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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …