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."

70 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 xTantrum · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeah this should make it way easier for the aliens to knock out our power systems and take over the earth. *sigh*

      --
      $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
    2. Re:Bad idea by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

      Forget micrometeors. The real question is: what happens when Solaren goes the Enron way (and isn't bailed out by your tax dollar) and their satellite is allowed to go derelict and drift? Will it leave a narrow trail of roasted humans across California?

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    3. Re:Bad idea by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sorry, maybe it's too early in the morning for my brain to be working, but could you be a little more specific about what you consider the downside to be?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Bad idea by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Funny

      A lot of folks in SF find a sudden need to head to the bathroom, preferably with wire cutters, to get those genital piercings _off_?

    5. Re:Bad idea by JamesP · · Score: 4, Funny

      The effects of microwave radiation on high density airborne smug are still unknown

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    6. Re:Bad idea by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I take it you never heard of the concept of "failsafe" systems? For instance - the ground station is transmitting a "keep alive" signal to the satellite once every 100ms. The satellite hardware is designed so that if the keep-alive isn't received after 250ms, it automatically cuts off the transmitter.

      And the ground station is set so that if it detects the power beam moving over a certain distance off-center of the receiver, it cuts the keep-alive.

      The only part of this concept that's "rocket science" is the business of getting the solar panels up there. The rest is just engineering (which engineers happen to be quite good at).

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    7. Re:Bad idea by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering how far the beam might deviate in 250 ms, I think the reaction time should be made much, much short. Microseconds.

      True - the reaction time should be shorter. So try this: The ground station is transmitting a laser signal, which the satellite receives using a system with a VERY limited field of vision. If the signal is interrupted, the power cuts off. That way if the satellite's orientation is disturbed enough to miss the receiver, it won't be able to see the laser...

      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...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. Re:Bad idea by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Will it leave a narrow trail of roasted humans across California?

      No. The microwaves are the wrong frequency, they don't interact with water and will pass straight through any living creature.

      --

      Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

    11. Re:Bad idea by jamesh · · Score: 3, Funny

      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?

      It turns everyone gay?

      That's not a horrible idea... that's a fabulous idea :)

    12. 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.
    13. Re:Bad idea by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

      Oh ... right. My bad. That should work as intended.

    14. 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.

    15. Re:Bad idea by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 3, Informative

      Again, no. The microwaves don't interact with organic matter, they pass through. You're not getting cancer from TV broadcasts or mobile phone towers either.

      --

      Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

    16. Re:Bad idea by furby076 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Free tans for everyone?

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    17. Re:Bad idea by mozzis · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      This is not a self-referential sig.
    18. 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?

    19. Re:Bad idea by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      I see you aren't an electronics geek, it's simple to make a crystal radio that's powered by nothing more than the radio waves floating around you =) Oh and the solution is simple, you use a feedback loop. You have a continue signal on the ground that tells the satellite to send power, if the beam gets misaligned the ground station loses power and the continue signal stops and the satellite shuts down transmission.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:Bad idea by Hojima · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Everyone does that every day. It's called the sun. That's where this thing gets its energy from. However, there is a key difference between solar radiation, and the radiation that this machine produces. The reason that we have solar frequencies converted to this frequency, is because it interacts close to nothing with the atmosphere, or just about any organic particle/interference. A lot of matter interacts with very specific frequencies, which is why this frequency will only give power to the designated material. Think of an atom as a football at the center of the stadium. The electrons would be like flies in the bleachers. Now if you want to hit the flies with bullets, you have to aim to where they generally are, or you'll miss. It works kinda like that.

    21. Re:Bad idea by rufty_tufty · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are aware that there are different frequencies of microwaves yes? Some that do agitate water (and heat it up) and others that don't. As long as the power satellite uses one of the frequencies that don't, then yes I'd happily spend an indefinite amount of time in its path.
      Just like I'll consume as much plutonium as you're willing to consume caffeine.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    22. Re:Bad idea by muridae · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then I recommend MythBuster's Free Energy episode, where they did pull a tiny bit of electricity out of the air from radio waves.

      In general terms, it's how a crystal radio gets the power to run. You didn't think the 100 or 300 or how ever many watts the radio stations brag about broadcasting just vaporised?

    23. Re:Bad idea by knight24k · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

      It turns everyone gay?

      So, no effect then.

    24. Re:Bad idea by rufty_tufty · · Score: 3, Interesting
      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    25. Re:Bad idea by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The transmitting antenna of the system will presumably be a phased array which among other things can detect direction and strength of incoming signals. Sample the transmitting antennas at the same point in the wave each time (the aiming signal will be broadcast at a multiple of the power wave) and you don't even need any separate system. I would propose to do it with an analog system on sapphire insulator or similar, with redundant systems... not with a microprocessor. Hence you get your 'failsafe' aspect. But someone probably knows an even better way. But using a laser has the major disadvantage that it is generally interfered with by clouds, while the frequencies intended for power transmission interact very little with water, and using a separate RF system has the disadvantage that one radio system must be shielded or otherwise isolated from the other.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Bad idea by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ummm The receiver is on the ground. You know, so it can receive the power from the sat.
      The sat. is shooting out the laser beam from orbit to ground.

