Subscription Center
Sep 2, 2009 08:00 PM | 91
The Japanese government is prepared to spend some 2 trillion yen on a one-gigawatt orbiting solar power station—and this week Mitsubishi and other Japanese companies have signed on to boost the effort. Boasting some four kilometers of solar panels—maybe of the superefficient Spectrolab variety but more likely domestically sourced from Mitsubishi or Sharp—the space solar power station would orbit some 36,000 kilometers above Earth and transmit power via microwave or laser beam.
The benefit? Constant solar energy production as the space-based power plant never passes out of sunlight. The downsides? Only enough power for roughly 300,000 Japanese homes at a price tag of $21 billion, according to Japan's science ministry (about 127 million people live in Japan in some 47 million households, according to Wikipedia and the CIA's World Factbook). The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) aims to have a system in space by 2030.
The first step will be launching a test satellite that will gather solar power and beam it back to Earth, probably in 2015. Already, ground tests show that some solar power (180 watts) can be beamed successfully.
In the U.S., where space solar has been on the drawing board since at least the 1960s, California's Pacific Gas & Electric has pledged to buy power from a planned 200-megawatt space solar station put together by Solaren that is still being developed.
But the U.S. government has mixed feelings about space solar. Despite some $80 million spent over decades by NASA, the alternative energy source is no closer to fruition using public funds. And other government agency estimates put the price tag for space solar at $1 billion per megawatt—making this the most expensive power source identified to date in any solar system.
Image: Artist's rendering courtesy of USEF
More News Blog: Next: Body clock linked to weight gain Previous: First gray wolf legally killed in U.S. after nearly 40-year ban
See what we're tweeting about
SteveMirsky @philipyam @dcastelvecchi @akuchment This incident must have taken place at the Sam Houston Institute of Technology
kahoakes Anyone seen/made any super cool science websites recently? Last chance to make it into my @sciencefocus column next month... kahoakes NASA Records an Explosion on the Moon So Bright You Could Have Seen It With Your Bare Eyes http://t.co/J4NwMajI4J
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
91 Comments
Add CommentAnd it can be moved to shade the earth if global warming gets too hot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this21b ??????? They could buy 10 b2 bombers with that... 10
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much earth bound solar or wind power could be purchased with 21 billion? It's a wonderful concept that I've often read about over the years, but it just seems that for the same money, far more could be done with ground based solar, wind, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is what this article is about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to an Aug 19 article in huffingtonpost by steve-kirsch we need to add-a-gigawatt-a-day of capacity starting today if we are to have any chance of averting a civilization destroying climate catastrophe. His numbers are unassailable.
He lends his voice to the fury of who have studied the issue seeing us wasting time and treasure on too little too late technologies like wind, solar. biomass, carbon sequestration, conservation and silly tax schemes like cap and trade.
Meanwhile a workable extremely low cost liquid fluorine thorium reactor design is sitting on the shelf at at a government research site in Idaho put there by that philandering fat head Bill Clinton.
Senator Lamar Alexander advocates building 100 new nuclear power plants in the US over the next 20 years. He is way short. We need to start building one mass produced nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years, if we are to have any hope. Westinghouse's recent sale to China pegs the cost at less than 2 cents a kilowatt hour.
Diversions like space based solar are useful dreams but we can't risk wasting time and treasure on them.
Ah, I know 21 billion SOUNDS like a lot ... but I can't imagine a structure that large, in that orbit costing a mere 21b$. In any case, the article presents a much more believable figure of 1b$/megawatt so the proposed 1 gigawatt system = 1 trillion dollars. A drop in the bucket to the Obama-nation but Japan might find it a little steep!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI tire of these climate debates, but the chances of us / anyone adding 1gW capacity per day is near zero making a "civilization destroying climate catastrophe" a near certainty. I say ice down some more beer and throw another shrimp on the barbie!! Or better yet, rearrange those deck chairs Captain ... ain't no ice bergs around here!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting idea, if not very practical. I wonder it other nations might be a bit upset if Japan, the US, or anyone actually tries this. It'd make one heck of a weapon. Of course, it might not be that hard to shoot down. Then there is the other side of, where will it fall, when eventually it will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis effort will intercept solar energy which would otherwise bypass the earth and redirect it downward to the earth's surface, thus increasing the earth's total solar heat burden. This is the opposite of what we need to do to mitigate the problem in increasing mean temperature. How can they be that stupid?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat idea! But the world needs to decommissioning protocols so that this doesn't become space debris in the not to far distant future, after it's useful life has expired. In fact, this is yet one example of where our decommission protocols are severely lacking. What goes up, must come down, or get in the way of future development....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith that kind of money, you'd think we could figure out how to drill down instead of launching up -- there's a huge amount of energy in geothermal, it's not sexy, and it's hard to get to. At $21b I would think you could figure out how to tap that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Microwave or laser beam" is poorly worded. They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, a microwave laser is probably the method of choice for sending the collected energy back to Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is absolutely no way this makes any sense. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCovering every building top in Tokyo area would make far more sense, and put the power right where it's needed, and where the solar panels can be serviced and maintained. Meanwhile, how about they turn off some of the neon? I know Blade Runner was cool, but seriously!
