Slashdot Mirror


PG&E Makes Deal For Solar Power From Space

N!NJA writes "California's biggest energy utility announced a deal Monday to purchase 200 megawatts of electricity from a startup company that plans to beam the power down to Earth from outer space, beginning in 2016. Solaren would generate the power using solar panels in Earth orbit and convert it to radio-frequency transmissions that would be beamed down to a receiving station in Fresno, PG&E said. From there, the energy would be converted into electricity and fed into PG&E's power grid."

18 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. Bad idea by forand · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a horrible idea. What happens when the beamer is hit by a micro meteor nocking out the com and pointing the sat at SF?

    1. Re:Bad idea by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The keep-alive idea I originally posted doesn't hold up on closer inspection - there's over 100ms of latency in a radio link from the Earth's surface to geosynchronous orbit...

      The problem is that a laser beam doesn't go any faster than light speed, either.

      The satellite would have to determine on its own whether it's still pointing the right way.

    2. Re:Bad idea by EdZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any micrometeor with sufficient energy to give a massive solar power array enough rotational velocity to point it in a wildly different direction before the change is noticed and corrected will likely smash it to bits anyway.

    3. Re:Bad idea by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that a laser beam doesn't go any faster than light speed, either.

      The satellite would have to determine on its own whether it's still pointing the right way.

      That's why I specified that the *receiver* have a very limited field of vision. If the satellite rotates enough to be off target, it can no longer see the laser. Thus no latency issues.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    4. Re:Bad idea by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Note that I didn't say "bug free" - take three different architectures, and have three different teams write the code for them. Connect them in a "majority rules" redundant configuration. The odds of two of them experiencing bugs at the same time (or of having a hardware failure) producing the same result at the same time is pretty, well, astronomical...

      Boeing tested this hypothesis -- it's called N-Version Programming -- and it doesn't work as nicely as we'd like. If you assume that the distribution of bugs is evenly random then yes, it's a great idea. But bugs don't do that, they tend to be clustered in particular modules and sections of code.

      Boeing's study showed that multiple teams tended to have bugs in the same, complex areas. It was more cost-effective to do one implementation and spend more on it -- formal inspections, formal method proofs etc -- than to try N-Version Programming.

      Sorry that I don't have a citation -- I think I saw it discussed in one of Steve McConnell's books.

      --

      Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

    5. Re:Bad idea by blueskies · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why don't you stand in front of a 200 Megawatt transmission and get back to us on that one?

    6. Re:Bad idea by Raenex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I *GAVE* them a damned idea that would save MILLIONS and cost very little to implement. I even did the research myself. And THIS is what they're getting? My idea would've generated ten times the amount of power, at FAR LESS COST.

      Then publish your research and promote it.

  2. In all seriousness... by Cornwallis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    couldn't this also be used as a weapon?

    1. Re:In all seriousness... by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      couldn't this also be used as a weapon?

      Yes. But as the Russians found out - any energy source can be used as a weapon. The more people are dependent on it, the better. And such usage doesn't even involve violence - just mention that there might be some service disruptions, outages, etc, if you don't get your way.

    2. Re:In all seriousness... by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "couldn't this also be used as a weapon?"

      No, it will never get off the ground.

      Having said that, Solaren's web site is all about down to earth renewable projects. The 200MW of power the power company has pledged to buy is the equivalent of 40 commercial windmills. My guess is this is a "foot in the door" deal that cost neither party a cent but Solaren now know what the power company are willing to pay. Using this knowledge they can go back at a later date and convert the pie-in-the-sky pledge into a purchase from a normal wind/solar farm that will do the same thing for the same predetermined price.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  3. makes no sense by speedtux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you're lucky, you gain a factor of 2-4 in efficiency by going into space, but the costs per photocell are astronomically higher compared to installation in a desert.

    That's, of course, assuming you can actually get other nations to agree to let you place a massive power plant and emitter in orbit, something that could easily be weaponized.

    1. Re:makes no sense by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ya know what else is astronomically more expensive? Getting power from a desert to where it is needed, and buying all that land in a desert. I'm not saying SSP is remotely close to being cost effective yet, but there's simply more to crunching the numbers than you think there is.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  4. Re:Not a problem, don't be such worrywarts by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I sometimes wonder if SimCity has done more damage to the progress of orbital solar than all other causes combined.

    --

    Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

  5. Re:It think they've been duped. by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Nope. The amount of sunlight per m2 in space is several factors higher than on earth.

    The solar constant is about 1.4 kW/m^2 in Earths orbit. I fail to see how they want to produce 200 MW with significantly less than 0.2 km^2 of collector area. Care to explain it to me?

  6. ok, wait a second by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am really a supporter of solar energy - I even have invested some of my money in it - but THIS to me seems like technological masturbation. I do not believe it's cost-effective, and the debris in orbit is only going to increase, so it's a risky investment in any case.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  7. Nuclear! by soupforare · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How is this cheaper or safer than nuclear? Nevermind the costs, would it even produce the same amount of power after transmission? Why is nuclear such a dead end? Before someone asks if I'd like a nuke plant in my backyard, YES, YES I would love it.
    Cheap power and a healthy green glow beats go-nowhere plans and whining greenies any day of the week.

    --
    --- Do you believe in the day?
  8. Re:It think they've been duped. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This _strongly_ depends on your orbit and your technology. Unless your collector is a sphere of solar cells, your collector or reflector arrangement will get different efficiencies depending on where it is pointing relative to the Sun. And for many geosynchronous orbits, the Earth will occlude the sunlight in the middle of the night.

    Now, the currently available geosynchronous orbital space is dangerously cluttered. Big mirrors there are begging to get hit by satellite debris. A reasonably large solar mirror/solar sail can actually suspend itself in a wide variety of otherwise unstable orbits, using solar pressure for thrust. Those orbits are typically considerably higher than geo-synchronous, to take advantage of very modest thrust to balance the Earth's gravity, but there are big advantages in that you can put these _out_ of the way of the geosynchronous satellites, even off the ecliptic, and you can steer them into place using solar pressure from a lower altitude release. And, cleverly steered, you can make the orbit unstable enough to bring it right back to Earth and burn up in the atmosphere when the system fails.

    This is one of the only sources of energy for our industrial world that does not require major technological miracles to expand to fill the entire world's energy needs. It's very expensive to start doing: the launch costs alone require a serious industrial civilization to support.

  9. Re:It think they've been duped. by tygerstripes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another advantage is the potential mobility of energy infrastructure that this provides. If production and distribution of electricity no longer need to be physically connected by heavy infrastructure, it becomes much easier to move and distribute the energy to where it's most needed. Mobile power-generation could be operated without constant fuel supply. More significantly, the daily and seasonal fluctuations in energy requirements throughout the world could be mitigated by redirecting collected solar energy to the countries/cities that need it most at the time. Granted it would be an administrative nightmare, but the potential is there...

    --
    Meta will eat itself