I agree with the basis of your proposal. USA is spending a trillion dollars a year to defend oil fields. This exceeds the value of the oil by several multiples. For a fraction of the same we could become independent of oil completely.
Regarding putting: "...solar cells out in the desert..."
A solar power satellite rectenna would deliver 5 to ten times as much power to the grid than solar panels on the Earth's surface.
Sahara is a remote location, transmission costs of power to the consumers will be prohibitively high.
Solar Power satellite rectennas would deliver five to ten times more power to the grid per acre of land than PV solar panels. A solar panel in the contiguous United States on average delivers 19 to 56 W/m. By comparison an SPS rectenna would deliver continuously about 23mW/cm2 or 230 W/m2, hence size of rectenna required per watt would be about 8.2% to 24% that of a terrestrial solar panel array.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the basis of your proposal. USA is spending a trillion dollars a year to defend oil fields. This exceeds the value of the oil by several multiples. For a fraction of the same we could become independent of oil completely.
Regarding putting: "...solar cells out in the desert..."
A solar power satellite rectenna would deliver 5 to ten times as much power to the grid than solar panels on the Earth's surface.
Sahara is a remote location, transmission costs of power to the consumers will be prohibitively high.
e #Comparison_with_terrestrial_solar_power
Solar Power satellite rectennas would deliver five to ten times more power to the grid per acre of land than PV solar panels. A solar panel in the contiguous United States on average delivers 19 to 56 W/m. By comparison an SPS rectenna would deliver continuously about 23mW/cm2 or 230 W/m2, hence size of rectenna required per watt would be about 8.2% to 24% that of a terrestrial solar panel array.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellit