Slashdot Mirror
Space Based Solar Power Within a Decade?
Nancy Atkinson writes "A new company, Space Energy, Inc., says they have developed what they call a 'rock-solid business platform' and they should be able to provide commercially available space based solar power within a decade. 'Although it's a very grandiose vision, it makes total sense,' Space Energy's Peter Sage told Universe Today. 'We're focused on the fact that this is an inevitable technology and someone is going to do it. Right now we're the best shot. We're also focused on the fact that, according to every scenario we've analyzed, the world needs space based solar power, and it needs it soon, as well as the up-scaling of just about every other source of renewable energy that we can get our hands on.'"
Seriously, they just put a smile in my heart. It is just so stinking ridiculous that you ask yourself, "how in God's green earth did they EVER get anyone to pay them money to build that thing?" Who actually believes that you can put solar panels in space to generate electricity in a cost effective manner? Someone just bought the bridge.
It puts a smile in my heart because, at the end of the day, if we have enough extra resources in this country that we can afford to put them into such a ridiculous scheme, then the recession still isn't nearly as bad as it could be.
Awesome. Props to those salesmen.
Qxe4
you clearly did not RTFA. microwave.
The trick is beaming it back. They can either do it the less efficient way, such as what they're trying to do with wireless power chargers for phones and such, or they can beam it back as microwaves or as a focused heat and or light beam to a giant receiver. either way, the dangerous part is what happens if it somehow missed the receiver. it may become a weapon, or in the case of microwaves, make people sick and or kill them. If they can work the safety part out, it's a great plan though. P.S. I believe the article cites microwave as their preferred method.
It's not the power out there. It's the transport that is, well, tricky. You basically have two options: - low orbit for the energy station. This means you r station zooms by at mach 25. Aiming your death ray/energy beam is a little tricky then. - geostationary orbit. Your energy station is an absurd 36000 km away. Good luck focussing and aiming then. Oh, wait, there's also the fact that nobody has ever, ever transmitted reasonable amount (like, within 10 orders of magnitude of this endeavour) of power to a receiver. I am sure it is also a real piece of cake to boost that 1 million tons of equipment into orbit needed for the job. Especially when the US does not have a normal space-faring capability anymore. No, just opportunities. No mad dreams at all. Where can I invest? Surely this is not a scam??
Even if we got our entire energy needs from this, the effect on the Earth's energy balance will be negligible compared to the effect of the additional heat trapped by our release of greenhouse gases.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
If this article can be believed it's hardly as dangerous as you're making it out to be.
http://permanent.com/p-sps-bm.htm
This is silly. Putting solar panels in orbit? Please.
Use the money to build nuclear plants. Don't bore me with the waste issue. There is no such thing as waste, just more fuel.
What is wrong with you people lately? Why the hell is the GP modded troll?
This project is an orbiting white elephant that would take an enourmous amount of energy to build, would supply only a tiny fraction of what we need at a ridiculously high cost per watt, and could easily be percieved as a space based weapon by other nations. If I didn't know better I would have to assume TFA is a lame attempt to discredit the viability of earth bound renewables.
Here is the sales pitch on costs: "The biggest challenge for SBSP is making it work on a commercial level in terms of bottom line," said Sage, "i.e., putting together a business case that would allow the enormous infrastructure costs to be raised, the plan implemented, and then electricity sold at a price that is reasonable. I say 'reasonable' and not just 'competitive' because we're getting into a time where selling energy only on a price basis isn't going to be the criteria for purchase.
This is total bullshit, cost is the ONLY criteria for commercial electricity generation, the fact that the costs to the environment are not accounted for in our current economic system is the problem.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) is an economical way of delivering power to remote locations or areas isolated by war.
To deliver power to a certain places in Iraq and Afghanistan it costs well over $1USD/kWh, not mention the loss of human life.
The pentagon is seriously considering SBSP as a viable way to deliver power to not only these locations, but other places of humanitarian interest.
The technology to deliver and deploy SBSP payloads (for it will take many deployments) already exist. Improvements will undoubtedly be made, and with the hopeful completion of NASA's Ares V cargo launch vehicle SBSP will be economical for the rest of us. (under 20cents(USD)/kWh.)
As for the microwave radiation concern, it is not as scary as commonly depicted. (Can anyone recall the tale of the discovery of microwave radiation as a cooking tool--something to do with a Snickers bar melting in a pocket? [Who the heck carries a Snickers bar in their pocket?]) If the size of the receiving antenna is increased, the power of the transmitted signal may be decreased on a W/m scale. With a transmitter that can 'dither' the signal over a rather wide swath one can abate errors associated with tracking, solar anomalies and human error.
Military applications, however, are not quite as concerned with stray microwave beams.
Do not forget that SBSP is exposed to the sun for 24 hours--no interruptions!
On another note the Japanese are working on developing devices that may convert solar energy to transmittable energy in upwards of 40% efficiency by converting solar power to laser.
He didn't play SimCity 2000 either.
If SimCity 2000 is anything to go by this venture will result in a massive fire, followed closely by an alien invasion.
> And what about when it breaks? There goes a large fraction of a country's electrical power.
That applies to any power source you can think of. The usual solution is to have some spare capacity to cope with such situations.
And the parent comment is NOT a troll. The environmentalists will say we don't understand the effects of transmitting concentrated high-power microwave beams from space down through the upper atmosphere to the earth's surface.
Will it affect migrating birds? Plants and wildlife in the area? Disrupt weather patterns? Cause unforeseen chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere?
And the sad part is that they're right. We probably don't know all of the consequences...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Actually, you're wrong, the real question is why the hell are you up there in the first place trying to get power? There are literally thousand of square miles here on earth where you can put solar power panels that are 10,000 times cheaper. Yes, they may drop to 33% efficiency compared to an equivalent panel in space due to atmospheric absorption/reflection of the light. Yes, you may have to clean the solar panels here on earth more often, but there is nothing here that makes up for a 10,000 to 1 installation cost difference.
Until someone can explain that, this whole business model is all pie int he sky BS. This doesn't pass the laugh test.
Oh... and once you handle that hurdle (good luck), THEN you have to deal with the "how do you get it back to earth" question in a way that *maintains* the 3x power advantage you gained by being up there in the first place.
d
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
The parent comment IS A TROLL . Look up the definition of trolling. I think you are getting "confused" since the troll stated something moderately insightful (if not obvious) that there would probably be demands from some environmentalists to conduct some sort of environmental impact study. Clearly you agree that environmentalists would make such demands and that the troll was merely stating an unpopular opinion/position and was moderated unfairly. However, what else did he/she say?
Firstly, he/she is comparing all environmentalists to members of Greenpeace. Secondly, he/she makes disparaging statements about Greenpeace. That was about 2/3rds of the troll's post. Labeling all people opposed to the technology, then making a comment about the difficulty(or unreasonable nature) of the impact study, and finally accusing a specific group of shortsightedness and obstinate attitudes towards progress.
Nothing productive was accomplished in that post and it only served to defame a particular group of people and their agenda. The only supportive comment was made in support of the derogatory comments themselves. The whole tone and purpose of the article was provocative while providing no clear positions or arguments. That is, by definition, trolling.
For full disclosure here, I am not a member of Greenpeace or any PAC with environmentalist agendas either.
Also, I don't understand opposition to environmental impact studies. It's shortsighted to have a manifest destiny approach to everything we do. Does it give us a little convenience and pleasure? Fine. Then "fuck all the little animals cuz i'm human and they were put here for me". Progress does not have to occur at any cost. Sure, the planet may seem big to many people. However, we are finding out rather quickly that our actions ARE changing the environments and animal and plant life that we cohabit with. I'm not talking about Global Warming either. Just making the simple statement that our actions have consequences and it would be prudent to understand them to the best of our ability before proceeding.
That's why I like the movie Rapa Nui, which is about the events on Easter Island. They ended up killing themselves and their local environment by their actions. If they had the sophistication to conduct and environmental impact study they would have quickly found out their actions were suicidal. Which is why these environmental impact studies are conducted (in my mind at least) to assess what damage we may do the environment in order to properly weigh the benefits versus the risks to not only the environment, but us as well . If it's just too damaging to the environment and we run the risk of endangering a species than it had better be pretty damn important. I want to know that it is something that will allow us to make positive progress. The comment about the eagle getting whacked is ridiculous. I don't think anyone is opposed to the renewable energy produced because of the possibility of a bird flying into the turbine. After all, the renewable energy itself is about sustainability and pollution free energy production which only benefits the environment anyways.
Lastly, we can never know all the consequences of anything. We are just not that sophisticated yet. Personally, I just want to know that all the little squirrels are not going to grow huge tumors on their nuts. It's not that much of a leap to conclude that tumors will grow on MY NUTS TOO.
First figure that the cost of putting a kilo in orbit is NOT going to go below $300, period. Not if you're lifting stuff into space with any sort of chemical rocket. So the cost of a kilowatt of SPS power is going to be MUCH higher. OK, you're PV cells are lets say 400% more efficient, but then you also have to build a giant rectenna or 10 and losses beaming power back to Earth then eats up 50% of your efficiency gains, so hey, it is only 10x more expensive than putting it in Nevada!
The other problem is we still have no idea how to build really large structures in space. Obviously it can be done, but anyone who thinks the basic engineering of that solution will not cost 100's of billions of $ is well, another O'Neil, and if he was even order of magnitude on with his numbers it would be happening now. It is a lot harder than people think. It is a lot harder than engineers think (who usually only underestimate by about 300%).
What we need is HUGE quantities of power. The US needs 15 TERAWATTS of renewable energy installed base in the next 20 years. The gating factor is cost, not efficiency. Instead of screwing around for 20 years figuring out how to build it in space, for no clear benefit, we need to just BUILD IT NOW. Time is a wasting.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Parent post is good, but it's really much simpler than that.
Cost per kg to send something to GEO orbit: $10,000
Cost of solar cells per kg: $400
Space-based cells produce about twice as much energy as the same panels on the ground.
So until launch costs drop to equal to the cost to build the panels, it'll be cheaper to just build twice as many panels on the ground.
Space-based power is a factor of 20 away.