Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan Eyes Solar Station In Space

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the they're-gonna-need-a-gundam-to-defend-it dept.

An anonymous reader writes "By 2030 [Japan] wants to collect solar power in space and zap it down to Earth, using laser beams or microwaves. The government has just picked a group of companies and a team of researchers tasked with turning the ambitious, multi-billion-dollar dream of unlimited clean energy into reality in coming decades."

20 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. Good luck with that... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not going to happen. No use writing why AGAIN, I think this reply to the original post is just fine:

    http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/here-we-go-again-with-the-spss/

    1. Re:Good luck with that... by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your argument is a bit silly and is ignoring the economy of scale.

      The majority of the cost in Rocket development is in personnel and support. The actual physical materials and fuel used aren't nearly as expensive. With a large investment into capital and mass manufacturing of rockets, cost can be driven down significantly.

    2. Re:Good luck with that... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Your argument is a bit silly and is ignoring the economy of scale.

      Ahhh yes, the economy of scale claim. People have been making that claim since the 1960s (Seahorse) but in spite of 40 years of new technology it still isn't true.

      You did read the linked articles right? You need a reduction in launch costs of over 100 times before it can think about breaking even. I _might_ be inclined to believe a 10 times reduction, but 100 times? Riiiight....

      And that's ignoring the space debris issue, the fact that most of this technology doesn't exist, that the rest has a 100% failure rate, and that you're economically better off leaving them on the ground anyway. That last one is vitally important. Space power gets you about 2x the power from the same panel on Earth, once you beam it down.

      That's it, that's the end of the argument right there. Build twice as many panels right here, and you get the same amount of power for 1/100th to 1/1000th the cost. It doesn't make a difference what panels you use or what technology, anything that changes the economics of the panels in space does the same for the panels on Earth. So I'll just buy 100 times as many and deliver 50 times the power. Why the heck would you put them in space? (if you're going to come back with "24 hours" or some other vapid argument, read the other articles first).

      I'm sorry, but I would disagree that the argument is "a bit silly".

      Maury

    3. Re:Good luck with that... by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm wondering - does this take into account land costs of ground based solar cells, particularly in Japan?

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    4. Re:Good luck with that... by Bakkster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that's ignoring the space debris issue, the fact that most of this technology doesn't exist, that the rest has a 100% failure rate, and that you're economically better off leaving them on the ground anyway. That last one is vitally important. Space power gets you about 2x the power from the same panel on Earth, once you beam it down.

      That's it, that's the end of the argument right there. Build twice as many panels right here, and you get the same amount of power for 1/100th to 1/1000th the cost. It doesn't make a difference what panels you use or what technology, anything that changes the economics of the panels in space does the same for the panels on Earth. So I'll just buy 100 times as many and deliver 50 times the power. Why the heck would you put them in space? (if you're going to come back with "24 hours" or some other vapid argument, read the other articles first).

      Of course, you assume that there is somewhere reasonable to place the panels to maximise their effect. Sure, you don't need SPS in Arizona where it's sunny 85% of the time, but at higher latitudes with greater cloud cover the available solar power is reduced. So, someplace like Japan has different economics, where they might require 4-10x (or more) the panels on earth. Don't forget that Japan has very little available land. Doubling or quadrupling the required footprint of a power plant is not to be taken lightly.

      I guarantee the first system will not break even. The second probably won't either. But it's certainly conceivable that it will at some point in the future. Better to start now and learn to make it effective if/when that happens. It's not a silver bullet, but it's still worth a shot.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    5. Re:Good luck with that... by realityimpaired · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Space power gets you about 2x the power from the same panel on Earth, once you beam it down.

      That's it, that's the end of the argument right there. Build twice as many panels right here, and you get the same amount of power for 1/100th to 1/1000th the cost. It doesn't make a difference what panels you use or what technology, anything that changes the economics of the panels in space does the same for the panels on Earth. So I'll just buy 100 times as many and deliver 50 times the power. Why the heck would you put them in space? (if you're going to come back with "24 hours" or some other vapid argument, read the other articles first).

      Space power also doesn't suffer from cloudy weather (if the beam you're using to send it to the ground is in the right frequency range), can operate at night (if the sattelite is high enough to avoid being in the shadow of the Earth), and doesn't take up acres of space on the ground. It may not necessarily be economical right now, but as the world's population approaches 10 billion or more, and as we run out of space to build the things (and start needing what little space we have for things like farms instead of solar plants), alternatives that use up less space are going to become more attractive.

      Plus, you're overlooking one very very important point... the rockets they can use to launch solar arrays into space are not purpose built. That is to say, they can be used for things other than launching solar arrays into space. The space agency is going to spend the money building/developping them anyway, because they're still useful for launching communication/navigation sattelites, and because the technology can be adapted to manned space flight. The bulk of the cost of a launch comes from the development and testing process, and that's money that's going to be spent anyway. And as new players enter the market, the cost of launching a sattelite is going down significantly... the ISRO in India, for example, charges about half what it costs the Americans to launch a sattelite.

    6. Re:Good luck with that... by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I read your link you titled "read it and weep". It disagrees with everything you say, so I'm not sure I read the parts of it you were hoping to? First, it says that both NASA and the ESA think that a 50-100x decrease in costs is possible in the near future. Further, it estimates that only 12x is needed for a solar sat to be economically sound when compared with a conventional, terrestrial power plant, a cost decrease about the same as what you admit may be possible, and far less than both NASA and the ESA are estimating. Sure, some of the tech isn't there yet, but to say that since it isn't there yet, it couldn't possible ever be, is moronic at best. On top of the extra light from being above the atmosphere, you get almost 24 hours of light, an argument you call vapid. Well, whatever, its a lot more than 2x the amount of solar power, so even with existing, inefficient microwave crap, it's still more power and less land usage on earth. And even though you plug your ears and scream no, NASA and the ESA both say you're wrong, launch costs WILL get cheaper in the next few decades, making this economically feasible, so long as in TWENTY YEARS the tech improves, which they say it will, even pessimistically. So, you fall into the usual Slashbot poster category of "NASA IS FULL OF MORONS I AM FAR SMARTER THAN THEY CAN EVER HOPE". Yawn city.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    7. Re:Good luck with that... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wind and solar are toy projects pushed by rabid environmentalists' infectious propaganda; they very much realize how adoption of these power sources will force severe limits on human progress by suppressing energy availability.

      There's no limits on human progress by using solar instead of dirty technologies like coal. However, no matter what technologies we use for generating power, there are limits on human population because of resources. Humans need to stop breeding like rabbits.

      And I've no doubt that's exactly what they want--less technology, back to nature Ludditism and, especially, enabling a socialist reworking of human civilization.

      No, we need more technology, cleaner technology, technology which lets us live better with nature (so we can still have nice places to go camping on vacations, and nice fish and seafood to eat that aren't filled with mercury and PCBs), and we need fewer humans with higher standards of living so we can enjoy our resources and manage them better, instead of fighting over them and squandering and polluting them. We also need fewer people so we can avoid more extreme forms of socialism. The only way to manage larger and larger populations of people will be socialism, and in particular the more nasty kinds that impose all kinds of limits on our freedoms. You can't have many freedoms when we're all packed together in ultra high-density housing; we'll have to have stricter rules and more government to keep us from killing each other, or keeping some nutcase from committing mass-murder. You want less government interference and more freedom? Work for a smaller population. Stop having so many babies.

  2. Oh no! There goes Tokyo! by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Today's SMBC by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Japan's just preparing for the near future.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  4. Always dreamed about that... by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...ever since I played SimCity 2000... But I don't want the beam pointing toward my head when I am not wearing my tinfoil hat!

    1. Re:Always dreamed about that... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...ever since I played SimCity 2000... But I don't want the beam pointing toward my head when I am not wearing my tinfoil hat!

      Physics FAIL (unless your goal is to make your brains extra-crispy)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Always dreamed about that... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well you certainly don't want the beam pointing towards your head when you are wearing it...

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  5. Re:SimCity 2000 by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The real life systems distribute the microwave energy over a very large area... In the case of Japan, potentially an off-shore site that would pick up the microwave radiation.

  6. Re:Threat? by 2.7182 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Godzilla's not the problem. He's the solution. Mothra is the problem.

  7. Re:But Can The Solar Station by peragrin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sushi is raw fish with this everything gets cooked even you.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  8. Re:Old news by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, who is going to volunteer to put a bunch of water into orbit?

  9. . . . laser satellite with a shark crew . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . meanwhile, some space experts have questioned Japan's plans for a shark crew.

    A NASA spokesman commented, "I'm just not exactly sure, but something seems not quite right with a laser satellite to be crewed by sharks."

    A Japan space agency spokesman countered, "Sharks don't sleep, so we will be sure that they are always paying attention to the sensitive instruments, 24/7. And they don't get cancer, because of some mysterious substance in their cartilage. Sharks have survived for millions of years in the oceans of the Earth. Outer space is the next logical challenge for them."

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  10. Nobody picked up the gundam 00 reference. by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Space elevators, orbital solar power station, and an orbital laser that can do massive damage with pin point accuracy. Just like you planned Japan, just like you planned. Now all you need is a bunch of rogue scientists building a base in a bunch of asteroids.

    --
    Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
  11. Re:Old news by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Losing 99% of the power? Why? You can beam the power down using wavelengths that are not absorbed by the atmosphere.