If you haven't run out of money after this, then do the next city.
Germany has the right plan for solar power.
Absolutely ridiculous. Makes no economic sense at all. It would be far better to cover every rooftop in Tokyo with solar panels (till you run out of cash) and put the power right where it's needed, and where the panels can be serviced and maintained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGermany has the right idea with the solar power subsidy scheme.
Japan could also turn off some of the neon and save a bit of power while they are at it. Blade Runner is cool and all, but seriously!
"Germany has the right plan for solar power. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, I'm sorry but no, I was with you up until this point. Germany has no business mucking about with solar at all, it's purely a boondoggle, have you seen the weather there?
Have you looked into what Germany is up to in solar? It's working quite well for them, even with the less than average sunny weather.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are becoming a world class leader in solar tech as a great side benefit.
Drat, I didn't know the first post went thru - sciam told me I wasn't logged in, so I repeated the post!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember some 40 year old NASA project concepts called Soletta and Lunetta.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(orbiting mirror as bright as the sun or the moon, useful to shine daylight on a disaster area)
I don't think this is anywhere near cost effective, but to the people talking about it coming down- it's stated in the article that it would be at 36,000 km, or geosynchronous orbit. Coming crashing back to Earth isn't a problem here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMomma said "Stupid is as stupid does" and this "space" crap is stupid---all of it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpend funds on earth based energy savings and get the hell back to sanity!
The $1 billion per gigawatt only applies to the generating capacity of the solar set-up; it does not mean that every single gigawatt that we generate will cost $1 billion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce up there the thing is up there, the energy from that point on will be generated and beamed to earth for free.
Of course we could always round up all the obese people in America, all 100 million of them, and make them run on treadmills hooked up to electricity generators.
That would certainly power far more than 300, 000 homes and it will help those willing but biologically inhibited people lose weight :-)
Good idea!But how close to the sun should the station been moved ?If too close the station may be burnd.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypical educated idiocy at work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPretend all you want, but there's no way you're going to get around that 1160 watt per square meter value. You know, the amount of solar energy actually present 1 AU from the sun.
Just more people doing stupid, self-destructive things because of ignorance (ooh, radiation is DANGEROUS; ooh, the world is going to end if we don't stop capitalism...)
It's just gonna add to global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's just gonna add to global warming
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love the idea of space solar and always have, but until we can reduce the cost of flying things into orbit ($10K/lb.) then this is merely a fanciful experiment. Let's concentrate on tapping far offshore wind and our own sunbelts here on Earth. Ocean thermal energy conversion seems to me to be a much cheaper experiment as well, with potentially far more rewards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a ridiculously stupid thing to say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissethdayal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think scrapping one unlikely to work idea with an impossible to implement idea is any kind of an answer. We will never be able to build 1 nuclear plant a day with any kind of safety and reliability. Hence we are all doomed already by this logic so why even try? Nuclear power can be a PART of the solution but not the whole solution.
frgough, yes radiation is dangerous and despite what you have been told to think progressives who are wanting a more sustainable future thru the more efficient use of our resources are not out to destroy either capitalism or humanity. We just don't think the idea we must be gluttons and get everything as cheaply as possible is going to work for very long.
Right on brother.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, we've never let facts and common sense stand in the way of a good boondoogle! Why start now!
