I think that it's time to DEBUNK the "Space Solar Power" URBAN LEGEND!
I do that here: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/038sspdebunked.html
these are two of the latest articles about this topic, published by Wired:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09...nary-beams.html
and Nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080916/ful...8.1109.html?q=2
The best idea I've run across in terms of cost is painting roofs and parking lots white.
You paint your roof white, and it doesn't get as hot during the day, so you don't need as much A/C, which is what most of the electricity you'd use from the solar cells would be doing. Solar cell roofs are black-ish, meaning they absorb a LOT of heat and make your house hot. A white roof does the opposite, reflecting sunlight back to space instead contributing to global warming.
Blacktop parking lots run about 150F around here in the summertime, while concrete parking lots run about 125F. That heat gets trapped down here and makes cars hotter and streets hotter, and we need to run our cars' A/C harder which takes more gas, increasing CO2 emissions and everything spirals out of control.
White paint is not only cheaper than solar cells, you can add titanium oxide to it and it'll actually scrub the atmosphere of pollutants (and germs).
Nice, cheap, low-tech answer to an otherwise huge problem.
You paint your roof white, and it doesn't get as hot during the day, so you don't need as much A/C, which is what most of the electricity you'd use from the solar cells would be doing. Solar cell roofs are black-ish, meaning they absorb a LOT of heat and make your house hot. A white roof does the opposite, reflecting sunlight back to space instead contributing to global warming.
Blacktop parking lots run about 150F around here in the summertime, while concrete parking lots run about 125F. That heat gets trapped down here and makes cars hotter and streets hotter, and we need to run our cars' A/C harder which takes more gas, increasing CO2 emissions and everything spirals out of control.
White paint is not only cheaper than solar cells, you can add titanium oxide to it and it'll actually scrub the atmosphere of pollutants (and germs).
Nice, cheap, low-tech answer to an otherwise huge problem.
Here's the article where I got the idea about the white painted roofs and streets/parking lots:
http://www.physorg.com/news140875649.html
http://www.physorg.com/news140875649.html
As far as space based solar collectors being used in placing them at a point where gravity cancels out the two dominant bodies of concern; the earth/moon gravity midway point. Refered to as a LaGrange point, real is do-able on an engineering level. We could do this now. (and we better get off our collective ***). To take advantage of this potential, you will need the following, and none present an insurmountable challenge. First you have to find an adequate supply of raw materials. There is no way based on our current technology we could get the vast amount of raw materials from Earth, with out driving the worlds economy to ruins, save the following. Once the infrastructure is in place we can get the raw material from the moon, and asteroids, but I would prefer to take advantage of the "predictability" of the moon.
Very appropriate questions are asked concerning "beaming", (pun intended) microwaves to Earth with sufficient power to provide electricity to the grid, with out frying anything that fly between the the orbital power sat, and the Earth. You can however "splay out" the incoming beam to a point where it poses no biological hazard. You could place microwave receiver's over a large area to the effect in any giving volume the total energy in any one area of microwave impact is well with in acceptable limits. Were already in awash in microwaves, from radio/radar background, etc. I want to recommend if you can find it, a copy of the July (I think) 1976 issue of National Geographic. They placed the use of using moon based solar materials used to manufactured both massive L-5 based colonies, and using them as a base for workers to build solar cells that transmit their energy to planetary grids. This to sending energy to ground or ocean surface based collectors to Earth collectors about the year 2020.
It can be done. If we have the forsight to look over our shoe lace's.
Very appropriate questions are asked concerning "beaming", (pun intended) microwaves to Earth with sufficient power to provide electricity to the grid, with out frying anything that fly between the the orbital power sat, and the Earth. You can however "splay out" the incoming beam to a point where it poses no biological hazard. You could place microwave receiver's over a large area to the effect in any giving volume the total energy in any one area of microwave impact is well with in acceptable limits. Were already in awash in microwaves, from radio/radar background, etc. I want to recommend if you can find it, a copy of the July (I think) 1976 issue of National Geographic. They placed the use of using moon based solar materials used to manufactured both massive L-5 based colonies, and using them as a base for workers to build solar cells that transmit their energy to planetary grids. This to sending energy to ground or ocean surface based collectors to Earth collectors about the year 2020.
It can be done. If we have the forsight to look over our shoe lace's.
I globally agree that
- It's insane
- One better builds power plants on Earth than in space
- He3 in even more insane
- Space elevators can't exist with any material now conceivable. Not even theoretical limits for single nanotubes give the required strength.
One more argument is that safety reasons impose to concentrate the microwave beam much less that solar light, and then even the microwave receiver on Earth is much bigger - and more expensive - than solar panels converting the same electrical power.
Other mistakes when comparing solar energy on Earth and in space are that
- Photovoltaic cells make sense only with concentrated light, and the atmosphere is a big advantage for that
- Solar power is best converted by thermal or biological means, certainly not by photovoltaic cells
which means that costs estimated through amounts and masses of photovoltaic cells are all grossly false.
Forget about Lagrange. Power transmission requires the geostationary orbit at 36Mm.
- It's insane
- One better builds power plants on Earth than in space
- He3 in even more insane
- Space elevators can't exist with any material now conceivable. Not even theoretical limits for single nanotubes give the required strength.
One more argument is that safety reasons impose to concentrate the microwave beam much less that solar light, and then even the microwave receiver on Earth is much bigger - and more expensive - than solar panels converting the same electrical power.
Other mistakes when comparing solar energy on Earth and in space are that
- Photovoltaic cells make sense only with concentrated light, and the atmosphere is a big advantage for that
- Solar power is best converted by thermal or biological means, certainly not by photovoltaic cells
which means that costs estimated through amounts and masses of photovoltaic cells are all grossly false.
Forget about Lagrange. Power transmission requires the geostationary orbit at 36Mm.
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Oct 6 2008, 03:22 PM)
I globally agree that
- It's insane
- One better builds power plants on Earth than in space
- He3 in even more insane
- Space elevators can't exist with any material now conceivable. Not even theoretical limits for single nanotubes give the required strength.
One more argument is that safety reasons impose to concentrate the microwave beam much less that solar light, and then even the microwave receiver on Earth is much bigger - and more expensive - than solar panels converting the same electrical power.
Other mistakes when comparing solar energy on Earth and in space are that
- Photovoltaic cells make sense only with concentrated light, and the atmosphere is a big advantage for that
- Solar power is best converted by thermal or biological means, certainly not by photovoltaic cells
which means that costs estimated through amounts and masses of photovoltaic cells are all grossly false.
Forget about Lagrange. Power transmission requires the geostationary orbit at 36Mm.
First, I said nothing about elevators that go from the equator to geosync, which by the way is 27,000miles, not 36 m (if Mm is million miles, meters or what?) Yup still one hell of a long ride with a lot of major engineering challenges to overcome. As for solar energy being best when exposed to concentrated light, you get five times the power in a given area above most of the atmosphere. You can also focus it as well. Solar-thermal requires the complexity of a working fluid, or gas as in a sterling engine, and its associated breakable parts to manufacture. The Australians are building a solar-thermal system in Queensland with a tower in excess of 300 or more meters. But to create the needed updraft, you need a massive footprint for the whole facility. Then the issue of storing the power when the suns not shining for whatever reason. I also made no mention of H3, the fusion wunderfuel that's been ten years away for 60years.
Investigating microbiological fuel cells, which is something my company does, by the way, and it's still in its infancy. Biology is very tough (that's good), it's also very fickle, (that's not so good). As for the hazard of microwaves. If spread out over many km2, and you can have gaps in the beam so your exposure to any biological hazard will be far less then using your cell phone on a semi-constant basis, which a lot of us do. In addition you have to know the difference between a 1940' to 1970's vintage high power military mono-pulse radar system, and other forms of MW energy. In the "old days" the way we used to counter jamming was to put more power into the beam to burn through any jamming. Now we just manipulate the frequency and other beam factors requiring much less energy. But we get the same amount of information, or total received energy if we chose.
