Comments
TheRealCBlazer t1_ixigb0c wrote
Seems like a great idea to me. The Earth's atmosphere, distance from the sun, rotation, and seasonal tilt dramatically reduce the effectiveness of surface-based solar. All other forms of energy harvested on Earth (fossil fuels, etc.) are just various different inefficient forms of solar power, with significant losses in the efficiency of collection and transmission (e.g., biological and geological processes).
But a panel in close solar orbit can receive a much greater flux with nearly 100% uptime. Energy collected from close solar orbit can be beamed not only back to Earth, but also anywhere in the solar system (Mars, the moon, the asteroid belt). The resources to construct such systems are available in zero-g or micro-g environments (e.g., in the asteroid belt), so we would not have to mine the Earth or overcome Earth's gravity well to manufacture and deploy them. Space-based solar energy collection and transmission can be the backbone of a system-wide energy grid that essentially leaves Earth untouched.
[deleted] t1_ixijpjk wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixijsym wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_ixily71 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:
Submission Statement.
The European Space Agency formally committed to a feasibility study on space solar at their big annual meeting in Paris this week. ESA specifically referenced baseload electricity generation in their reasoning for supporting this idea.
Personally, I don't get it all. Research & deployment in many different types of grid storage batteries is racing ahead at the moment, and this will be space-based solar's main competitor. It seems hard to believe it will ultimately ever beat it on price.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z2tuxa/china_says_it_will_use_the_tiangong_space_station/ixi3hzd/
TheRealCBlazer t1_ixinkng wrote
But with the ability to beam power anywhere in the solar system, you don't need to launch from Earth. Everything can be mined, refined, manufactured, and deployed in zero-g or micro-g.
The Earth-based outlay would not be in the form of close solar orbit panels. It would be self-replicating machinery deployed to the asteroid belt. Possibly even deployed from Earth's moon (which admittedly still traces back to initial launches from Earth). But the vast bulk of the grid would not be launched from Earth.
[deleted] t1_ixinsaq wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixip9ck wrote
[deleted]
TheRealCBlazer t1_ixiqc2m wrote
The idea is to mitigate global warming by moving as much resource collection, refining, manufacturing, and energy production into space, asap. This is not hyper future tech. I speak on this personally, because it was mine and my professor's area of focus in electromagnetics and electrodynamics in 1997. Of course, it takes time, money, and will to implement, which the Chinese are now doing. These first steps are not the final product, but they are necessary to get there, and I'm glad someone is finally doing it. You're right about the fact that we've waited far too long already.
[deleted] t1_ixir1io wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixird1c wrote
[removed]
jhev1 t1_ixiso6d wrote
>The idea is to mitigate global warming
By the time this tech is a reality the earth will be well past the point of no return, which is projected anywhere from 10 to 75 years
_fuck_me_sideways_ t1_ixisx3e wrote
Does it transmit heat primarily? Or is it more like a particle cannon? If the former, then maybe call it a haser.
[deleted] t1_ixivopw wrote
[deleted]
TheRealCBlazer t1_ixixywa wrote
Long-term solutions can coexist with short-term remedies.
isleepinahammock t1_ixizels wrote
Also, consider that rockets themselves emit lots of CO2 as they launch. Sure, you can use a hydrogen/oxygen rocket, but then you need a source for hydrogen. And if you don't want greenhouse emissions, that means you need a huge plant cracking water into H2 and O2. In other words, you effectively need to build a huge energy storage facility. You could just attach a fuel cell to your rocket H2/O2 plant and skip the rocket launch entirely. It is possible to create green rocket launches, but the equipment needed is essentially already a massive base load solar/wind plant.
Not_as_witty_as_u t1_ixj2pkx wrote
I was going to ask this but I thought it was a dumb question, but isn’t this bringing in extra energy that would’ve passed by earth otherwise? And what happens to that extra energy, like you said, does it just make the earth hotter? Or does it just radiate back out to space?
imbiat t1_ixj33lm wrote
I think the hope to capture most of it as energy but there is bound to be loss on the way down as it bleeds into the atmosphere. I don’t see how we can do this without warning the planet somewhat. I just don’t know if it is significant.
ItsAConspiracy t1_ixjg980 wrote
A Falcon Heavy costs $90M for up to 141,000 lbs to LEO, for a total cost of $638/lb. And the Heavy isn't fully reusable, so the main cost is the upper stage that gets thrown away. If Starship or something similar works out, the price will drop to about $30/lb. At that price, space solar starts to make sense.
I plugged that number into the cost estimates from the book The Case for Space Solar Power, which has detailed numbers based on NASA's SPS-ALPHA project, and it came out to 4 cents/kWh including everything (manufacturing, ground station, etc), which is pretty great for clean power on demand without needing storage.
Starship is fueled by methane which can be made pretty easily from water and CO2. With a clean energy source, the whole project could be carbon neutral.
