Given current technology, transporting large-scale structures into space may be feasible only through the cooperation of space agencies on different continents. Suzuki, though, says countries in the space race are trying to develop their technologies independently while the potential militarization of space grows. “If JAXA, NASA and the European Space Agency can work together, it would be best,” he adds. It all sounds like the prelude to a sci-fi saga.
Note: This story was originally published with the title, "Roping the Sun".
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentAn interesting and thought provoking article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I hope the recent oil prices will get more nations like the US to adopt initiatives like this to ween ourselves off of oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoney talks, after gas prices go over 10 dollars a liter, that is when many new projects will start to happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.TXSPC.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis has always been a holy grail since irradiance in space is 1366 W/m squared as opposed to 1000W on Earth. 33% more irradiance plus the cooling abilities of space make this the perfect application.
Remember the first used solar cells were for satellites.
www.TXSPC.com International Turn-Key Solar Installations for about $7 per Watt.
Wouldn't it be more practical to put this idea in league w/ the space elevator. Then, they'd not only have a viable means of transporting the equipment required to construct the structure, but they could also run optical fibers along the tether to avoid having to accurately maintain a laser beam from a satellite in space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a thought provoking idea, although the economics of space transportation don't make this idea work yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey say the total weight of the space system is around 15000 metric tonnes. At launch costs of 10000 USD per kilogram, the cost of a 1 GW space system would be 150 billion just in launch costs! However, launch costs may very well come down a lot. At 1000 USD per kilogram, it's 15 billion, very close to being competitive. But still not 6.5 cents per kWh, and that doesn't include the rest of the system, such as the terrestrial receiver equipment.
Basically, it's a long shot. At least we can't blame them for lack of ambition!
EROEI, the energy return on energy invested, also has to be calculated. Launching things into space is extremely energy intensive, so we need to see some calculations to see if this is even energy positive in the first place.
It's a thought provoking idea, although the economics of space transportation don't make this idea work yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey say the total weight of the space system is around 15000 metric tonnes. At launch costs of 10000 USD per kilogram, the cost of a 1 GW space system would be 150 billion just in launch costs! However, launch costs may very well come down a lot. At 1000 USD per kilogram, it's 15 billion, very close to being competitive. But still not 6.5 cents per kWh, and that doesn't include the rest of the system, such as the terrestrial receiver equipment. Not to mention the costs of the solar cells and laser/transmitting device for beaming the energy to earth. Can't use GaAs because the energy per area collected per year isn't big enough to justify the extreme cost. It would be anologous to having a 10x terrestrial (eg desert) concentrating GaAs cell. They cost like 100 USD per Watt, and 10x concentration (very roughly equivalent to energy gain in space) makes it 10 USD per Watt. Too high, with 15 USD per Watt lauch cost under the optimistic launch cost projection, it's 25 USD and that still doesn't include the terrestrial receiver.
New PV technology, such as infrared nano antenna's, could change this picture, so it's a good thing they're keeping an open mind on the subject and have gotten funding.
Basically, it's a long shot, even under very optimistic assumptions of future economics and technology development. At least we can't blame them for lack of ambition!
EROEI, the energy return on energy invested, also has to be calculated. Launching things into space is extremely energy intensive, so we need to see some calculations to see if this is even energy positive in the first place.
Apologies for the double post, I had some more info but there's no edit button!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThrowing massive pieces of equipment into space is going to take huge amounts of energy no matter how you do it. Why not add a third technological ingredient to the mix-reliable equipment that, given a supply of dopant, can manufacture solar cells from silicates. Put it on the moon, which is rich in silicon, then watch as your yearly take in energy increases without doing much of anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this is possible, then it would also be possible to send a giant schlong into space that could be used to deflect sun rays that are potentially harmful to mice and other gentiles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith Global Warming on many people's minds, do we have any ideas of the best way to lessen the impact on our future, or maybe a possible relief of its possible ravages or even a possible key to its eventual reversal. Many scientific experts have proposed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar Power, Source of Endless Energy
Space-Based Microwave Power
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.p2pnet.net/story/16477
If not the US - I am sure another country will develop it.
Space-Based Microwave Power
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisp2pnet.net/story/16477
If not the US - I am sure another country will develop it.
Sending energy from space ( as he sun does ) needs considering the frequency of the energy. Microwave ? remenber the problem with portable phones, there towers, I would not liked to be cooked with microwaves like a TV meal ! Laser ? let us think about ,how we can be sure that all the energy from space arrives at the antennas on earth. Military applications would be
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinteresting . How about roasting medium rare every soldier on the ground ?
Let us use the intellectual potency of your readers in a more realistic way !
very best wishes, Dr.Kamlander@aon.at
Transporting energy from space ( as the sun does ) needs the consideration of the frequencies transmitted and received on earth. Always consider the enormous amount of energy. Microwaves ? How would you like to be roasted medium rare, like in a microwave oven, if the transmitting antenna in space deviates just a little bit ( The military would just love it !!) Laser ? you also would not see it but be cooked in a little while. Let us use the intellectual power of your reader in a more acceptable way to solve some of our important problems. I am sure it can be done. All the best ! Dr.Kamlander@aon.at Mönichkirchen, Austria,Europe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit's time to DEBUNK the "Space Solar Power" URBAN LEGEND!!!
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/038sspdebunked.html
I've been studying this problem for nearly 40 years and transportation is still the main engineering problem. Roman Candle (rocket science) technolagy is too dangerous, too expensive, too much waste and not dependable for large scale ,high expense, construction. A true space drive is needed. All the rest of this is a waste of time and money until that problem is solved. A true EMF (Electro Motive Force ) drive system is possable. About 60 kw per 1000lbs for 1G acceleration. pgtruspace@hughs.net
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting discussion. You all do realize that you can buy solar panels with a 25 year performance warranty and inverters with a 10 year warranty today don't you? (these are standard, longer inverter warranties available for more money) These are off the shelf items.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe advantages are:
- if you need to service the system you won't have to go to space to do so.
- you can get a system installed for less than 10 bucks per watt on your home and that's if you don't take the tax credits. Utility size systems are probably closer to $5.
- the effect is immediate, these systems are available now and have been in service around the world for decades in some cases
Check out Article 690 in the NEC handbook (the Handbook has good example schematics and explanations as well as the normal "Nat. Elec. Code" text.)
The gist of a lot of the posts seems to be it's a long shot but more power to them. Why not spend the billions needed on energy conservation and existing functional technology instead.
I am knowledgeable enough on standard PV systems but know much less about concentrating PV systems (utility sized concentrators focusing energy on pipes, changing liquid to vapor under pressure to spin a standard turbine). Maybe someone could speak to the cost and efficiency of these solar/natural gas turbines on this list.
For more reliable power generated without fossil fuels or nuclear could we not rely on solar as well as wind and hydro? If the sun is shining on the west coast but not on the east coast do we have the ability to use power generated in CA in NJ for example? Should the grids in the US and Canada be upgraded so we can take advantage of wind resources in less populated areas of Alaska and Canada to power some of the more populated ones to the south? Would a project like this create meaningful work?
Could the real estate needed for a gas pipeline from Alaska also be used for power transmission lines, lessening the time needed for permitting, environmental impact statements and the like?
this is a hoax... and ashey is awesome. but her views are warped
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis is a hoax and ashley's beliefs are warped. she needs help
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this