- It's insane
- One better builds power plants on Earth than in space
- He3 in even more insane
- Space elevators can't exist with any material now conceivable. Not even theoretical limits for single nanotubes give the required strength.
One more argument is that safety reasons impose to concentrate the microwave beam much less that solar light, and then even the microwave receiver on Earth is much bigger - and more expensive - than solar panels converting the same electrical power.
Other mistakes when comparing solar energy on Earth and in space are that
- Photovoltaic cells make sense only with concentrated light, and the atmosphere is a big advantage for that
- Solar power is best converted by thermal or biological means, certainly not by photovoltaic cells
which means that costs estimated through amounts and masses of photovoltaic cells are all grossly false.
Forget about Lagrange. Power transmission requires the geostationary orbit at 36Mm.
First, I said nothing about elevators that go from the equator to geosync, which by the way is 27,000miles, not 36 m (if Mm is million miles, meters or what?) Yup still one hell of a long ride with a lot of major engineering challenges to overcome. As for solar energy being best when exposed to concentrated light, you get five times the power in a given area above most of the atmosphere. You can also focus it as well. Solar-thermal requires the complexity of a working fluid, or gas as in a sterling engine, and its associated breakable parts to manufacture. The Australians are building a solar-thermal system in Queensland with a tower in excess of 300 or more meters. But to create the needed updraft, you need a massive footprint for the whole facility. Then the issue of storing the power when the suns not shining for whatever reason. I also made no mention of H3, the fusion wunderfuel that's been ten years away for 60years.
Investigating microbiological fuel cells, which is something my company does, by the way, and it's still in its infancy. Biology is very tough (that's good), it's also very fickle, (that's not so good). As for the hazard of microwaves. If spread out over many km2, and you can have gaps in the beam so your exposure to any biological hazard will be far less then using your cell phone on a semi-constant basis, which a lot of us do. In addition you have to know the difference between a 1940' to 1970's vintage high power military mono-pulse radar system, and other forms of MW energy. In the "old days" the way we used to counter jamming was to put more power into the beam to burn through any jamming. Now we just manipulate the frequency and other beam factors requiring much less energy. But we get the same amount of information, or total received energy if we chose.
QUOTE (hawksecho+Oct 8 2008, 08:10 AM)
First, I said nothing about elevators that go from the equator to geosync, which by the way is 27,000miles, not 36 m (if Mm is million miles, meters or what?) Yup still one hell of a long ride with a lot of major engineering challenges to overcome. As for solar energy being best when exposed to concentrated light, you get five times the power in a given area above most of the atmosphere. You can also focus it as well. Solar-thermal requires the complexity of a working fluid, or gas as in a sterling engine, and its associated breakable parts to manufacture. The Australians are building a solar-thermal system in Queensland with a tower in excess of 300 or more meters. But to create the needed updraft, you need a massive footprint for the whole facility. Then the issue of storing the power when the suns not shining for whatever reason. I also made no mention of H3, the fusion wunderfuel that's been ten years away for 60years.
Investigating microbiological fuel cells, which is something my company does, by the way, and it's still in its infancy. Biology is very tough (that's good), it's also very fickle, (that's not so good). As for the hazard of microwaves. If spread out over many km2, and you can have gaps in the beam so your exposure to any biological hazard will be far less then using your cell phone on a semi-constant basis, which a lot of us do. In addition you have to know the difference between a 1940' to 1970's vintage high power military mono-pulse radar system, and other forms of MW energy. In the "old days" the way we used to counter jamming was to put more power into the beam to burn through any jamming. Now we just manipulate the frequency and other beam factors requiring much less energy. But we get the same amount of information, or total received energy if we chose.