      So... if the sat rotates enough to be off target, then the ground based receiver can no longer see the laser, not the satellite like you said. Which still leaves the issue of, how do you tell the laser it's pointing wrong, fast enough to prevent it from messing other stuff up?

      The only solution is to use some type of GPS system with a very fine precision, so the satellite can calculate its actual orientation instantly.
      The laser would also need to be mounted on some type of gyroscopic stabalizer, so that if the sat's orientation changes suddenly the laser will get blocked until the power can cut off.

      I messed up with the word "receiver" on that one. Let me rephrase:
      Have a sensor on the satellite with a very limited field of view, and a laser (or maser, or maybe just a plain microwave beam) sent from the ground station to the satellite. If the satellite's orientation changes enough to cause it to miss the target, the sensor would no longer "see" the signal from the ground station, and trigger a shutdown of the power beam.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    27. 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.

    28. Re:Bad idea by Zenaku · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hell, PG&E is full of morons. I *GAVE* them a damned idea that would save MILLIONS and cost very little to implement. I even did the research myself.

      Let me see if I understand you. You had a million dollar idea, invested your time in the research necessary to demonstrate its viability, and then you *GAVE* it away for free. And the people you gave it to are the morons?

      Can I have your next million dollar idea?

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    29. Re:Bad idea by Brandon30X · · Score: 3, Informative

      You answered your own question. It cant produce a narrow beam, which is the same reason why it cant cook anybody. You have a large diameter beam (kilometers in diameter) at a low power density (similar to the energy density of sunlight) and a huge rectenna array (say, covering many farmers fields by being upheld on stilts). Yes, this works. I have studied it. Smarter people than you or I have studied it. I swear to god NOBODY on slashdot understands power density. Every frikin time this subject comes up its always "its a weapon!"

      Now economic viability and possible electronic interference you can go and argue all you want.

      --
      Quitters never win, Winners never quit, But those who never win and never quit are idiots.
  2. I've seen this by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They mentioned it in the first Robocop movie.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:I've seen this by cthulu_mt · · Score: 4, Funny

      They also thought Detriot would be a wastekand of crime and poverty and everyone would drive oversized cars.

      Fools...

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
  3. In all seriousness... by Cornwallis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    couldn't this also be used as a weapon?

    1. Re:In all seriousness... by Jamu · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's just a bonus.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    2. Re:In all seriousness... by mrv00t · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just disable HAVE_WEAPON_SUPPORT flag in configure.in before building the sw for the space power station.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:In all seriousness... by CubicleView · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, I'm sure it could... in theory. I don't know the numbers/ specifics but presumably, it could mess up communications equipment etc? I'd be interested to know what effect it would have on an airport for example. Anyway, that said I don't see that it would be a particularly good weapon. It could be blown up easily enough, and it's going to be a very large target. I'd also imagine that it would require a constant radio link with a ground station or similar, before it beam down any significant energy, like a dead man switch(or the opposite of one I suppose). That's just a guess though.

    5. Re:In all seriousness... by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      couldn't this also be used as a weapon?

      "Tonight we had a most unfortunate accident. A micrometeor hit the satellite, changing it's orientation. The accident, unfortunately, destroyed a coal plant. Again.

      Oh, by the way. We're raising the prices 25%."

    6. Re:In all seriousness... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd be interested to know what effect it would have on an airport for example.

      The in-flight meals would be warm for once. Now, if only someone could work out a way of beaming flavour from a satellite...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    7. 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.
    8. Re:In all seriousness... by tgd · · Score: 2, Funny

      What is this in-flight meal you speak of?

    9. Re:In all seriousness... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're a device designed to prevent passengers becoming bored and restless on longer flights. Originally they were cheap cardboard construction kits, but the airlines found that by serving them with gravy mix they had greater entertainment value.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  4. 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.
    2. Re:makes no sense by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Buying desert land isn't "astronomically expensive". It's about the cheapest land there is. There happens to be huge deserts of dirt-cheap (cheaper: sand-cheap) land all around California. Besides, this 2MW satellite probably doesn't even need more than about 25m^2 to receive its beam at 5x solar density. If they wanted to be really safe, they probably could diffuse it over 2500m^2, for 5W:m^2, which doesn't hurt anyone.

