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."

26 of 552 comments (clear)

  1. Right... by benhocking · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because I can't imagine any other military application behind beaming 5-10 megawatts of power to a focused location...

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Right... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because I can't imagine any other military application behind beaming 5-10 megawatts of power to a focused location...

      No, no, no. This is the NEW Pentagon. They're here to help developing countries. If they need some power, we'll give it to them.

      Oh, and sorry about the little incident where we fried your communications infrastructure. We'll help with that, too. Just got a few bugs in the system. Complicated technology and all that.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. Life imitates art by Daishiman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do you remember SimCity 2000 when you could build an orbital solar power station that could potentially misalign and burn down half the city? Fun times.
    In practice, it'd be a piece of cake to implement a safeguard against that.

  3. Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's an excellent point.

    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 ... a basket owned by and controlled by the DoD.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Recoup the initial expense? Launch something bigger than the ISS into geosynchronous orbit (26,000 miles, compared with the ISS orbit of about 210 miles), for a measly 10 megawatts? You were kidding, right?

    2. Re:Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You doubt the entire thing will weigh (okay, mass) 4000 pounds? Look, I was with your back-of-the-envelope numbers up to that point, but 2000 pounds for 10 megawatts of solar panels, plus meteorite shielding, control/propulsion systems, and the microwave transmitter to beam the power back down? No way. 5000 pounds is a fair weight estimate for a modern communications satellite, and they're a whole lot simpler.

      Do you even have an idea of how many square feet of PV cells you need for 10MW? There's a system in Portugal that's that big, you can see a photo of it here. Even figuring that you might get slightly more efficient cells and by putting them in orbit might be able to get more power out of each, you're still talking about a *huge* station.

      I strongly suspect you are talking about a Shuttle launch or using one of the Russian or European heavy-lift rockets (I think an Ariane 5 can lift something like 10,000 kilos to geostationary orbit), and that's assuming you can lift it in one shot to begin with.

      I think this is neat technology too, but let's not understate the difficulty here. This is an immense undertaking.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    3. Re:Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

      I vote we build huge photovoltaic rings around our planet perpendicular to the sun, then we can collect energy AND look almost as cool as Saturn.

    4. Re:Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well it is the US military we are talking about and to be blunt it be an effectives weapon it doesn't need to be that big or generate that much power.

      One tenth the size and rather than powering a city they can http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/22/0420239 or if they prefer they can http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/22/0420239 and torture a whole city at once.

      Personally with their current track record, there are a whole lot of countries that will not trust the water boarding US military with an enormous energy weapon in space.

      Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, what happens when a micrometeorite damages the control systems and they accidentally fry a city, it might be clean but it is inherently very high risk.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. Direct Report Link by AugustZephyr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Warning: this is a 3.5MB PDF.

    SBSB Interim Assessment

  5. Re:Could be a tremendously capable tool, but.... by navtal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or they could direct the megawatt beam at things other then a power collector.....

  6. Kumbayah, indeed. by haakondahl · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm going to laugh myself unconscious when the United States Military solves the problem of clean, renewable energy for the world. Take that, hippies! Muahahahahaaaaa!

    --
    Don't trust anyone under thirty.
  7. Re:USA USA USA by SnowZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Free as in taxes, right?

  8. There are stupid ideas by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:There are stupid ideas by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to one of the big worries over standard solar arrays: land use.

      Funny to hear that about a country which 42% of its territory is desertic.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  9. The initial version may not be impressive but... by Koreantoast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Could be a tremendously capable tool, but.... by drgould · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sooo..... would this mean that the Pentagon could *bogart* all of the power when needed, or reduce power generation at critical times?

    This is only proof of concept, 5 or 10 megawatts is a drop in the bucket for commercial or military use. Heck, there are operating 5 megawatt wind generators.

    The point is that somebody should at least try to demonstrate the feasibility (or infeasibility) of space-based solar power stations, and NASA isn't going to do it so who else is there?

    The important thing is to develop the technology and techniques to build solar power stations. Once we have those, commercial power companies can just contract out to Boeing or Lockheed to have them built. But it's developing the technology and techniques that are critical.

    It's like the Navy is funding Dr. Bussard's Polywell project. The Navy can ostensively use it for powering naval vessels, but once (if!) it works, the technology will be available for commercial use. The military has a long history of sponsoring R&D that has dual military and commercial uses.

    After all, if the Pentagon (US government) plays its cards right, ...

    I'm curious, do you have any examples of the US "playing its cards right" in any foreign policy matters?

  11. Re:Actually, this could save money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If we give the Pentagon a giant space laser, why do we have to send troops at all?


    because we haven't found any giant space sharks yet...
  12. Tinfoil hat? by woolio · · Score: 4, Funny

    In practice, it'd be a piece of cake to implement a safeguard against that.

    Tinfoil hat?

    Need I say more?

  13. Re:Could be a tremendously capable tool, but.... by ILuvRamen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they'd be more likely to do that by accident. If they're off by like 0.001 degrees in space, they'll hit like 5 miles to the right and torch a whole town with microwaves or however they plan to beam it down. Nobody will want one of those plants anywhere near their town which means tons and tons of line loss from having to run power cables so far.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  14. Re:Could be a tremendously capable tool, but.... by LMariachi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering the military budget comes out of the pockets of us commercial and civilian users, it's hardly a "free ride."

  15. American Agri-business Versus DOD by reporter · · Score: 5, Interesting
    One organization that rivals the influence of the military industrial complex (of which the Department of Defense is a piece) is the farm lobby (also known as the agri-business lobby). If the farm lobby -- or, more specifically, the pro-ethanol corn lobby in the midwest -- opposes the solar-power idea in favor of ethanol, will the government still build an orbiting solar-power transmitter?

    My hunch is that the answer is "no". Even though Brazilian sugar-cane-based ethanol is much cheaper than American corn-based ethanol, Washington levies such a huge tariff on the former that it is more expensive than the latter. The whole point is to placate the angry American farmer.

    An effort that favors any alternative fuel source besides corn is sure to run afoul of the farm lobby. Isn't Iowa one of the earliest primary states?

    Oh yeah. Coca-Cola, long ago, dumped sugar in favor of corn syrup in the soft drinks. A tariff here and there sure can change the economics of life.

    1. Re:American Agri-business Versus DOD by Xonstantine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole point is to placate the angry American farmer. You mispelled "Archer Daniels Midland".
    2. Re:American Agri-business Versus DOD by Jerry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

  16. Re:Not a bad idea by pintpusher · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do not look at transmitter with remaining eye.

    --
    man, I feel like mold.
  17. Re:Actually, this could save money... by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  18. That's 5 - 10 GIGAWATTS not megawatts!!! by itsybitsy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Woops, you made an error of three orders of magnitude, that's five to ten gigawatts not megawatts.

    From the report.
    http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

    Typical reference designs involved a satellite in geostationary orbit, several kilometers on a side, that used photovoltaic arrays to capture the sunlight, then convert it into radio frequencies of 2.45 or 5.8 GHz where atmospheric transmission is very high, that were then beamed toward a reference signal on the Earth at intensities approximately 1/6th of noon sunlight. The beam was then received by a rectifying antenna and converted into electricity for the grid, delivering 5 - 10 gigawatts of electric power.

    The Sun is a giant fusion reactor, conveniently located some 150 million km from the Earth, radiating 2.3 billion times more energy than what strikes the disk of the Earth, which itself is more energy in a hour than all human civilization directly uses in a year, and it will continue to produce free energy for billions of years.

    You gotta like that. The SUN is conveniently located!

    The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low - intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer - wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability.

    A single kilometer - wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year (approximately 212 terawatt - years) to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today (approximately 250 TW-yrs). The enormous potential of this resource demands an examination of mankind's ability to successfully capture and utilize this energy within the context of today's technology, economic, and policy realities, as well as the expected environment within the next 25 years. Study of space-based solar power (SBSP) indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, advancement of general space faring, improved environmental stewardship, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess such a capability.

    Let's get it done!!!