JBH
The idea is stupendously expensive, but seems very much like a prototype kind of project.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, for those worried about the global warming effects of this, either by intercepting solar rays we wouldn't have received, or by blocking solar rays we otherwise would have received (if you don't use it for power generation), that effect is incredibly small. The surface area of the Earth is about 510,072,000 square kilometers, and this little thing would be 4 square kilometers. Two complicating matters: (1) The solar radiation would be stronger per square kilometer of exposure than the surface of the Earth since it's not passing through the atmosphere, and (2) The transfer is not a pure heat transfer.
I think that 21 billion is for the initial start up costs. After that, you only have maintenance costs for the facility to worry about. Who knows how much that would be. As far as global warming goes, yes it would redirect extra energy to us, but how many tons of CO2 would not be injected into the atmosphere from burning coal to match that 2 Gigawatts? That needs to be factored in when considering global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we can build a space elevator out of carbon nanotube-based materials, then why not make a really long extension cord and eliminate the microwave/laser power beam. Who wants to'nuke' all the wildlife on the ground anyway ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this21 Billion seems a little cheap for this scheme as prototypes usually seem to far outstrip their initial cost estimates. I'm not sure that this is as much of a boondoggle as our previous administration telling everyone that the war in Iraq would pay for itself in oil money but remember that this is the Japanese that are funding this project, not the Obama administration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@frgough, "Just more people doing stupid, self-destructive things because of ignorance (ooh, radiation is DANGEROUS; ooh, the world is going to end if we don't stop capitalism...)" Well frgough, we don't all have your keen wit. But you know what would really convince everyone of your extreme cognitive abilities? Proof. Why don't you show everyone just how much radiation the human body can withstand using yourself as a guinea pig? You could have a day by day video diary, a little Geiger counter hooked up, I could run a pool so people could bet on which day you'll succumb… It would be a blast. I am there to support you man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA mirror that continuously reflects sunlight to a ground based PV or CST array instead of a PV array seems to make more sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUngolythe seems to have seen something that y'all have missed. The U S of fuckin' A doesn't have a damn thing to say about this. It is a Japanese project. My guess is that the technological spinoffs will likely pay them back handsomely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe will soon need many technologies to meet our power needs. Let the Japanese go ahead with that idea. Someone mentioned geo-thermal. Perhaps that is something for us to get into. Or those nuclear power plants that Clinton shelved. And what about wind & tidal power generation?
Don't fight kiddies.... there's plenty of room for everybody
robert schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat idea. I will support your support of frgough; now who is gonna support my support of your support of frgough? ;-)
We don't need these way out in outer space proposals. We can do it with existing technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProjecting the recent sale price of Westinghouse nuclear reactors to China, it would cost $1 trillion to buy enough nuclear plants to replace the energy equivalent all of the United States crude oil consumption now costing$ 500 billion per year. That's less than the cost of the War in Iraq, it would get everybody to work and it be payed easily for by replacing oil purchases.
As natural gas plant is replaced abundant gas supplies could be used as vehicle fuels either with mass produced auto gas conversion kits or natural gas and nuclear produced methanol until electric vehicles start becoming available.
We were able to retool and gear up to fight World War Two. We can do this, a year or two to tool up and then hit the ground running.
Think how many hamsters equipped with hamster wheels you could buy for $22bn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink how many fylraens equipped with fylraen wheels we could buy with $22Billion
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApropos the rate of building nuclear or other power plant: main generating stations have a life of between 30 and 40 years, whether coal, oil, gas or nuclear. That means that everything that exists now has been built in the last forty years and will have to be replaced over the next forty. Whatever rate of build we require is much the same as has been achieved in the past and would be the same even if we stuck to a "high carbon" economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world electricity generating capacity is 19 Trillion KWh (source World Factbook). That is equivalent to 5000 1GW stations operating at under 50% capacity. Building these over the next 40 years is just over two per week. That is well within the World's industrial capability.
Why build solar cells and pay to ship them out into orbit costing 21 billion dollars to supply the energy needs for only 300,000 homes. Instead beamed energy from anywhere on earth off a reflector back to the customer will supply the energy needs of 10 times the space based solar cells with less headaches for the same amount of money. Imagine processing the energy at the source either renewable or nonrenewable and beaming it to the customer without going through the power grid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShine innovations proposed just that back in 2004, at first they proposed using wasted vented natural gas that is a global warming gas that is 23 times more heat absorbing than CO2 for smaller projects. They expanded that to using the money earmarked for the Alaska Pipeline, 40 billion Dollars, to build giant reflectors at geostationary orbit to reflect the processed natural gas energy back to any location on earth.
Since the beamed light waves will be monochromic light the receiving end would be highly efficient at converting the beamed energy back into electrical energy much more efficient than solar cells, microwaves or radio waves could also be used at a high efficiency rate. Certain waves can penetrate or go around most anything so if a airplane or satellite travels through the beam it wouldn't be effected by the radiation such as something coming close to a hundred thousand watt radio tower, or an airplane getting struck by lightning.
The big sticking point is the beam spread but new technology has improved quite a bit with advancement in star wars technology and communication technology.
Here is the original paper published back in 2004:
www.members.cox.net/arrow-space-innovations/Beamed%20energy%20paper%205-07-12-04.htm
Here is a link to the Beamed Energy website:
www.shineinnovations.com/6112.html
"making this the most expensive power source identified to date in any solar system."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any solar system? Have you check everyone then?
Oh yeah, and 10 B2 bombers would be so much more useful than this..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh yeah, and 10 B2 bombers would be so much more useful than this..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I wonder it other nations might be a bit upset if Japan, the US, or anyone actually tries this. It'd make one heck of a weapon."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would other countries automatically assume this is a weapon? Without trust, progress wouldn't be made.
Enter Your Comment Here.Power being routed back to Earth will have to be some dense energy beam, so that the collector area does not become a problem. While systems that keep such a beam focussed and aimed properly can be built, they will work until something fails. However there are a lot of such failure situations. How can one avoid the energy beam becoming a death ray wandering over the Earth's surface, supposing that some object struck the generator station, thrusters run out of mass to station-keep, cosmic rays disrupt aiming logic, antennas get hit...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe consequences of such failure are much more severe than those of such failures on existing satellites, and we haven't a convenient space truck to head out at a moment's notice to fix problems. If logic to shut the thing down fails, anyone the beam hits is in a world of hurt. Will the thing be shut down if a backup system fails, too, or will people be tempted to leave the thing running, because after all it has become the primary power source for a large number of people? Near-Earth space is a surprisingly hostile area for electronics (just check out what is needed to space qualify microelectronics), and much of the space is also filled with orbiting junk left over from old satellites. If these things are to be launched, it is unlikely
that only one or two will be there. Let one be said to succeed and we'll wind up with scores of them. They had better be far far more reliable and redundantly controlled than pretty much anything we have had to date. (I suggest recalling some of R. Feynman's comments about the computation of risk by NASA in the Challenger disaster as well. Get the odds checked out by people of similar ability and integrity to Feynman; the engineers are too subject to overrule by managers who are influenced by politics and wishful thinking and have been shown not to be able to get good figures out at all times. Playing with giant death rays like this is serious business, and needs to be safeguarded according to its risks.
Power being routed back to Earth will have to be some dense energy beam, so that the collector area does not become a problem. While systems that keep such a beam focussed and aimed properly can be built, they will work until something fails. However there are a lot of such failure situations. How can one avoid the energy beam becoming a death ray wandering over the Earth's surface, supposing that some object struck the generator station, thrusters run out of mass to station-keep, cosmic rays disrupt aiming logic, antennas get hit...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe consequences of such failure are much more severe than those of such failures on existing satellites, and we haven't a convenient space truck to head out at a moment's notice to fix problems. If logic to shut the thing down fails, anyone the beam hits is in a world of hurt. Will the thing be shut down if a backup system fails, too, or will people be tempted to leave the thing running, because after all it has become the primary power source for a large number of people? Near-Earth space is a surprisingly hostile area for electronics (just check out what is needed to space qualify microelectronics), and much of the space is also filled with orbiting junk left over from old satellites. If these things are to be launched, it is unlikely
that only one or two will be there. Let one be said to succeed and we'll wind up with scores of them. They had better be far far more reliable and redundantly controlled than pretty much anything we have had to date. (I suggest recalling some of R. Feynman's comments about the computation of risk by NASA in the Challenger disaster as well. Get the odds checked out by people of similar ability and integrity to Feynman; the engineers are too subject to overrule by managers who are influenced by politics and wishful thinking and have been shown not to be able to get good figures out at all times. Playing with giant death rays like this is serious business, and needs to be safeguarded according to its risks.
