solar energy per sq.ft. * ~15% efficiency = 720kW... how the hell are they claiming 30MW?!"
=Smidge=
Once again someone is going about feeding a huge number of consumers ( the human population ) with centralized sources. Although this is convient it does not scale.
Why not put solar panels on everyones house. Or on the top of building and have them feed battery array.
Or create lots of small fuel cells instead of one big coal power generator.
Or have our new cars charge themselves and then the power grid with solar/fuel cell combos.
Microwaves power is such a cool, but stupid idea. Kind of line nuclear power. Lets create a really expensive solution that leave nuclear waste for our kids to deal with, great....think outside the box people.
I am really surprised that no one has mentioned anything about the transmission losses, which will be HUGE. The amount of energy getting to the target will be inversely proportional to the square of the distance. That is a factor of like 10**-10. Hard to overcome that.
What is so bad about solar cells on Earth? We have lots of empty deserts.
And they talk about helicopters pulling energy from the air -- Sheesh ! Any EM field strong enough to power a helicopter is one I don't want to live in.
Lets say that the beam is 10 foot wide. Make the earth recieving station 100 feet wide.
Then, have sensors detect if it ever varies more than 20 feet outside the center of the recieving station to send a signal to turn the microwave off.
Build this station in the middle of deserts, or away from cities, the extra power consumed to transport it to cities is nothing in comparison to having a major accident in a residential area.
Pretty simple suggestions, but why not try and make use of this?
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
My research lab is working on a project to do just this. We're developing a system to assemble structures in space using an array of distributed self-reconfigurable robots. You can view the project at this website: SOLAR
------
wildmage
Memoirs of a Mad Scientist
I think that all these proposal to increase the amount of energy avoid a potential problem: the corresponding increase of heat generated..
Eventually all this energy will turn into heat, so it is quite possible that this will eventually raise earth's temperature..
I think that it may be wiser to increase the efficiency usage of energy than to increase the amount of energy used, well unless of course we need to warm up the earth..