ItsAConspiracy t1_ixjgdpb wrote
It'd be replacing the waste heat from burning fossil fuels, which is a tiny percentage of the impact of their greenhouse effect.
ItsAConspiracy t1_ixjgi41 wrote
From LEO maybe, but from 22,000 miles out there's no such thing as a highly focused microwave beam.
snoo135337842 t1_ixjgvtn wrote
Ah, so we need a space elevator first!
[deleted] t1_ixjh3rg wrote
[removed]
PowerfulMilk2794 t1_ixjhbi1 wrote
If Starship can bring that cost down to 10 per lb the economics start to look feasible. Big if, but this is Futurology after all.
TheRealCBlazer t1_ixjlvmc wrote
Hell yeah, let's do it.
[deleted] t1_ixjp0t0 wrote
[deleted]
DonSylvestre t1_ixjpcmv wrote
Whatever. Caltech's doing this next month: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/space-solar-power-atwater-hajimiri-pellegrino
PizzaQuest420 t1_ixjs0md wrote
oh no what if china gets a weapon whatever will we do, they've never had weapons before!
SovietEla t1_ixjyunk wrote
Who knew space force would actually have to do something
ItsAConspiracy t1_ixjyv61 wrote
Yes but almost all SPS designs are microwave. If you use laser then you get blocked by clouds. A 2GW microwave transmitter in geostationary will give a footprint of several square miles. Birds could fly through the beam without harm.
Assuming you're using a phased-array transmitter, which is the only practical method, the only way to get even that much focus is to use a reference signal from the ground target.
notsocoolnow t1_ixk5jrt wrote
You do realize that if they wanted to cause mass destruction they already have nukes.
The defense from weapons of mass destruction is the same no matter the type, it's retaliation. China could build an ion cannon on the fucking moon and the threat would not be significantly larger than a nuclear weapon, because if they used their death ray the US would retaliate with nukes.
Humans already have the technology to render our planet devoid of life. A new weapon of mass destruction is not some dramatic leap in lethality, because you can't get extra dead.
For that matter, China is already extremely reluctant to have WMD. They maintain only 100 300 nukes to dissuade other countries' nuclear aggression, even though they are much much richer than Russia and could easily afford thousands. They also have a standing policy of No First Use, which is a commitment to allowing their enemy to nuke China first, before they retaliate with subs. They do this because they never want nuclear escalation and so the USA won't see a malfunctioning launch detector and immediately assume a nuclear strike.
[deleted] t1_ixkaoem wrote
[removed]
zedkyuu t1_ixkghtw wrote
I am glad I am not the only one to think of the microwave oops
mescalelf t1_ixkgzvy wrote
Microwave LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation), known as a MASER—same acronym, but Microwave instead of Light. In practice, a MASER is a type of LASER. We can use them to transmit energy (in the form of photons), which may then be absorbed by some kind of receiving transducer. In the case of beam-transmission of power, the receiving transducer is an antenna—most likely a very large array of ‘em.
Awkward_moments t1_ixl09jd wrote
>Energy collected from close solar orbit can be beamed not only back to Earth, but also anywhere in the solar system (Mars, the moon, the asteroid belt).
What size beam divergence are you expecting at these various distances?
JohnnyLovesData t1_ixm13ue wrote
In space. So, a space laser.
Intrepid-Event-2243 t1_ixm2asd wrote
yea i saw that one in a James Bond Movie.
Intrepid-Event-2243 t1_ixm2qj7 wrote
You mean like an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile?
WRoos t1_ixm30ey wrote
Worse, much much worse, this one leaves no radioactive crap and bodies, just a smoking crater, and is infinitely reusable..
Belladonna0769 t1_ixmcktp wrote
So not Jewish space lasers but , Chinese space lasers 😂😂😂don’t come for me ; I fk w all races , especially the human race 😂😂😂😂
Gloriathewitch t1_ixmhmgi wrote
China, you won't believe this but there's this thing that contains effectively unlimited power and its constantly being beamed down to us for absolutely free, it's the sun!
politepauly t1_ixppvl9 wrote
well it's how the Dyson Sphere tech starts, Except that humans are 5,000+ years behind the rest of the universe. We're pretty pathetic.
politepauly t1_ixppxz4 wrote
that's exactly why China is doing it. Orbital WMD. USA has no chance. China wins. Tom Cruise is TOAST.
lughnasadh OP t1_ixi3hzd wrote
Submission Statement.
The European Space Agency formally committed to a feasibility study on space solar at their big annual meeting in Paris this week. ESA specifically referenced baseload electricity generation in their reasoning for supporting this idea.
Personally, I don't get it all. Research & deployment in many different types of grid storage batteries is racing ahead at the moment, and this will be space-based solar's main competitor. It seems hard to believe it will ultimately ever beat it on price.