Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Beamed Space Solar Power Plant To Open In 2016?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the duck-duck-burn dept.

Eric_S writes "Anybody who managed to get a decent city going in Sim City 2000 remembers the microwave power plant; now it seems like a real-world equivalent might be coming up on the horizon. The Pacific Gas and Electricity Company, per this 'interview' with the CEO of Solaren on their affiliated site, announced PG&E's plans to buy 200MW of base-load power from a Solaren beamed space solar power plant by 2016." I wish the skeptic in me would be quiet.

10 of 512 comments (clear)

  1. In Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In space nobody can hear your company go bankrupt.

    There will be a lot of pissed off investors on Earth though.

    1. Re:In Space by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, environmentalists:

      Reasonable people: Let's use this wonderful new technology!
      Environmentalists: No way! It's dangerous!
      Reasonable people: Err, no it's not. The technology is based on well-understood principles we've been using for decades.
      Environmentalists: But how do you know that this particular combination of principles won't cause some damage! You have to prove it. Do you have any evidence that this technology doesn't hurt anything?
      Reasonable people: Okay, we'll humor you. Let's run an experiment.
      Environmentalists: No testing! We don't know whether this technology is safe! You might hurt someone or something!

      Come on. You should know better. We know what microwaves do at the energy densities indicated. We have absolutely no reason to believe they might cause wide-scale changes to ecosystems. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is actually a harmful effect.

    2. Re:In Space by gnuotaku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can tell an environmentalist had mod points because this is modded troll. The fact is though, we *do* understand microwaves pretty damn well. I'd say we understand them better than a lot of other physical phenomena (I'm a physics undergrad). His point about the environmentalists is spot on. It happens all the time: look at nuclear power plants. Chernobyl _could never happen again_, but that's flaunted around by all those do-gooder enviros. And the truth is that we understand nuclear plants pretty damn well, and we build extremely safe ones now. But that's not enough. The environmentalists hurt the environment more by stifling innnovation than any amount of space power satellites ever would. Hell, more birds die from collisions with planes and high rises, but no one is calling for us to ban those. It's FUD, and it's bullshit. These are the same people that are cheering on wind energy: hate to break it to you, but wind mills are far more dangerous to birds and wildlife than a microwave beam.

    3. Re:In Space by dyingtolive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, directed != broadcast. Doesn't matter? Fine. It doesn't have to. Second off, show me your 200MW bluetooth device. You must have quite some range on that. I'm not an environmentalist, and I like nuclear power (when handled responsibly). With regard to your question about why arguments from the position of ignorance are allowed, I will have to contend by saying that they worked pretty well for this guy until everyone decided he must be forcefully outed and silenced. "Either get on the side of science or get away from a computer"? I draw an interesting parallel, if I don't say so myself. I don't hate science, I don't hate advancement, and I don't hate progress. I hate people who take a stance without considering all the possibilities and leap to conclusions without extensive testing. Do your cell phones and bluetooth earpieces cause cancer? Most studies say no, but after five seconds of google work, I found this and this. Are those real or are they more people "just as stupid as someone arguing against evolution.."? I don't know. Obviously there are contridictory results, so someone has to be wrong. There is an awful lot of money invested in cell phones. Which one is the disinformation coming from? I can't tell because I don't know who to trust.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    4. Re:In Space by oni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate people who take a stance without considering all the possibilities

      All the possibilities huh. There's a difference between rational consideration and the constant cynical sniping that is so common today. We can't suggest *anything* without people leaping over themselves to suggest a doomsday scenario associated with it. Those are the people (and you're in that group) that need to STFU. If there's a scientist or an engineer who says, "wait a minute" then I'll listen. Everyone else is just being attention whores.

      Someone proposes wind power. Response:whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities! Low frequency noise from the blades could cause earthquakes!!

      Someone proposes creating an "internet" Response: whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities! Haven't you read 1984??

      GPS. Response: whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities! Those satelites contain nuclear clocks. NUCLEAR! If they crash, they'll explode and kill all life on earth!

      Electric cars. Response: whoa whoa whoa, batteries contain toxic chemicals!

      Millions of years ago in Africa: hey, let's get the fuck out of here and move North. Response: whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities.

      All I'm saying is that I'm tired of people like you that think it's your duty to imagine some scary consequence. If there were a few of you, it wouldn't bother me, but you're legion. It pisses me off. Your attitude should be, let's try something new and keep our eyes and minds open to see how it works. Once we have at least one of these stations working, THEN we talk about what it's doing to the environment. If it's bad, we shut it down or work to fix it. Sitting back in your chair criticizing proposals by actual smart people just pisses me off - it's a bit like that scene in Cryptonomicon where the snooty academic says, "how many neighborhoods will be bulldoze to build this information superhighway." The guy thought he was being clever, but actually he was just making a fool of himself. He didn't understand the technology - he should STFU.

  2. At least they've got courage ... by hargrand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... even if they haven't got a clue as to how financially reckless they're being. You kind of have to admire that.

  3. Re:Look on the bright side... by daveime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just love this kind of objection.

    How much does that compare to the energy needed for getting it up in space, getting routine maintenance & repair up in space, the maintenance & repair itself, and possible decommissioning?

    So digging / drilling coal and oil out of the ground, and all the processing, transportation and generation infrastructure involved in fossil fuels cost nothing ?

    I think the important point is, *once* the infrastructure for these new renewable energy forms is in place, the power itself comes at zero cost ... wind, sun and water costs nothing ... and doesn't involve the clean up that say coal, oil or nuclear does.

    How to decommission a space based reflector ? Switch the thing off. Done. For extra good measure, fit a booster rocket to it, so we can fire it off into deep space once we're done with it.

    A far cry from safely storing materials with a half life of 10,000 years, or getting rid of all the carbon dioxide we've pumped into the atmosphere in the last 150 years dues to coal and oil.

  4. Re:200MW. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Environmentalist's Fallacy

    It goes something like this:

    1. Consider a technology X that replaces a polluting technology Y
    2. Identify some aspect of X that produces pollution
    3. Oppose X for this pollution while ignoring the pollution Y produces

    In reality, X produces far less overall pollution than Y.

    I've seen this argument used to oppose:

    • The Prius (Nickel mining)
    • Nuclear power (Uranium mining, nuclear waste)
    • Solar power (Semiconductor manufacturing, altering desert ecosystems)
    • Orbital microwave power (Rocket exhaust)
    • Hydroelectric power (Salmon migration)
    • Wind power (Birds)

    All of these are great technologies. If we're ever to make any progress, we have to learn to think past the environmentalist's fallacy.

  5. Re:Miss by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean the laws of physics prevent the system from generating a beam without the ground reflector? I don't think so.

    Explain it or I call bullshit. To be honest, I'll probably still call bullshit, but you deserve a chance anyway.

    Translation: "I am already locked into believing that this technology is dangerous, and no matter how much solid scientific evidence you provide to the contrary, I will continue to believe that."

    And for the record, the GP is right: without the reflection from the ground station, the transmitter cannot form a coherent beam.

    --
    Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
  6. Re:Human Size Ants by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't try this bullshit of 'its perfectly safe nothing can possibly go wrong' because it just makes it obvious you either are full of shit/hiding the truth, or just stupid.

    We've lived with radio waves all over the place for over a century. Countless studies have shown that electromagnetic radiation produces no deleterious effects. The burden of proof is on you to come up with repeatable experiments providing evidence for falsifiable claims that radio waves are harmful at the levels proposed.