      The efficiency here is the 30% extra incoming solar power that is otherwise lost in the atmosphere (minus some small lost amount they're tuning the beam to minimize), times the 24/7 uptime instead of about 25% terrestrial due to night/weather/seasons. That's a starting point of 520%. But the other advantage is the much larger area that thin collector sheets can cover in space. Launching costs money per mass, but the collectors can unfurl across kilometers. And the maintenance costs in microgravity/femtopressure are much lower over years, despite the remoteness. After the large initial costs, the ongoing costs per watt are extremely low.

      2MW would require only about 40x40m collectors. A square kilometer collector would bring 1.3GW. The geosync satellite beaming to Fresno could receive from collectors in all kinds of other orbits pointing at the hub. This infrastructure could conceivably bring all 17TW of Earth's energy consumption into a series of ground stations from only about 114*114 Km of collectors. A few score hubs around the equator each using a few dozen GW lasers could replace all the coal currently burned for stationary power. The sky is literally the limit.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:makes no sense by icebrain · · Score: 5, Informative

      During most of the year, geostationary satellites spend 100% of the time in sunlight. During "eclipse season" (which happens around the spring/fall equinoxes), they get eclipsed, for a few minutes up to about 70 (at the peak of the season). A discussion of this can be found here: http://celestrak.com/columns/v04n09/

      During those times, you could redirect from another satellite, use an alternative power source (batteries, capacitors, fueled generators, etc), and/or have a "brownout". Power outages suck, but if you're in a place where conventional power sources are unavailable/impractical/infeasable, it's better than nothing.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  5. Not a problem, don't be such worrywarts by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    As long as you turn off disasters, beamed solar energy is actually a fairly cost effective power solution.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Not a problem, don't be such worrywarts by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      I mean, what's the worst that can happen when you're beaming 200 Megawatts of energy into my town?

      Right now a fusion reactor is beaming sunlight (@ 1366W per square meter, on average) * 271.4 square km of energy at luminal frequencies alone which if I do the math right (even at this level it is by no means sure, I could be off by three orders of magnitude or something, yes I am that dyslexic about numbers) works out to about 370 gigawatts.

      The amount of energy is pretty irrelevant by itself, aside from what it can add to the grid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. It think they've been duped. by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or are they really saying they're going to install roughly 200000 m^2 worth of solar collectors in space? That's a square of roughly 450x450m. And "some startup" is planning a feat like that?

    1. Re:It think they've been duped. by tomtomtom777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or are they really saying they're going to install roughly 200000 m^2 worth of solar collectors in space? That's a square of roughly 450x450m. And "some startup" is planning a feat like that?

      Nope. The amount of sunlight per m2 in space is several factors higher than on earth.

    2. Re:It think they've been duped. by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 3, Informative

      Plus in space solar power is available constantly, rather than being affected by night time, winter hours and weather. As they point out you don't have to pay for the real estate, just the trip to get there.

      And it gives more consistent power because you don't get dust settling on the panels. I realise that sounds stupid, but dust can reduce efficiency by a lot in a few years; your costs go up because you have to pay people to be cleaning acres and acres of solar panels.

      --

      Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

    3. 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?

    4. Re:It think they've been duped. by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are a number of points you can choose that are geostationary and in shadow less than 2% of the time (as I recall the 1970s proposal). Other schemes call for having multiple satellites that hand off to each other. This proposal is I think of the former variety.

      --

      Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. Re:It think they've been duped. by ATestR · · Score: 2, Informative
      which means the array will be in the earth's shadow just less than half the time.

      Not really. A Geostationary orbit (over the same point) would cut through Earth's shadow for about 45 minutes on orbits where the orbital inclination lines up with the sun... generally in the spring and fall. Other times, the orbit is up to 23 degress off the Earth-Sun plane, and not in the shade at all. Since this power interruption would occur at "midnight", it probably won't affect peak power usage at all. And if you put two of the things up, at least 10,000 apart in orbit (about 45 degrees of arc, well within the allowable angle of incidence), your have continuous power, with only one being in shadow at the same time.

      --
      âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    8. Re:It think they've been duped. by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. Orbital solar platforms cannot be used as weapons unless you are trying to drop them on someone (which is true of anything in orbit). The energy they put out is the wrong frequency; it doesn't interact with human biology at all.

      2. If you can build 25 ton to LEO heavy lifters, James Bondesque schemes are a waste of time. Better to lob nukes. Heck, even throwing a 25 ton block of concrete on a ballistic course would be more far, far more dangerous than 100 years of orbital solar power transmissions.

      --

      Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

    9. Re:It think they've been duped. by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 3, Informative

      The trick to remember is that the Earth is actually quite a small part of the sky when seen from a satellite in geostationary orbit. It seems big to us, but it's just a pale blue dot after all.

      --

      Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

    10. Re:It think they've been duped. by dykofone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, yeah, just looked it up, and geostationary orbit is at about 36,000 km above sea level. If above the equator, that's in sunlight 95% of the time. Put it any farther out, or anywhere more in line with the poles, and that would rise quickly. Very cool.

