• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Solar Energy from Space

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
Collecting solar energy in space


Space Future - A Fresh Look at Space Solar Power: New Architectures, Concepts and Technologies


Are our collective modern imaginations too feeble to attempt something like this?
I suppose Sci. Fi. has ruined this too. Are you thinking death-rays and the like?

What happened to the days when mankind dreamed of a better day and did their best to make it happen?

Look at past revolutionary jumps forward, both a great improvement in information technology (written language, printing press) and energy technology (farming instead of hunting-gathering, steam engine) are needed to move society to a new era. WE have a lot of new information technology but we have a crisis in energy.

Any thoughts?
 

Apollonian

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
121
MBTI Type
INTJ
From my experience at NASA and as an engineer in general, my understanding is that people are working on this stuff. The trouble is that budgeting concerns understandably slow things down. Many of the previous leeps in technology came at times when there was large spending for research and development either from governmental or private resources.

Also, I think that in the near future we will start to see countries like China and India catch up into the space age. It will be interesting to see what role they play.

As for the solar energy from space idea, there is a LOT of work left to be done on this. The problem is how to create an energy transfer system which will remain efficient when transmitting through the atmosphere and creating a ground-based power system which can successfully convert the beam energy into electrical power. We currently don't have the component technology to put such a system together, so it remains pure R&D work, not that it isn't possible. It just takes time.

I think one of the more promising technologies for the near term lies in advances in fuel cells and the use of hydrogen electrolysis. Storing energy more efficiently can do much to elieviate energy concerns.

Improving automotive technologies is probably the most practical. Hybrid technology is beginning to mature, and there are other ideas coming down the pipe. However, what most people don't realize is that there is an often long engineering cycle which needs to occur between the development of the original design concept and its practical implementation. Once the science is proven, the engineering process needs to take the science and create an efficient device which can utilize the principles. And then there are budgeting politics and profit motives, of course.

On a side note, the interesting thing about today's space program is that we are learning to build better spacecraft on a smaller budget. It would be great if NASA could have more than 1.7% (last I heard) of the national budget. However, this way it makes people think about how to do things well without running up the cost like in the Apollo or Shuttle programs.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
As for the solar energy from space idea, there is a LOT of work left to be done on this. The problem is how to create an energy transfer system which will remain efficient when transmitting through the atmosphere and creating a ground-based power system which can successfully convert the beam energy into electrical power. We currently don't have the component technology to put such a system together, so it remains pure R&D work, not that it isn't possible. It just takes time.
Perhaps Soundwave could help?

soundwave-energon-cubes.jpg
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
I've never understood the appeal of the whole energy transfer from space thing. What's the appeal?

First we gotta build the whole thing. Then get it up. Then protect it from all the spacey stuff floating around (it's not exactly "small"). Then we gotta maintain it. Then we need a ground station. We need a transmission system (nothing like beaming MWs of energy in any form of radiation onto a small part of the ground...). Then we need the whole transmission and conversion stuff - twice.

This is one of the few things that I just think is sci-fi. The only advantage I can think of is solar energy 24 hours a day beamed to different parts of the world. But you are halving the already low efficiency of power (I'm assuming that the efficiency of solar cells, while prohibitively expensive, is nearly 50%)... Without even doing the math, to generate even close to the power of a modern nuclear plant, you are looking at a giantic array of cells. Assuming that I am correct that it'd generate roughly 250W net/sq meter or assuming ground station matches the size of the array, 2sq meters, and it'd need to generate in excess of 50 MWe to be on a similar scope as a modern power plant...

I'm not against the research being done into solar power, but I think this is many many steps removed from being practical. I don't really see the appeal behind this... it seems like the beamed energy will still need a rather large foot print and is still subject to considerable loss.

Am I overlooking some huge advantages to offset the hurdles that we currently face? Does it not make more sense to focus on the technical problems in micro rather than as a whole (ie: solar power, space travel, transmission)?
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
Also, I think that in the near future we will start to see countries like China and India catch up into the space age. It will be interesting to see what role they play.

I think this one needs to be an international effort. If any one country get there completely by themselves, it would certainly become a superpower and a target. The U.S. already has that role, but seems a bit fickle these days when it comes to target process in science and tech. Myane would be scientist and engineer, are choosing to stay in their respective countries rather than immigrate to the U.S. because of this. An international effort towards a program (probably half a century away, at least) will share the burdens and the benefits. An the U.S. will have to deal with thier lost super-power status due to its lack of collective magination.

As for the solar energy from space idea, there is a LOT of work left to be done on this. The problem is how to create an energy transfer system which will remain efficient when transmitting through the atmosphere and creating a ground-based power system which can successfully convert the beam energy into electrical power. We currently don't have the component technology to put such a system together, so it remains pure R&D work, not that it isn't possible. It just takes time.

I've heard people say this will make NASA's mission to go to the moon look like a college science project. Yes there is a lot of work, and I don't think it would be a good idea for it to be gov't run.

I think one of the more promising technologies for the near term lies in advances in fuel cells and the use of hydrogen electrolysis. Storing energy more efficiently can do much to elieviate energy concerns.

Improving automotive technologies is probably the most practical. Hybrid technology is beginning to mature, and there are other ideas coming down the pipe. However, what most people don't realize is that there is an often long engineering cycle which needs to occur between the development of the original design concept and its practical implementation. Once the science is proven, the engineering process needs to take the science and create an efficient device which can utilize the principles. And then there are budgeting politics and profit motives, of course.

Yes. Better engine technology is a good thing, but this would be a near permanent source of energy nearly free of fossil fuel once done.

On a side note, the interesting thing about today's space program is that we are learning to build better spacecraft on a smaller budget. It would be great if NASA could have more than 1.7% (last I heard) of the national budget. However, this way it makes people think about how to do things well without running up the cost like in the Apollo or Shuttle programs.

I don't trust the gov't to handle a project this size anymore. But I think they can do a good job of spurring research in the private sector.


I've never understood the appeal of the whole energy transfer from space thing. What's the appeal?

First we gotta build the whole thing. Then get it up. Then protect it from all the spacey stuff floating around (it's not exactly "small"). Then we gotta maintain it. Then we need a ground station. We need a transmission system (nothing like beaming MWs of energy in any form of radiation onto a small part of the ground...). Then we need the whole transmission and conversion stuff - twice.

This is part of the reason I think Sci. Fi. generates cynicism about Sci. Real. It is hard to get specifics on a program that is this long term, this early in the program. We are talking about (im)possibilities here and we need to be careful when saying things like "it is cost prohibitive" or "the risks out-weigh the benefits" based of specifics (because the specifics can and will change).

Yes, based on current solar panel technology and microwave power transmission this seems ill-conceived. But we've barely scratched the surface in these areas because there hasn't been much economic incentive.

This is one of the few things that I just think is sci-fi. The only advantage I can think of is solar energy 24 hours a day beamed to different parts of the world. But you are halving the already low efficiency of power (I'm assuming that the efficiency of solar cells, while prohibitively expensive, is nearly 50%)... Without even doing the math, to generate even close to the power of a modern nuclear plant, you are looking at a giantic array of cells. Assuming that I am correct that it'd generate roughly 250W net/sq meter or assuming ground station matches the size of the array, 2sq meters, and it'd need to generate in excess of 50 MWe to be on a similar scope as a modern power plant...

There are a lot of assumptions embedded in this analysis. Regarding the biggest assumption: there is no need for it to be one giant solar array (in-fact, that seems to be the most impractical choice), but the system can be launched like the GPS satelites, with many smaller solar collectors and power transmitters, creating a network in space (which would work in a fault tolerant manner due to space junk etc.)

I'm not against the research being done into solar power, but I think this is many many steps removed from being practical. I don't really see the appeal behind this... it seems like the beamed energy will still need a rather large foot print and is still subject to considerable loss.

Yes. This is very long term, and there is a lot of work. Again, you have this sci-fi. conception of the technology that makes it seem impractical. It will once again likely be many smaller power receiving stations placed around the globe (again similar to the second level used in GPS).

Solar cell efficiency remains low, partly because too few of the potential technologies have been explored, due to lack of funding. If we look at the amount that private industry spends to keep Moore's Law alive in the semiconductor industry (and there is always some quoted impossibility by naysayers) and the clever tricks researchers have come-up with, one gets a sense that the exponential savings is really a measure of the human ability to overcome technical challenges given enough funding. IOW, Moore's law is an economic challenge, not a physical law. If we pose the same challenge to solar panel community and come up with an incentive for private firms to establish their own cheaper energy network, that may be enough. Again, this early, it is about exploring possibilities not declaring impossibilities based on some pre-conceived notions.

Am I overlooking some huge advantages to offset the hurdles that we currently face? Does it not make more sense to focus on the technical problems in micro rather than as a whole (ie: solar power, space travel, transmission)?

The appeal is to have a global power system that is not based on fossil fuels. The main advantage is far less reliance on fossil fuels around the globe. But the idea is for gov'ts around the globe to spur research in this area so that this method becomes more popular than the fossil fuel methods.

They can also help with patching the new system into the power grid, or create a few seed grants or low interest loans for ventures aiming to make money in this area, etc.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
Would these systems use energy that would already be absorbed by the Earth? Or would they gather energy that would pass by, without intervention?
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Yes, based on current solar panel technology and microwave power transmission this seems ill-conceived. But we've barely scratched the surface in these areas because there hasn't been much economic incentive.

I disagree - there has been a ton of research in this area. We are up to 50% efficiency in solar panels... for some reason the problem is always "not enough economic incentive"... The reason there is no economic incentive is because... there is no economic incentive! Those kinds of solar panels cost an absolute fortune, so it makes sense to have efficiency in the 10-15% range at a fraction of the cost, even though you need many more of them.

The problem is that they aren't efficient, that they are expensive... that there are much better alternatives. Isn't that the point? Research into solar panels is important, very important. That's where I want to see my money going (fortunately, this is normally the case.)

There are a lot of assumptions embedded in this analysis. Regarding the biggest assumption: there is no need for it to be one giant solar array (in-fact, that seems to be the most impractical choice), but the system can be launched like the GPS satelites, with many smaller solar collectors and power transmitters, creating a network in space (which would work in a fault tolerant manner due to space junk etc.)

A hundred arrays at 2000 sq meters is more expensive, not less, than one 200,000 array.

Even if there was some lost economy, the point stands - the shear scope of what would have to be done to create one equivalent power station on earth puts it out of reach.

Yes. This is very long term, and there is a lot of work. Again, you have this sci-fi. conception of the technology that makes it seem impractical. It will once again likely be many smaller power receiving stations placed around the globe (again similar to the second level used in GPS).

You'll have to explain to me how saying that research into conceptual systems with multiple current practical oversights is a waste has a root bias of a "sci-fi" view of science (when this really has nothing to do with science and everything to do with engineering).

The research should be science - it should be into space exploration, solar panels, material research, etc. The components of the system will make it possible. And when it becomes even remotely feasible, the research into development can be undertaken.

At this point, I'd put conceptual space elevator research ahead of any form of space beaming (other ramifications aside).

As far as I can see, the concept of beaming power from space is "Sci-fi" minded. We take what we can do, we look at it, see it isn't possible... and then, what... throw money at it until it is possible? If ever? The concept is what is appealing, not the feasibility, and that makes viewing these kinds of projects as "sci-fi" a risk. The risk that because we think of it, it suddenly becomes possible. The realisation of the dream overtakes the reality of the project.

I'd say this is at the "pre-feasibility" phase. Research into viability is what should be done. It's not, therefore the goal should be to spend any further research into other alternatives, and it should be revisited in the future when the assumptions made have changed.

Solar cell efficiency remains low, partly because too few of the potential technologies have been explored, due to lack of funding. If we look at the amount that private industry spends to keep Moore's Law alive in the semiconductor industry (and there is always some quoted impossibility by naysayers) and the clever tricks researchers have come-up with, one gets a sense that the exponential savings is really a measure of the human ability to overcome technical challenges given enough funding. IOW, Moore's law is an economic challenge, not a physical law. If we pose the same challenge to solar panel community and come up with an incentive for private firms to establish their own cheaper energy network, that may be enough. Again, this early, it is about exploring possibilities not declaring impossibilities based on some pre-conceived notions.

