Slashdot Mirror


Beamed Space Solar Power Plant To Open In 2016?

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.

20 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 Jeremi · · Score: 5, Funny

      lots of pissed birds, bats, pollen and insects too.

      Hell hath no fury like a pollen scorned.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  2. Funny... by Jason1729 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why do I picture human-sized ants under a magnifying glass when the beam shifts a little.

  3. Dear Canada by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Memo from the United States
    February 12th, 2020

    Dear Canada,

    Yesterday a piece of space trash knocked our Microwave Power Plant operating over Oregon off target from its station. Unfortunately, it continued to beam a strong powerful ray of energy down as its sights fell over your Western provinces. We are sorry.

    We urge you not to think of it as "a swath of destruction" so much as "a wicked cool tattoo" ... I heard Mexico is very jealous.

    Williston Lake was a very beautiful lake right up until it evaporated ... but look on the bright side--there sure the hell ain't no zebra mussels left in there now!

    We're also sorry that instead of shutting it down, we just swung it back over Canada to its power station in Oregon and next time we will totally just stop it before this happens. To make up for it, we'll send you some extra power so your people stop rioting and Mad Maxing.

    We hope there's no hard feelings,

    Sincerely,

    The United States

    --
    My work here is dung.
  4. Sim city by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is Sim Copter 1 reporting heavy casualties...

  5. Re:Miss by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tagged: turnoffdisasters.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. Human Size Ants by NReitzel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because you haven't run the numbers on the beam power density. The Microwave beam is wide, because it's trivial and cheap to make a huge ground antenna, and because agriculture can be carried out under the antenna. THe beam power density can be held down to just a few times noon sunlight power, and still deliver plenty of energy.

    That way, both airplane and albatross are safe to transit the beam area.

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    1. Re:Human Size Ants by Bakkster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Somethings seems wrong with this reasoning.

      First, a "few times" noon sunlight power, I think would be pretty brutal. To take you literally, it would be like standing in the sun at noon where the sun is say three times brighter than it is. I'm not a physicist, so feel free to tell me why a three times more power sun at noon wouldn't be a problem for me.

      Sunlight has two components that make it uncomfortable or dangerous. First is the infrared, which is the heat energy. Second is the Ultraviolet, which can damage skin cells. Because the energy is not in infrared or UV radiation, you will experience neither of these effects. If you're worried about microwave radiation, remember that this includes the frequencies that make up the WiFi, Bluetooth, and AM/FM radio waves that pass through your body all the time.

      Secondly, Doesn't a "few times" noon sunlight power mean that your getting only a "few times" what you'd be getting from the sun by itself, which isn't all that much. Doesn't sound like your going to deliver the concentrations of power that cities need.

      So, I'm inclined not to put too much stake in what you said.

      Converting electrical power to and from microwave radiation is an order of magnitude more efficient than solar. Also remember that the solar panels placed in space have a large surface area than the antenna, receive more solar energy per area (due to not having losses due to the ozone layer, etc), and can beam power 24/7. So imagine if the sun was 4x more powerful, and the solar panels were 80% efficient, rather than 20%. Using these (thumbnail estimate) numbers, that makes microwave 16x more efficient per unit area than solar. It becomes even more efficient when you take into account that the sun is not as bright at other times of the day (such as 8AM, or 11PM).

      And yes, I am an Electrical Engineer.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    2. Re:Human Size Ants by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps we can contract the launch out to North Korea? I hear they've been making some real strides in that area and could use the $$.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  7. Science/tech illiteracy by StCredZero · · Score: 5, Informative

    But this hare-brained idea will heat the atmosphere

    Fail.

    Most power generation schemes are *heat engines.* The typical efficiency is less than 40%. Microwave transmission starts at 50% efficiency, and is likely to get better. For the same amount of electric power, you're going to have less waste heat than with coal, nuclear, or natural gas power plants.

  8. Re:woot! by socsoc · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a dupe of http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/04/14/0317236/PGampE-Makes-Deal-For-Solar-Power-From-Space. They announced this in April.

    Hell, the linked interview in summary is in the original story from MSNBC.com. This submission contains nothing new to add...

  9. Re:My religion, or yours? by Quantumstate · · Score: 5, Informative

    Based on Wolfram Alpha the Earth gets about 1.3 kW per square meter. with the earth being 6.4*10^6 m radius with find the area facing the sun is pi*r^2 = 1.28*10^14. Multiplied by the power gives 1.67*10^17 W hitting the earth. Now since the power company wants to sell 2*10^8 W of power we can conclude that the extra energy reaching the Earth would be in the region of 0.0000001%.

  10. Re:Miss by AlecC · · Score: 5, Informative

    A bit more subtle: The transmitter is using a phased array, and the locking phase is a reflection of the signal from the ground. This is a completely fail-safe system: It doesn't have a machine that says "reference signal gone": if the reference signal disappears, the beam turns into a glow by the laws of physics, not by any allegedly safe automation. And the beam can *only* be aimed at something with an appropriate reflector, so even a mad scientist cannot redirect the beam to a city.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  11. Re:Global warming? by hort_wort · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I asked this question of an Environmental Physicist. The answer is that it will *prevent* global warming. The reasoning is this:

    Right now, we primarily burn coal to produce energy. This isn't an efficient process at all, putting out about 30% energy and 70% heat. Also, there are all the waste products dumped into the atmosphere associated with burning coal. Meanwhile, beaming the energy back to the Earth will (theoretically) be very, very efficient, as in almost all the energy beamed back will be reclaimed as electricity. Replacing coal with this method would reduce the overall heat by 70%.

    So yes, this idea will heat the Earth, but not nearly as much as coal. As far as causing other weather changes, health problems, and electronic problems, those are possibilities that are unknown until they try it. The signal should be directed quite precisely to their receiver on Earth, and with any intelligence, they will have a safety system such that the beam shuts off immediately if the receiver notices a dip in power.

  12. Re:My religion, or yours? by john.r.strohm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, no, it won't heat the atmosphere significantly.

    "Atmospheric heating from microwave loss" is another word for "atmospheric attenuation". The trick is you choose microwave frequencies that are not significantly absorbed by nitrogen, oxygen, and water (dihydrogen monoxide), and that knocks out your atmospheric attenuation problem right there.

    This is Physics 102, people.

    Your real losses are going to be in beamforming and beam wander. You fix beam wander by using a BIG receiving antenna (which also lets you use low power density in the beam: win-win).

  13. 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.

  14. Re:Miss by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Informative

    Changing electrical energy into thrust? You got it. Space agencies have been using it for years. And, as an added bonus, it makes a neat blue glow when you do it!

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
  15. Re:Miss by AlecC · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, they cause all the transmitters to drift out of phase, so that instead of a coherent beam, you have a wide-angle glow. Transmission is done by a phased-array antenna, as used on most modern radar systems. If these all transmit in a carefully calculated phase relationship, interference directs all the energy into a tight beam. If the phase between the transmitters is random, which it will become if not positively locked to a reference beam, all interference disappears and the energy is dissipated in all directions. All you have to do is ensure that the reference phase is derived not from on board, but from the ground: when the reference beam disappears the transmitters lose phase and the beam broadens into nothing. The transmitters will probably lose lock easily anyway, but you can deliberately unstable if you want. To start the system requires someone on the ground to fire a fairly powerful beam from the target area up to the satellite; to maintain it requires a well-aligned reflector.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.