    11. Re:It think they've been duped. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about I convince you they're planning to deliver only 2MW, not 200MW.

      They say they'll reach a 17GWh:y delivery once the platform is stable. There's 8765.81277 hours in a year, so that's 17 billionWh / 8765.81277h = 1.9393524 million watts.

      The solar "constant" in geosync Earth orbit (about 35Km elevation) is 1366W:m^2. That's 1419.73089m^2, or 0.00141973089Km^2, significantly less (0.709865445%) than 0.2Km^2.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:It think they've been duped. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Informative

      TFA's math is wrong. TFA says specifically

      [Solaren corporate spokesperson Marshall] said the agreement called for 800 gigawatt-hours of electricity to be provided during the first year of operation, and 1,700 gigawatt-hours for subsequent years.

      1700 GWh in an 8700 hour year is just under 2MW. 200MW is enough power for 100,000 homes at 2KW each (a low average), so even their math that 1700GWh is "the annual consumption of 250,000 average homes" is wrong. I think their quoting the numbers in the contract is more reliable than their arithmetic.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  7. Excellent headline by Big+Nothing · · Score: 5, Funny

    "PG&E Makes Deal For Solar Power From Space"

    Is there any other kind?

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  8. Discovery Documentary by muffen · · Score: 2, Informative

    I saw a documentary on Discovery a few months ago, it was an episode part of "Discovery Project Earth".
    I found it extremely fascinating and was wondering if it would just die or if there would be some actual results from the project, seems like we are getting somewhere now!

    I remember from the documentary that the biggest problem was the beam being split in two, rather than one focused beam. Hopefully they found a solution to this problem.
    Anyways, I strongly suggest watching the documentary if you are interested in this, it really shows how the idea was born and all the small advancements they made which resulted in a successful test.

  9. Mr. Freeze by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's no coincidence that Mr. Freeze was played by the current governor of California...

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  10. 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.
  11. Interlock by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

    These beaming systems have interlocks pointed back from the ground receiver to the satellite. If the two get out of alignment, the satellite immediately loses the ground signal, and immediately stops transmitting.

    Besides, the beamed power density doesn't have to be very high per square meter. If it's just concentrated 5x from its density in space, it's 6.5KW:m^2. At this system's 2MW transmission rate, is only 308m^2, or a square 17.5m on a side. If it's really RF, even if the interlock failsafe failed, the beam wouldn't do much except fry some unshielded electronics in the way until something else shut it down. I'm sure the multiple layers of government regulators will ensure a lot of "deadman switches" to stop the only thing that everyone guesses could go wrong.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  12. I hope this is a joke.. by LabRat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...otherwise kiss radio astronomy in North America goodbye. Those guys thought they were getting interference from the Iridium constellation? Heh..wait until they get 200MW of broadband RF interference coming down on them from this monstrosity.

    Not to mention, this seems to be a complete waste of resources. I'd wager that at least as much land (if not more) will need to be dedicated to the antenna array as a 400MW (put in twice the power to make up for day-only operations) solar concentrator plant if they want any sort of chance of capturing all of the beam for conversion. Add to that the fact that the increased solar incidence in orbit will be conteracted by the losses in RF transmission (engineers were thrilled when they achieved 54% between ground towers recently...). And lets not forget the rather substantial launch costs (likely hundreds of millions of dollars). All in all...this is a concept best suited to the Sims game than real life. I'm all for alternative/renwewable energy...but this is just a waste of time and money. But hey..if some VC's like watching stacks of hundred-dollar-bills burn in the mean time...more power to them. I just hope this idiotic scheme doesn't get any federal funding. Our DOE Secretary is a pretty sharp guy...I'm sure he sees the folly in it as well and hopefully will steer well clear of it. I would think the FCC would have something to say as well..considering the MASSIVE potential for RF interference. Investment tip: I wouldn't be sinking any retirement money into this outfit ;)

  13. SPSS by Orgasmatron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This really is very safe, and all the technology is known (not at this scale maybe, but known). The only thing that has stopped us from doing it already has been a lack of willpower.

    If you are sending microwaves from a smallish antenna (small enough that you can boost it into GEO, for example) all the way back to earth, the receiver needs to be huge, like many acres. Basically you find a good pasture, put posts in the ground every few dozen feet in a grid, run wires and diodes between the poles, and you now have a high efficiency rectenna and the cows grazing underneath won't even notice.

    Even if the beam wandered, the power per square meter isn't that high, and to get through the atmosphere with minimal losses, it won't be at a frequency that is easily absorbed by water, which means that it won't be at a frequency that is easily absorbed by you or me.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  14. So what frequency are they? All I have to say, by transporter_ii · · Score: 2, Funny

    is somebody better run this by the HAM radio operators.

    They say that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but that saying came into being before HAMs were on the scene.

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality