Space-based solar energy stations?

Posted by Adam Browning (Guest Contributor) at 4:18 PM on 17 Mar 2006

I admit I have no idea what to make of this. But apparently Business 2.0 (yeah, I thought they went under during the dot-com bust, too) is reporting ...

... early in the next decade SIG will begin placing huge, mile-wide sheets of solar cells in earth orbit. These NASA-designed structures, called solar power satellites, will convert sunlight into electricity, then use weak, pollution-free, environmentally safe microwave beams to send that energy down to simple antennas anywhere on Earth. The antennas will convert the beams back into electricity and feed it into standard existing power grids at an extremely low cost. The system will operate 24/7 overcoming the drawback of rooftop solar cells and windmills.

Like I said, I have no idea what to make of it. But looks pretty nifty, don't it? And at least the Kennedys can't bitch about their viewshed ...

For story: Space-based solar energy stations?
8 Comments | Post a Comment

Launch Costs Prohibitive

Certainly these kinds of technology are worth researching, but they shouldn't be counted on for future energy unless they can prove themselves. See the problems below.

Here's some more info on this technology:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

However, the costs of construction are very high, and SPS will not be able to compete with conventional sources unless there is a big reduction in the costs of launching equipment into space, or unless a space-based manufacturing industry develops and they can be built in orbit from off-Earth materials.

Current rates on the Space Shuttle run between $3,000 and $5,000 per pound ($6,600/kg and $11,000/kg), depending on whose numbers are used. In either case the concept of building a structure some kilometres on a side is clearly out of the question.

Jim Gagnepain http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/

by Jim Gagnepain at 12:25 AM on 18 Mar 2006

Yep

Another scam trolling for tax dollars.

Especially with verified results approaching 40% efficiency of the latest terrestrial solar power technology, and this is without infrared PV cells or heat cogeneration figured into new solar cogeneration designs.

Total heat and electric efficiencies for rooftop solar collectors well over 50% and mass production could bring solar costs per equivalent conventional power generating capacity well below even the cost of coal, (the lowest cost fossil fuel source) and into line with the lowest cost renewable power source, wind power.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 5:57 AM on 18 Mar 2006
[ Parent ]

Best next effort to make?

Let's have a contest. SIG can pursue space-based solar electricity. I will pursue energy efficiency, in my work (environmental architecture) and in my personal life. Let's check back sometime early in the next decade, in, say, 2014. I'm willing to wager $10,000 that my personal and professional efforts to reduce energy waste will save more energy than SIG will produce through space-based solar power satellites.

If anyone from SIG would like to take me up on the wager, I'd be happy to discuss it with them.

by David Foley at 8:42 AM on 18 Mar 2006

Just Another Industry Scam

Not only would putting solar collectors in space to beam energy back to Earth be highly inefficient, it would also be very environmentally destructive. First, rockets consume and burn huge amounts of fuel and are extremely loud. That's several types of major environmental harms right there. Second, and possibly even worse, like radioactivity, microwave energy is electromagnetic radiation, which is harmful in any amount, as is now being proven about cell phones and their broadcast antennas. Where is Mr. Browning's proof for the ludicrous claim that these beams would be "weak, pollution-free, [and] environmentally safe"?

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 11:28 AM on 18 Mar 2006

Orbiting PV

So what if the microwave beam misses the antenna and hits you? Wouldn't this make a nifty weapon? If it was cheap, DOD would have it running by now. This isn't gonna happen.

by The Invisible Paw at 6:47 PM on 18 Mar 2006

Glaser 1968

This is the scheme that may have led to the death of Apollo, cf. http://www.mtt.org/awards/WCB's%20distinguished%20career.htm

As several of the preceding comments would suggest, this has been known to be safe and potentially very effective for several decades. The potential is always threatening to become real if government develops big rockets with low cost per pound to orbit, like the once-planned successors to the Saturn V.

Although not an SPS booster as far as I know, I do seem to have to comment on it fairly often, cf. http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2004/11/3/20322/6497

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: internal combustion, nuclear cachet http://tinyurl.com/4xt8g

by GRLCowan at 8:07 PM on 18 Mar 2006

Space-based Microwave Power

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16477

If not the US, I'm sure other contries will develop it.

by mthomas at 10:58 AM on 26 Jul 2008

Space-Based Solar Power

Hello,

Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP)Alternative Energy Solution : YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiU9MibyBJ0

NASA will not be the prime contractor for Space-Based Solar Power. It will be made by NewSpace firms and of all groups the oil firms to start. These benefit right from the start as does the man on the street with first 900 MW of rooftop solar provide at Zero Consumer Cost.

The best idea we have is making thin film solar cells (TFSC) at GW scale in New Mexico. The same factory lines that make rooftop solar modules for 70 cents a watt, in the box ready to ship, can make TFSC for space applications and read here "space applications" means Space-Based Solar Power.

We intend to 10% (100MW per year) of this GW manufacturing capacity for SBSP which then internally subsidizes the cost of manufacturing and installation of the 90%(900MW per year) as Zero Consumer Cots Rooftop Solar Modules.

We feel Zero Consumer Cost is the right price to create a fairly large demand for rooftop solar and we feel that consumer will really like having no monthly electrical bills.

Surprisingly the first single large consumer will be the "oil firms" who insist the are not Oil but Energy firms.

In Canada the now open pit mine sand oil in Alberta. Open pit mining can only extract 10% of that sand oil field so 170 M barrels of a total 1.7T barrel known.

Open pit mining of this 170B barrels of oil represents the greatest insult to the environment ever.

To extract the sand oil from underground pumping we heat it to liquefy over 2-4 years with 1 GW of energy given to these oil firms up front. This means the environmental impact is much, much lower and 1.7 Trillion barrels of oil can be pumped from underground. At $25 per barrel that is $42.4 Trillion for those drying the math in your head.

For each Watt in Space, we provide 9 on the ground as Zero Consumer Cost Rooftop Solar Modules.

Forget what you know about SBSP. The start of modern solar power came on Sept 27, 2007 with our paper at International Astronautics Congress, Hyderabad India and the NSSO Pentagon SBSP Interim Report that came on October 10, 2007.

We are leading the conversion from a Centralized Fossil Fuel Economy to Distributed Solar Economy, nothing less. I am sure other Green Energy technologies can work side by side in this.

Have a look at the SBSP Alternative Energy Solution video at YouTube. What Green Energy solution can SBSP improve? How about Hybrid autos that recharge by wireless power transmission from space? We know what Tesla knew.

Mr.Kevin Reed MSc.,CMO
SESCRC/ Welsom Space Power Consortium

Welsom Space Power "The Race is On!"

by KevinTFSC at 9:45 AM on 18 Aug 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.