and what do you propose to do with all the radio active waste produced by these not so wonderful nuclear plants. There is no acceptable solution right now and the waste will end our civilization (at those rates) quicker than running out of energy as we know it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar powersats will lower the amount of waste heat in the atmosphere put there by fossil fuel burning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@kimballk
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you've misunderstood the entire concept of solar energy. This isn't Professor Wernstrom's giant mirror in Futurama (http://theinfosphere.org/Crimes_of_the_Hot [see Act II]). Each of those power cells in the diagram CONVERTS solar energy into electrical energy. Unless Japan just decided they really, really hate someone, I don't think we're going to be fried like giant bugs any time soon.
This is clearly a technology test bed. Solar cells are well understood so the goal is to determine the viability of transmitting power via microwaves from orbit to ground. People may be willing to invest in satellite building and launching infrastructure, which will lower the price of future power satellites, once they know that the satellites actually work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeth... your right on target... Nuclear power has been the answer for the earths power problems for over 60 years and we have been stymied in developing it because of the short sighted vision of those who have been investing in fossil fuels... The installed base of fossil fuel capital has just overwhelmed the answer... We had a chance over this time to phase in the replacement of fossil resources with clean nuclear, we were dissuaded by fear, greed and the status quo... Now we face the consequences of Not doing what we really knew was the "right" thing to do... Will we ever learn...???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are lots of improvements in Solar technology every day. What would it take for people to understand that we are sitting on a breaking point with climate change? We MUST start thinking more boldly than ever before if we are going to live thru this next century. We as a human species need to work together on this global problem instead of everyone doing thier own things. Geothermal, Solar, and projects that expliot Fusion in a safe and productive way are what we need to be reseaching. Solar is the most underestimated source there is and this needs to change. Build better storage units to house all this extra energy for use later, why are we still using Lead Acid batteries? Why have we not as a people DEMANDED these changes? Now that we have "intelegent" leaders we MUST press them on REAL change and not just dumb ass rhetoric that gets us nowhere. Call your elected leaders and push them, over and over, day after day; we MUST NOT GIVE UP! Lets make like the Republicans and take to the streets and voice OUR intelect and OUR VISION FOR OUR FUTURE! We can do this, we can live in HARMONY WITH NATURE and our selves!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the energy density of the microwave beam (maser, really) that carries energy back to earth? What happens to birds or airplanes that blunder into the beam. How wide is the beam, and how big is the receiver? Where is it located? I would hope it is located away from houses and industry, but that is where the energy is needed...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the energy density of the power beam? What happens when a bird or airplane blunders into it? How wide is the beam? How big are the receivers? Where are the receivers located? One would hope they are far from houses and industry, but that is where the energy is needed....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is there no discussion of the primary problem? The cost is so excessive mainly because there is no cheap high thrust heavy lift capability as all the R&D has gonbe into manned vehicles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with having a concentrated beam of energy focused at the Earth is that it is a death ray for anything that passes through it. What if a piece of space debris knocks the platform and the beam off target? Oops, there goes a city up in smoke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswould'nt sticking these in deserts around the world be a better option?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_Project#Solar_One
Actually this was looked at a long time ago. The power beam is spread over a large rectenna covering a large field. Also the microwave frequency used will not penetrate beyond the first 1 or 2 layers of dead skin on a human. The problem was that such a structure would have had to be very large and would have blocked a portion of the sky interfering with astronomy studies. With modern tech it may be different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the nuclear option. I was pro-nuclear until I had to write a paper on it for college. Back then everyone was afraid of nuclear power plants exploding or melting down. What convinced me to switch my stance wasn't the danger of a plant failure (that's actually extremely small when the plant is run properly. ) or even the storage of the spent fuel. It was the hundreds to thousands of tons of radioactive waste created before you even get to the fuel stage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those who are pro-nuclear I would recommend you look into what happens to the literal mountains of radioactive ore left over from mining. Hint its out in the open, children are PLAYING on the mine tailings and it is being washed into the water table. Also every single piece of equipment ends up radioactive. I couldn't believe the amount of radioactive waste generated before you even see the inside of a plant.
And once in the plant all of the equipment, protective garments etc.
Granted the spent fuel rods are the super long term problem but they are also the smallest problem by volume by far.
Thanks for the info, Cerebro. So the receiving antenna (rectenna?) would cover a few acres, perhaps? Would it consist of many reflective elements like a solar concentrator, or would it just be an array of many small antennas?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould it be placed offshore? Could it even be a floating platform?
And what happens when it rains or snows? Does that block the microwave transmission? (If a few layers of skin block it, that would seem likely.)
If I remember correctly it is a horizontal wire grid. The picture I recall had the author standing under the grid while it was in operation. (I don't remember where the power was being beamed from tower or satellite).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis was between 10 and 20 years ago.
I found something a little more recent:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scribd.com/doc/18515461/Wireless-Power-Transmission-Using-Solar-Power-Satellites-SPS
The economics just does not make sense given other alternatives, and those alternatives have appeared in the pages of Scientific American. If other nations jump on the bandwagon, does anyone have any idea what beaming that much energy through the atmosphere will do to earth's atmosphere?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey wake up Japan! The sun's solar 'wind' already consists of moving charged particles = electric current, so why not intercept that in our atmosphere or magnetosphere instead of converting light into laser into electricity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy space launch patent US #7,523,892 would be cheap enough to get energy collecting devices into low or mid-Earth orbit, but directing that energy downward becomes a political problem because energy is basically a weapon. Focus an energy beam anywhere and you can destroy something, either sensitive electronics or maybe even ordinary structures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGranted that the energy beamed down would not otherwise have reached Earth, but it involves ZERO carbon footprint, ZERO greenhouse gasses of any kind. That will allow more energy to radiate AWAY from earth, thus tilting the Earth Radiation Budget toward cooling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse, there is an acceptable solution. Look at what the French do with reprocessing nuclear fuel. So much of their energy is generated by nuclear power, they even sell some to the rest of Europe. Stop fear-mongering and do some research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real value in this is that given enough projects of this nature, putting objects in space will become cheaper as better launch systems etc. are developed. The first light bulbs were comparatively expensive too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose cost estimates are pure nonsense. There are several serious companies currently proposing to build and operate space solar power satellites, for total prices that are quite comparable to nuclear power plants on a per-kilowatt basis. When you compare the billions that our government has wasted pursuing will-o-the-wisps like fusion power with the impossibility in getting anything at all spent on space solar power, which would require no new technology at all, the insanity of our government's approach (particularly as compared to both the Japanese and Indian governments, which have active SSP programs) becomes apparent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cost of Space Solar Power is driven by the cost of orbital space access, which is a factor of ten too high - even with the cheapest space transportation providers now in existence. To lower that cost enough to permit Space Solar Power to be economically competition with other baseload electric power generators the volume of launch must be a hundred times what it is today. Only Space Solar Power can provide the high volume market required to bring that cost down enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd this must be a global endeavor, otherwise coal plants in China, India, etc., will nullify the CO2 savings. Building enough nuclear power plants to do that task is unacceptable both politically and from a global water supply (drought) perspectives.
Space Solar Power Workshop
http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/
There have been some interesting points in the messages here. Let's get moving on these clean energy technologies! Just as long as it doesn't involve CO2 emissions, that's all I'm worried about. Let's get to it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are some interesting comments here. I am interested in the development of clean energy. Whatever form it takes: let's do it, people!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs we all know, energy from space, is a given.With joint neighborly efforts,aplatform of energy redistrabution or direct energy source distrabution.Energy could then be allocated to various areas as required.Field out post expiditions as well as emergency scenerios,with a minimal of interstructer.just imagine fusion in a weightless enviroment..Price for limitlas energy for the entire world...For the life of earth..Hummmm imagine that..... Bernie
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSafe, clean, efficient 4th Generation Nuclear is the solution to our pollution. This is pretty well established science. The establishment doesn't want to support it because it an extremely effective way to solve our problems. They are not interested in solving the problems since the perceived crisis has given them pollitical clout. They'd rather spend us into a world wide economic crisis with sky rocketing inflation than allow America to use it's technology to fuel the world and retain it's technological and economic leadership.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main concern regarding power-beaming concentrated microwaves from a space solar power satellite are the biohazards accompanying high-intensity microwaves, as explained in the book Sunstroke by David Kagan. The US EPA wants far more studies to be conducted regarding the microwave irradiating of human, plant and animal tissues at the satellite's ground intensity of 20 milliwatts per square centimeter; they say that it's powerful enough to heat up living tissue. And that's at ground level. That means passengers aboard an aircraft that accidentally passes through the beam could get flash-roasted like popping a dinner into your microwave oven. Also the EPA is concerned about atmospheric heating and telecommunications interference as the beam microwaves its way through all layers of the earth's atmosphere. The heating effects could exacerbate global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJapan demonstrated in 1981 with their Project Minix that sunlight in space can be converted into microwaves and beamed down to Earth for conversion into electricity. In that year they launched a sub-satellite in a suborbital trajectory that transmitted a concentrated microwave beam to a ground receiver (rectenna) which successfully converted it into a few watts of electricity. Japan is in a heated race with California's PG & E/Solaren to be the first to beam down space solar power in the form of concentrated microwaves to supply baseload electricity.
