How to harvest solar power? Beam it down from space!

One of my SF reading club members sent me this link.

Does anyone of you science boffs think this is really feasible considering how expensive oil has become?

Or is it something we will have to contemplate at some future date?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science...lar/index.html

[danielf]

There was an article about this in New Scientist a while ago. If I recall correctly it was considered a serious proposition.

Originally Posted by danielf

There was an article about this in New Scientist a while ago. If I recall correctly it was considered a serious proposition.

Have you got any info or a link?

[danielf]

Here you go:

http://environment.newscientist.com/...Id=space_rss20

Thanks!

Several technical challenges remain to be overcome, including the development of lower-cost space launches. A satellite capable of supplying the same amount of electric power as a modern fossil-fuel plant would have a mass of about 3000 tonnes – more than 10 times that of the International Space Station. Sending that material into orbit would require more than a hundred rocket launches. The US currently launches fewer than 15 rockets each year.

I think that pretty much dooms the idea already...

[punky]

I always thought the problem wasn't a lack of sunlight it was a lack of efficient technology to convert it to electricity. I didn't think concentrating or increasing the sunlight would help much.

After seeing Die Another Day, its probably for the best anyway

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Thanks!

I think that pretty much dooms the idea already...

Dunno... Not in the near future perhaps, but within a couple of decades?

In spite of these challenges, the NSSO and its supporters say that no fundamental scientific breakthroughs are necessary to proceed with the idea and that space-based solar power will be practical in the next few decades.

"There are no technology hurdles that are show stoppers right now," said Damphousse.

Originally Posted by danielf

Dunno... Not in the near future perhaps, but within a couple of decades?

Well as Barak has already said he would like to divert funding from NASA towards science teaching in schools I suppose we must pin our hopes on McCain...Oh wait I suspect he'll be wanting to promote oil revenue.

[frogstamper]

[quote]"A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today," the report said.[/qoute]

When you consider the above statement I believe it will not be a case of "if" but more like "when". Between when this idea was first floated in the 70s until recently in the 90s it has become more feasible, cost wise, so as the price of oil continues to sky rocket with ever more demand on global supplies by emerging economies like China and India, I'd say it will become a necessity.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Thanks!



I think that pretty much dooms the idea already...

It is possibly one idea that might benefit from a permanent base on the moon, where you could theoretically manufacture the parts needed 'on site' & use a linear accelerator to 'throw' them into Earth orbit. This would take advantage of the lower gravity on the moon & obviate the need for rocket launches from Earth.

It may even be possible to build an Earth based linear accelerator, but the higher gravity & presence of our atmosphere would make it a huge undertaking, even based on the equator to gain some help from the Earth's rotation.

Another alternative to rocket launches could be the 'space elevator' idea, but I believe that is still a concept waiting for technology to catch up with the physical requirement for materials strong enough & light enough, to make it possible.

One thought is that a project of this size would presumably require true international co-operation - and it may be that, rather than the limits of our technology, which would be the real test of its feasibility???

[danielf]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

When you consider the above statement I believe it will not be a case of "if" but more like "when". Between when this idea was first floated in the 70s until recently in the 90s it has become more feasible, cost wise, so as the price of oil continues to sky rocket with ever more demand on global supplies by emerging economies like China and India, I'd say it will become a necessity.

Just imagine the potential revenue. Yes, the initial outlay will be considerable, but after the thing is in place, you've got pretty much unlimited energy, and it's free (virtually). The parties that would build this thing stand to make a bundle...

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

When you consider the above statement I believe it will not be a case of "if" but more like "when". Between when this idea was first floated in the 70s until recently in the 90s it has become more feasible, cost wise, so as the price of oil continues to sky rocket with ever more demand on global supplies by emerging economies like China and India, I'd say it will become a necessity.

It entirely depends on the efficiency with which we can absorb the energy. And strangely enough it will be a huge engineering challenge to keep the thing cool enough to operate.

My favourite next gen energy sources are nuclear fusion and Craig Venter's octane producing designer microbes. Now if only we can get them to work.

[handyman]

Something like this could get the bits up there for a reasonable price.

It could cost ony $75 worth of electricity per launch :-)

[danielf]

Originally Posted by handyman

Something like this could get the bits up there for a reasonable price.

It could cost ony $75 worth of electricity per launch :-)

Cool!

[Anonymouse]

The most maddening, irritating thing about space-based solar collectors is that the whole thing IS doable. It's not impossible, or even impractical. The technology does exist, and whatever else might be required could be developed along the way. It could be done. Dammit, it should be done. But as far as I can see, the only people aside from private industry, i.e. governments, who can do it, won't do it. As I've noted before, it's too long-term - it will take decades to show a real return, even though that return will be several hundred percent (so anyone in their early twenties investing in a solar power company now would be well-advised to deposit their stock certificates in a vault and forget about them for 20 years minimum). Governments - particularly ours - are keen on short-term fixes, as we've seen too frequently in the last decade or so.

Before any government will tackle such a project seriously, the underlying political structure must be completely changed. Politicans simply aren't in power long enough to see such things through, so they don't care. They should be made to stay where they are for as long as it takes - and if it takes their entire lifetime, that's just too bad. Solar power is about the only really practical and safe alternative to fossil fuels which, let's face it, are running out. But it can't be done unless politics are either completely transformed, or left out of it altogether.

The figures in terms of the energy available - even though it's only a tiny fraction of the Sun's total output - rapidly become so large they start to lose meaning. Zero pollution. Zero generation cost - the Sun burns for free. For all intents and purposes, it's an eternal power source; the Sun's energy output will likely show no significant change for 5,000,000,000 years at a minimum, by which time it won't matter one way or the other.

Perhaps the energy companies themselves should foot the bill, instead of paying the proposed windfall taxes. And they are in it for the long haul, they have to be. The only problem then is to figure out how to prevent them from screwing everyone even more thoroughly than they are doing now...