Skip to main content

Space-Based Solar Power?

Cosmic Log has the details.

Comments

GRLCowan said…
Solar Power Satellites (SPS) are very like nuclear power plants; in theory the only significant difference is that their rejection, as heat, of the fraction of the sunlight they can't convert occurs far from the Earth, so that hardly any of that heat warms the Earth. A while back I speculated that there are worlds on the sky where SPS got its foot in the door first.

In Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite Geoffrey Landis explores how space-based solar power could be switched on demand from one city to a higher-bidding one thousands of km away. The beams have to fly six to seven Earth radii anyway.

This long flight also makes it impossible to focus them very tightly. The antenna farms have to be big. Aggressive sharers of ignorance are always talking about weaponizability and cooked geese. It's a waste of time to try to correct them, but good to know that these issues were dealt with long ago. No geese will be cooked by SPS, except maybe in kitchen ovens powered by it.

--- G.R.L. Cowan, boron car fan
Internal combustion without exhaust gas
Doug said…
Completely unrealistic for the rest of the century. They'd have to be huge, and they'd cost too much to haul up into orbit. O'Neill proposed mining the moon for raw materials to construct them because of the lower gravity well - obviously that's a long way off. There is also the potential problem with pushing that much EM radiation through the atmosphere to ground-based collectors. What effect are the inevitable (and huge) transmission losses going to have on the atmosphere, birds, etc? Could such powerful beams be used as weapons? (You betcha!)

Nuclear, solar, hydro, and wind can power our civilization for centuries at far lower cost.
robert merkel said…
Neat idea, won't work without orders of magnitude reduction in launch costs.

SpaceX might ultimately reduce launch costs by an order of magnitude, but to do better something radically new will probably be needed.

There are some vaguely feasible ideas to do so, but none of them have been demonstrated, and would take a lot of time and money to bring to fruition.

But until that occurs, space solar power is a very expensive pipedream.
Kirk Sorensen said…
For those that take the time to investigate the numerous and deep technical challenges to economic space solar power, I don't think there will be much doubt that advanced nuclear technologies are a much better investment for our energy future.

But, like many other things, it takes time and effort to discover this. At first glance, huge space-based arrays collecting unlimited solar energy seem much more attractive than "dirty old fission."

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…