mmm... and that beam that gets sent back to earth needs a huge collector .... and you REALLY don't want that beam landing in the wrong place .... could be used as a weapon I guess ! .... if we want to save the planet it's easy ..... STOP MAKING MORE PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPablo, you're correct about the possibility that the concentrated microwave beam from a space-based solar power station could wander away from its ground-based receiver, and also about its military use as a weapon as explained in the book Sunstroke by US aerospace engineer David Kagan. I read Sunstroke and was impressed that David Kagan predicted that a space-based solar power station would actually be built and deployed by not only the US, but also by other nations, under the pretense of being a "purely alternative energy source to supply unlimited power to major cities". Kagan spells out quite clearly that such space solar power stations employing high-intensity microwave beams could also be used as a devastating multi-pronged weapon: it can supply electricity to the military, be used to fry enemy ground troops, aircraft, ocean-going vessels, and also be used to disrupt enemy communications as well as destroy their agricultural capabilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust plug into your search engine "space solar power, US Pentagon" and you'll see firsthand the military's great interest.
that's too great, amazing. I believe that the solar resource will be the most important in twenty years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLET JAPAN DO WHAT JAPAN NEEDS TO DO. IN THE US W/ 260 MILLION PEOPLE IS A DIFFERENT STORY. WE NEED A NEW SMART GRID FOR POWER TRANSMISSION($150B.) WE NEED TIME TO TRANSITION, AND COMBINE THE FUELS AND TECH AVAILABLE FOR MAXIMUM OPTIMIZATION OF RESOURCES. CLEAN COAL-CAN BE DONE, SOLAR POWER FARMS, WIND FARMS...ETC WE HAVE REAL PROBLEMS THAT MUST BE ADDRESS BY PRIORITY( GLOBAL WARMING) BUT, ADDRESS THEY MUST BE FOR ALL OF MANKIND...BECAUSE WHEN THE US GETS A COLD THE WORLD IS IN INTENSIVE CARE!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLET JAPAN DO WHAT JAPAN MUST DO. THE US NEED A NEW SMART GRID($150) WE NEED TO OPTIMIZE OUR RESOURCES UNTIL WE HAVE UP AND RUNNING, SOLAR FARMS, WIND FARMS, CLEAN COAL, NUCLEAR ETC... THE PROBLEMS ARE REAL, GLOBAL WARMING, NUCLEAR WASTE BUT THESE PROBLEMS MUST BE ADDRESS BY PRIORITY AND SOLVED LOGICALLY ASAP, TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE............................
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not follow all the article links... but seriously... what happens when a space debris, asteroid, or other hits said structure? Remember... this is high orbit... no human servicing at that altitude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, what about solar flares? Even with earth's magnetosphere, we take much damage here on terra firma... satellites often go bye-bye after intense flares...
Honestly, I love the idea, just think there are too many problems with it.
ildenizen, you've got it right here about space junk, meteoroids, or antisatellite vehicles possibly doing catastrophic damage to a solar power satellite, just as David Kagan described in his book Sunstroke. They could knock it out of its precise orbit and cause its intense microwave beam to wander across the Earth's surface, frying everything in its path. You're also right about solar flares. They could cause these giant power-beaming satellites to go haywire, too. Yes, there won't be any astronauts in geosynch orbit 22,300 miles up there to effect repairs. Really good analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe probability of collision with space junk, meteoroids, etc. may not be zero, but it is extremely small. Nations and companies have invested huge sums of money to put up space stations, weather satellites, and communication satellites and assume this small risk. If a solar power satellite were disturbed from its orientation/orbit, there would be feedback circuitry to shut down the microwave transmitter to prevent the beam from hitting unwanted places on earth. Objects flying through beam would not be "fried" because the energy flux is too low.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn experiment to try something that is not feasible even if it works is a waste of resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder which is less likely: solar power plants in space (witness Gerard (?) O'Neill's plan, a NASA summer school study like Project Cyclops (SETI)), or thermonuclear reactors (using nuclear fusion instead of today's fission reactors). One wag joked it's a technology that's always 25 years in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew development in the nuclear fission could be a valuable solution if there is a will. Unfortunately there is to powerful influences of oil that has immense economical GRAVITY to influence any rational solution to the energy problem. Getting society into the stone age is not answer, RE-forestation, and aggressive limitation on deforestation i.e. cutting the rain forest in British Columbia and elsewhere.. aggressive investment in Hydrogen based combustion (jet and piston) engines. But aggressive nuclear energy development is the ONLY IMMINENT ANSWER AT THE MOMENT.. and most likely for the next century as well. Japanese project is VALIANT one and I believe in the near future will bring a MAJOR FRUITION especially to bring the energy that is resources starving i.e. Taiwan and quite few other places that are a logistical nightmare for development of power-plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am reading and listening to the cry about global warming and to be sure, it is happening, is directly related to our activity and that of our millions of cattle, coal burning and so forth but no one has proven to me that it does not mean that change is necessarily bad. The Boreal Forests are moving north, more plant organic materials are being produced as carbon dioxide levels rise and thus, perhaps we will end up with a more temperate climate overall. Yes, of course, some areas of the planet will desert-ify but others will bloom. I guess it all depends on the luck of the draw as to what will happen to this or that area but overall, it might benefit. Naturally it is a risk that most do not wish to apply as an experiment that might have a terrible and permanent downside but frankly, the countries that are guilty of mismanaging this atmospheric change are just the ones that might pay the piper when they are forced to try to hold back the sand dunes. On the other hand, the Inuit and Laplanders might be selling condo spaces along the northern oceans coasts. If this is not the future that attracts then the US and China better start building nuke reactors, wind farms, solar collectors and tidal converters right now. There are a host of great new technologies that work. It is about imagination and the demand that they be built and that demand can only happen when consumers are willing to pay a bit more for that air conditioning. Personally, I think it ought to be an electrical tax of 20% and that money be used to build such solar/wind/nuke electrical production. I can just see people lining up for that but the alternative is that some countries will end up depopulated and less temperate nations will become the centres of a new population as their climate becomes tolerable and winters cease to threaten survival. Naturally, that means that Nebraska and environs will become like the Gobi.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am reading and listening to the cry about global warming and to be sure, it is happening, is directly related to our activity and that of our millions of cattle, coal burning and so forth but no one has proven to me that it does not mean that change is necessarily bad. The Boreal Forests are moving north, more plant organic materials are being produced as carbon dioxide levels rise and thus, perhaps we will end up with a more temperate climate overall. Yes, of course, some areas of the planet will desert-ify but others will bloom. I guess it all depends on the luck of the draw as to what will happen to this or that area but overall, it might benefit. Naturally it is a risk that most do not wish to apply as an experiment that might have a terrible and permanent downside but frankly, the countries that are guilty of mismanaging this atmospheric change are just the ones that might pay the piper when they are forced to try to hold back the sand dunes. On the other hand, the Inuit and Laplanders might be selling condo spaces along the northern oceans coasts. If this is not the future that attracts then the US and China better start building nuke reactors, wind farms, solar collectors and tidal converters right now. There are a host of great new technologies that work. It is about imagination and the demand that they be built and that demand can only happen when consumers are willing to pay a bit more for that air conditioning. Personally, I think it ought to be an electrical tax of 20% and that money be used to build such solar/wind/nuke electrical production. I can just see people lining up for that but the alternative is that some countries will end up depopulated and less temperate nations will become the centres of a new population as their climate becomes tolerable and winters cease to threaten survival. Naturally, that means that Nebraska and environs will become like the Gobi.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpace solar power will come, and soon. However, it will not look like the system proposed in the article. It will be solar thermal and will be much closer in low earth orbit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many can we build if we capture Apophis asetroid for materials first?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this