Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Urges Space-Based Solar Power
eldavojohn writes "The Pentagon issued a report indicating that space-based solar power 'has the potential to help the United States stave off climate change and avoid future conflicts over oil by harnessing the Sun's power to provide an essentially inexhaustible supply of clean energy.' The report, from the Pentagon's National Security Space Office, calls for funding the development of space-based solar power culminating in 'a platform in geosynchronous orbit bigger than the international space station and capable of beaming 5-10 megawatts of power to a receiving station on the ground.' The Pentagon's interest in such an effort stems from the need to acquire energy on the battlefield, which today often comes at a painful premium."
Sooo..... would this mean that the Pentagon could *bogart* all of the power when needed, or reduce power generation at critical times? This is one of the principal complaints about the GPS system as currently structured. There is no doubt that the GPS system has revolutionized much of the developed world and I am not criticizing that. On the contrary, I am just pointing out a possible criticism. After all, if the Pentagon (US government) plays its cards right, this could be a way to ensure that Gap Nations can be provided power to help them integrate into the Economic Core. (brilliant background on theory of Gap Nations and Economic core here ).
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
5-10Mw is the power output of _one_ _small_ power plant. Typical nuclear power plants output hundreds megawatts of power.
However, a nice focused microwave ray can literally bake people without (much) damage to property.
That's an excellent point.
... a basket owned by and controlled by the DoD.
Worse yet is something that didn't make it past the editing in my submission of this summary. I read around and it seems like a lot of people think that this budget for such an expensive extensive project would almost certainly be cut from any other alternative energy sources.
In my opinion, our defense spending is already through the roof, this could be a political move to put something powerful in space and get the money from alternative energy spending (or at least under the guises of it). Maybe my tin foil hat is on too tight but a lot of news sources were saying that this could drain and/or draw attention away from other just as valid efforts at escaping the grip of fossil fuels.
Like everyone's been saying, our solution to these problems of dependence on the middle east & emissions is going to be a host of different solutions specific to different areas. I fear that the funding and attention will go into this and we'll have all our eggs in one basket
My work here is dung.
Free as in taxes, right?
We have the morons at Homeland Security telling us to be afraid of anything at ALL, no matter how impossible or silly, and at the opposite end, the morons at the Pentagon who want to put an incredibly expensive target into space which their soldiers will depend on and which can be cheaply taken out by anyone with access to what the commercialization of space folks have learned in the past decade (and will in the next).
...Ah, not so stupid.
So what this will need, in order to work, is Star Wars missile defense, which is in trouble now. We'd have to start funding that again.
It takes the military to come up with a REALLY stupid idea. We can develop better solar cells, or improve battery technology, or maybe put up more wind energy farms, but why not put the solar cells in space and beam the power down in focused beams with some sort of Buck Rogers scheme that has never been developed or tested and would probably, if it could work at all and not just be a cover for spending for a space weapons platform, be much more vulnerable to attack by potential adversary countries with access to space, e.g. the Russians or the Chinese. God save us from these morons.
Yes, this initial version doesn't generate a lot of power, but if the military were to actually go through with this plan, it would absorb the initial R&D costs to take orbital solar platforms from scribbles on the back of a cocktail napkin to a real, working prototype. Once the process is proven, then it would be a much smaller economic risk for the private sector to transition the technology to the civilian sector and expand capacity. Very few entities in the United States, let alone the globe, have deep enough pockets to absorb the immense financial risk and ready access to the limited pools of specialized aerospace engineering talent required as the United States military. Personally, I would rather have the military spending money on technology that has civilian benefits instead of buying yet another set of nuclear weapons.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Solar power satellites aren't a new idea. I first encountered the concept in high school when I read Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars". We already have the tech (and we may have in fact constructed, although I dunno) for microwave power receivers, and the studies that have been done have shown that it's a pretty safe way to move power around. While it's in its microwave form, there's almost zero effect on anything that crosses in between the transmitter and receiver, including wildlife. It's cheap, it's infinite, and it's about a gazillion times more efficient than terrestrial solar power, so it would cut down on the amount of pollution produced when we make solar cells (lots of silver and such).
From an environmental standpoint (which I don't care much about anyway, but whatever), it'd be nice to see China's growing space agency grab onto this idea as well, since they're the largest source of pollution in the world, and their energy demands are only increasing. But, in any case, at least someone is starting to take the concept seriously.
The military has a problem. They need a lot of power for computers, communications, all the conveniences of modern warfare. *But*, they often work far away from any established (or reliable) infrastructure.
Space-based power would be a tremendous gain. Setting up base in a remote corner of Iran to perform Intel? No problem. Spaceman Spiff justs adjusts the microwave transmitter from the orbital solar array, and you get instant power.
I haven't thought through all the implications, but I can see substantial military advantages in something like this.
Your tax dollars -> Pentagon -> (Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics) -> Budget over-runs, late or no deliveries, CEOs even richer than before -> Your tax dollars down the toilet.
Been there. Done that.
If you could have some sort of space based system beaming massive amounts of energy down to the ground,
If we give the Pentagon a giant space laser, why do we have to send troops at all? At very least we should be able to cancel any further developement on bombers with this thing.
Yes I know it's supposed to deliver a beam to create electricity, not a destructive beam, but be realistic this is the Pentagon we are talking about.
We are all just people.
Except the SDI plan uses a much more focused laser than this is likely to be. 10MW over a 10m diameter dish comes out to ~125kw/m^2 "merely" 100 times more than the sun. Most microwaves generate at least 9kw/m^2, so this is about a 14kw microwave instead of your regular 1kw. The SDI focuses those multimegawats into an areas less than 6 inches in diameter. A power density a few orders of magnitude greater.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Right...
Which is why the government & banks pump 10-14% more money into the economy every year, causing the stock market and property markets to rise exponentially and thereby moving value away from those who only have cash in the bank and CPI limited salary rises to those who own assets and stocks.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Deleted
Hmm.. Just how long does it take to recover the cost of building a terrestrial power station? I seem to remember a $25Million dollar gas power plant built just out side my town. They generate about $8Million a year selling power, which they have to pay for gas, employees, and the construction costs.. Of course, we're ignoring the cost of about $3Billion for the western power grid that it hooks into...(since were not mentioning the cost of downlink equipment, seems fair to not include the cost of distribution)
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Thats a ridiculous argument. We would never put something a mere 10 meters squared into orbit for this purpose. Read this for some real options: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.shtml. Also, we are constantly sending the shuttle and other stuff into space anyway, so if its not a solar panel being launched it will be something else using your 100kg of fuel.
Bottom line-> don't spend billions on oil exploration and refineries etc. Just put massive solar cells in space or on moon and get cheap energy forever more.
Because the US doesn't already have the power for an airstrike anywhere on the Earth? I believe political, rather than technical reasons, keep the US from blowing up things normally. Missiles and long-range bombers generally can get to where they need to bomb relatively quickly.
And weapons. The energisation of space will be accompanied by the militarisation thereof. No question. If there is a critical asset in orbit, something that the USA can simply not afford to lose, it will be protected. Even if this space-based power isn't a feasible weapon in its own right (and I can't really see, from any descriptions I've read online, how it could be), it will be protected. And critical orbital assets will be protected from space. There's no other good way to do it.
This is one of the reasons the US military is interested in space-based power. One of the many, of course. Providing troops with power is a benefit. The militarisation of space, the extension into earth's orbit of US control, is a benefit. It's an exercise for the reader to decide which is a tangential benefit, and which is primary.
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
global warming is caused by decreasing the rate at which heat dissipates by greenhouse gases trapping the radiating energy and reflecting it back to earth
Is this like an intelligent design thing where the greenhouse gases knows to only reflect the heat going out back and not reflect the heat coming in, out? Are there little demons with mirrors riding around on CO2 molecules bouncing the IR photons in one direction only? Seriously wouldn't logic seem to indicate that the greenhouse gasses are as likely to scatter the IR away as they are toward the Earth
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
This response makes the assumption that the United States gives a shit about international law.
They don't.
Look up anything about the international court for proof.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Around Passover time, you can find coca cola in the U.S. with real sugar instead of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup). You will still have to travel to certain major metro areas (i.e. the ones with lots of Jews.) Google for "passover coca cola" for more information.
Illegal? Don't you mean it would be breaking several treaties? I see this constantly on Slashdot. Is there some sort of thing going on in Europe where the meaning of this word is different in various places?
Deleted
How can we give a crap about something that doesn't exist?
There is no such thing as international law, only international agreements.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Since when is the right to property a fundamental right? Its an artificially created right and it has to be balanced with some checks and measures. I mean if the poor dont have anything worth stealing or protecting but still have to pay taxes to support a police force and a judiciary they are basically subsidising a private security infrastructure for the rich. If you dont want any balance abolish police and let everyone hire Blackwater for their safety. The poor wont be any worse off as in any case the police hardly ever investigate a poor mans murder but the rich would go bankrupt paying Blackwater fees. Its a public good when you want the poor to subsidize your safety force but a subsidy when the poor want something to safesuard their lives namely preventive healthcare.
**Life is too short to be serious**
And you realize that's a crock right? Lots of countries with public health care run balanced budgets (Canada, New Zealand, etc). It's not about borrowing, it's about priorities. If the US wasn't flushing money down the toilet in Iraq, you could fund public health care and have money left over for a decent education system without a running a deficit.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
It is impossible to switch to Ethanol. The Ethanol industry's own data (each gallon of Ethanol produced yields an excess of 17,000 BTUs. 125,000 BTU/gal Gasoline / 17,000 BTU/gal excess = 7) shows that it takes SEVEN gallons of Ethanol to replace ONE gallon of Gasoline. The average yield of Corn is 135 Bu/acre and each Bushel of Corn yields 2.68 Gal of Ethanol. To replace Gasoline with Ethanol made from Corn grown in the US would require 44 Million MORE acres of agricultural land than the TOTAL acres of agricultural land available in the US.
Add to that the fact that it is limited to one crop per growing season, is a mono-culture highly susceptible to natural or artificial pathogens, drought, floods and hail and you have what is probably the least desirable energy source of all.
What is pushing the Ethanol industry? Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That's $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced). There are 17 NEW Ethanol plants being built in Nebraska because of those subsidies.
What makes the WHOLE THING A TOTAL DISASTER is that Ethanol is NOT the path or even a bridge to energy independence. It is merely a drain on the Federal treasury driven by greed and corruption.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
You're absolutely right. The angry, America farmers I know are angry about the subsidies being used to drive them out of business. (This might be partly due to their unwillingness to take the subsidies for themselves. These farmers do not necessarily represent an accurate sample.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You're missing the larger point so badly you're wandering into a more grevious error.
The rights were declared "unalienable".
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
Note "self-evident" and "unalienable"!
Don't get hung up on reference to a Creator or a Diety. The idea here is that we didn't have to fight for these rights. We didn't have to steal them from the British or any other ruling power. We simply have always had them. To a theist, this is "given" or "endowed" by a Creator. But the principle that these rights are completely innate is not dependent on theism.
You mean the large farming conglomerates are killing us. The small farmer is glad to take a subsidy to not plant anything and let the fields recover. Archer Daniels Midland wants money from products.