P.S. Fuel cells in this case are "pumped" with solar energy for the production of methane/hydrogen...
Investigating microbiological fuel cells, which is something my company does, by the way, and it's still in its infancy. Biology is very tough (that's good), it's also very fickle, (that's not so good). As for the hazard of microwaves. If spread out over many km2, and you can have gaps in the beam so your exposure to any biological hazard will be far less then using your cell phone on a semi-constant basis, which a lot of us do. In addition you have to know the difference between a 1940' to 1970's vintage high power military mono-pulse radar system, and other forms of MW energy. In the "old days" the way we used to counter jamming was to put more power into the beam to burn through any jamming. Now we just manipulate the frequency and other beam factors requiring much less energy. But we get the same amount of information, or total received energy if we chose.
P.S. Fuel cells in this case are "pumped" with solar energy for the production of methane/hydrogen...
Yes, Mm are megameters of course. If fact, the weight must be farther than geosynchronous orbit, in order to compensate for the rope's own weight.
You get more power on the same surface over the atmosphere, but 1km² there is more expensive than 5km² in the Sahara.
And you still need more than 5km² microwave collectors because the microwave energy must be less concentrated than Solar light for safety.
Moving parts and fluids are reliable in Earth-bound thermal power plants. Less pleasant in space.
I won't let you pull me to a discussion on radars - one of my former jobs.
You get more power on the same surface over the atmosphere, but 1km² there is more expensive than 5km² in the Sahara.
And you still need more than 5km² microwave collectors because the microwave energy must be less concentrated than Solar light for safety.
Moving parts and fluids are reliable in Earth-bound thermal power plants. Less pleasant in space.
I won't let you pull me to a discussion on radars - one of my former jobs.
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Oct 9 2008, 12:28 AM)
Yes, Mm are megameters of course. If fact, the weight must be farther than geosynchronous orbit, in order to compensate for the rope's own weight.
You get more power on the same surface over the atmosphere, but 1km² there is more expensive than 5km² in the Sahara.
And you still need more than 5km² microwave collectors because the microwave energy must be less concentrated than Solar light for safety.
Moving parts and fluids are reliable in Earth-bound thermal power plants. Less pleasant in space.
I won't let you pull me to a discussion on radars - one of my former jobs.
Concerning the "rope". I was not making reference to a "space elevator". My experience with carbon nanotubes which are interesting in them selves for solar research, and others experience with same are very few we can grow in the lab, with difficulty. We would need a major advance in production technology for more. The Sahara would have with more then just 52KM. You do not need to concentrate a beam in such a way so as to fry any one, but yes the diffuse the greater number of collectors on Earth you would need to make up the difference..
Our sats orbit at geosync without being tethered to anything and do just fine. Very high atmospheric collectors, as opposed to geo sync a number of problems including being vulnerable to several nations and the number will only grow with ASAT capability. Also placing a large number of collectors in any way in a concentrated manner presents a whole additional diplomatic, and security problem. Yes we need to start putting them on roofs, or even windows. My co. is on most visible light getting through but still getting some power if placed, in our case as a film on high rise windows. And no I not to consider any moving parts, heat transfer fluid, you correctly state , I paraphrase; "who needs that headache"? But the potential of tapping such vast amounts of energy can not be ignored. But there is a great deal more power 24/7, its own advantage, not to mention the considerable energy just sucked up by the atmosphere.
Regarding radar, you may not wish to talk about it, no problem, however; once I climbed a dome years ago in Finland, Minnesota, before it was deactivated. Stayed well below the red line. It was pitiful. My pager let out a horrible scream, I mean bone-chilling. Then started smoking. I didn't wait for it to burst in to flames...
You get more power on the same surface over the atmosphere, but 1km² there is more expensive than 5km² in the Sahara.
And you still need more than 5km² microwave collectors because the microwave energy must be less concentrated than Solar light for safety.
Moving parts and fluids are reliable in Earth-bound thermal power plants. Less pleasant in space.
I won't let you pull me to a discussion on radars - one of my former jobs.
Concerning the "rope". I was not making reference to a "space elevator". My experience with carbon nanotubes which are interesting in them selves for solar research, and others experience with same are very few we can grow in the lab, with difficulty. We would need a major advance in production technology for more. The Sahara would have with more then just 52KM. You do not need to concentrate a beam in such a way so as to fry any one, but yes the diffuse the greater number of collectors on Earth you would need to make up the difference..
Our sats orbit at geosync without being tethered to anything and do just fine. Very high atmospheric collectors, as opposed to geo sync a number of problems including being vulnerable to several nations and the number will only grow with ASAT capability. Also placing a large number of collectors in any way in a concentrated manner presents a whole additional diplomatic, and security problem. Yes we need to start putting them on roofs, or even windows. My co. is on most visible light getting through but still getting some power if placed, in our case as a film on high rise windows. And no I not to consider any moving parts, heat transfer fluid, you correctly state , I paraphrase; "who needs that headache"? But the potential of tapping such vast amounts of energy can not be ignored. But there is a great deal more power 24/7, its own advantage, not to mention the considerable energy just sucked up by the atmosphere.
Regarding radar, you may not wish to talk about it, no problem, however; once I climbed a dome years ago in Finland, Minnesota, before it was deactivated. Stayed well below the red line. It was pitiful. My pager let out a horrible scream, I mean bone-chilling. Then started smoking. I didn't wait for it to burst in to flames...
It seems like nonsense because there still is "Day" and "night" so effiecency increase only from better angle and claerer air and ultraviolet rays also coming in, but this is almost nothing to compare with dificultes which need to explorate sun bateries in orbit and to energy loose due to energy transportation by radiowaves to earth! 
QUOTE (DavidD+Oct 10 2008, 02:10 AM)
It seems like nonsense because there still is "Day" and "night" so efficiency increase only from better angle and claerer air and ultraviolet rays also coming in, but this is almost nothing to compare with dificultes which need to explorate sun bateries in orbit and to energy loose due to energy transportation by radiowaves to earth!
"Sun batteries", as you call them are just basic batteries. We are reducing the weight, and improving efficiency. Sorry your lol, but its a free country. There is no discrimination against people who just don't do their homework. Still one of the more efficient ways of storing power is through a very high speed fly wheel. The ideal approach is a fly wheel that on Earth is very heavy, and has a low level of friction, must be able to be started and stopped with out your supervisor being Mr. Wizard. Or if one is not careful this material, as in not properly forged can fracture and blow apart with the effects of a very big bomb, with shrapnel thrown in for kicks. Conventional fly wheels are one of the oldest methods of storing/transferring energy. Used on some street cars for almost a century. A flywheel stores energy mechanically as does a dam that stores water for use later. They can be very efficient, though very complicated and in some case's quite dangerous. As far as the cost of putting a flywheel in orbit to store energy mechanicly? We would be talking obscene complexity, and unless we have radical technical change, just is not going to happen.
A flywheel composed of yttrium-nickle allows one to use liquid nitrogen to bring some thing close to super conducting levels, with out the really nasty and expensive problem of using liquid helium. You can store power with a fuel cell, but if you electrolyze water to produce hydrogen and O2, you need a lot of energy to do so. You can also optically split water, but but this is considerably less developed and understood, as in using it's applications to also produce H-and-O2. There is a lot of work, some I'm involved in, regarding the development of better batteries that are totally organic as in carbon based, organo-metallic, and biologically based. The military has amassed a lot of data in the last 20 years in the practical effects of sending power and/or information through the atmosphere. Also, Nico-lie Tesla came up with a "brute force" way to send electrical power through the atmosphere in the early 20Th century. This concept is not new.
Lets see what happens when the Japanese orbit a small satellite with in one or two years for the purpose of seeing how commercially practical it is. The military has been doing research, and has applied it, but for now the details of this remain classified. People, this is NOT an urban legend. I also want us to use solar collectors where possible on Earth. You could use solar-thermal power with water as the working fluid, and this would allow you to desalinate sea water for drinking, and which would help get rid of oil contamination, not to reduce the bacteria counts. Some are astronomical no pun intended Many areas near the coasts need potable drinking water, not just for drinking, you can't use salt water for most industrial activities as well. Not to mention the power generated. We can place these in coastal desert regions, or ocean based platforms.
Sadly, any Earth based facility of any appreciable size is a terrorist target. Space based facilities are more defensible and of course harder for some one to get to. Even a space based solar panel matrix many miles in total area can be automaticly repaired if hit by a meteor, which at some point they will hit by something. I would use robotics to fix fairly lage damage. For most repairs you could use self-sealing and reconstruction methods similar to self-sealing fuel tanks. And the later is vintage WW-2 technology. Very basic stuff.
"Sun batteries", as you call them are just basic batteries. We are reducing the weight, and improving efficiency. Sorry your lol, but its a free country. There is no discrimination against people who just don't do their homework. Still one of the more efficient ways of storing power is through a very high speed fly wheel. The ideal approach is a fly wheel that on Earth is very heavy, and has a low level of friction, must be able to be started and stopped with out your supervisor being Mr. Wizard. Or if one is not careful this material, as in not properly forged can fracture and blow apart with the effects of a very big bomb, with shrapnel thrown in for kicks. Conventional fly wheels are one of the oldest methods of storing/transferring energy. Used on some street cars for almost a century. A flywheel stores energy mechanically as does a dam that stores water for use later. They can be very efficient, though very complicated and in some case's quite dangerous. As far as the cost of putting a flywheel in orbit to store energy mechanicly? We would be talking obscene complexity, and unless we have radical technical change, just is not going to happen.
A flywheel composed of yttrium-nickle allows one to use liquid nitrogen to bring some thing close to super conducting levels, with out the really nasty and expensive problem of using liquid helium. You can store power with a fuel cell, but if you electrolyze water to produce hydrogen and O2, you need a lot of energy to do so. You can also optically split water, but but this is considerably less developed and understood, as in using it's applications to also produce H-and-O2. There is a lot of work, some I'm involved in, regarding the development of better batteries that are totally organic as in carbon based, organo-metallic, and biologically based. The military has amassed a lot of data in the last 20 years in the practical effects of sending power and/or information through the atmosphere. Also, Nico-lie Tesla came up with a "brute force" way to send electrical power through the atmosphere in the early 20Th century. This concept is not new.
Lets see what happens when the Japanese orbit a small satellite with in one or two years for the purpose of seeing how commercially practical it is. The military has been doing research, and has applied it, but for now the details of this remain classified. People, this is NOT an urban legend. I also want us to use solar collectors where possible on Earth. You could use solar-thermal power with water as the working fluid, and this would allow you to desalinate sea water for drinking, and which would help get rid of oil contamination, not to reduce the bacteria counts. Some are astronomical no pun intended Many areas near the coasts need potable drinking water, not just for drinking, you can't use salt water for most industrial activities as well. Not to mention the power generated. We can place these in coastal desert regions, or ocean based platforms.
Sadly, any Earth based facility of any appreciable size is a terrorist target. Space based facilities are more defensible and of course harder for some one to get to. Even a space based solar panel matrix many miles in total area can be automaticly repaired if hit by a meteor, which at some point they will hit by something. I would use robotics to fix fairly lage damage. For most repairs you could use self-sealing and reconstruction methods similar to self-sealing fuel tanks. And the later is vintage WW-2 technology. Very basic stuff.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.