Use 100% efficiency and measure the size of the array. 1000w/sq meter, I believe, at peak season/etc. 70 MWe is the current 100-million dollar nuclear powerplant. Reduce the cost of sending stuff up by an order of magnitude, even.

Feasibility goes way up as we are able to build it closer to the sun... that's about the only major difference I can see.

(Again, the argument here has nothing to do with space and solar power, only the space beaming as an actual project being attempted. I'm all for research into the components, but not into the system as a whole.)
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
I disagree - there has been a ton of research in this area. We are up to 50% efficiency in solar panels... for some reason the problem is always "not enough economic incentive"... The reason there is no economic incentive is because... there is no economic incentive! Those kinds of solar panels cost an absolute fortune, so it makes sense to have efficiency in the 10-15% range at a fraction of the cost, even though you need many more of them.

The problem is that they aren't efficient, that they are expensive... that there are much better alternatives. Isn't that the point? Research into solar panels is important, very important. That's where I want to see my money going (fortunately, this is normally the case.)

I agree with you on this. So have most professors I've heard give lectures on solar power. Research on cheaper solar panels would be the type of improvements I meant. We certainly cannot ignore the economic aspects of this project.


A hundred arrays at 2000 sq meters is more expensive, not less, than one 200,000 array.

This also seem incredibly assumption loaded (Have you already designed the system in your head, decided it is the only way and made the cost estimate based on that?). Yes, the manufacture of one solar panel will cost more than the manufacture of many, generally speaking (though at the scales we're talking about, even that is probably not true. There are reasons why silicon wafers aren't giant, you know.)

A networked solution also allows for the possibility of more flexibility in collecting the solar energy, and sending it to particular patches into particular places in the power grid.

The cost of protecting a network is also likely to be reduced (we have to consider the time-value, and risk-avoidance value of money too). Very few engineering projects are successful when done with a mind-set of making big components, and incorporating them into a big system later on. There are too many things that can go wrong. Having a smaller scale system done as a proof-of concept allows for great amounts of risk-reduction (which has monetary value, if I am not mistaken).

One more reason is that launching of smaller payloads into space and patching in the energy generated from it would allow for the project to start paying a little it's own cost back.

It is the same reasoning as getting a loan. You may end-up paying more in the long run, but it makes it possible to get started (and you are betting that you will eventually cross break even).

Even if there was some lost economy, the point stands - the shear scope of what would have to be done to create one equivalent power station on earth puts it out of reach.



You'll have to explain to me how saying that research into conceptual systems with multiple current practical oversights is a waste has a root bias of a "sci-fi" view of science (when this really has nothing to do with science and everything to do with engineering).

That is a bit off topic and can be discussed later.

The research should be science - it should be into space exploration, solar panels, material research, etc. The components of the system will make it possible. And when it becomes even remotely feasible, the research into development can be undertaken.

This is the basic fallacy I was pointing out to begin with. The feasibility of the system depends on the system you are talking about. No engineering system is allowed by the components themselves.

Do your analysis on cell-phone and GPS research the same way you did for this, and see if you come up with them being feasible at the time. System and component research have to go on in parallel, because components don't magically create a system. If you want your ROI for component research, you need a system for the components to plug into.


At this point, I'd put conceptual space elevator research ahead of any form of space beaming (other ramifications aside).

As far as I can see, the concept of beaming power from space is "Sci-fi" minded. We take what we can do, we look at it, see it isn't possible... and then, what... throw money at it until it is possible? If ever? The concept is what is appealing, not the feasibility, and that makes viewing these kinds of projects as "sci-fi" a risk. The risk that because we think of it, it suddenly becomes possible. The realisation of the dream overtakes the reality of the project.

I'd say this is at the "pre-feasibility" phase. Research into viability is what should be done. It's not, therefore the goal should be to spend any further research into other alternatives, and it should be revisited in the future when the assumptions made have changed.



Use 100% efficiency and measure the size of the array. 1000w/sq meter, I believe, at peak season/etc. 70 MWe is the current 100-million dollar nuclear powerplant. Reduce the cost of sending stuff up by an order of magnitude, even.

Feasibility goes way up as we are able to build it closer to the sun... that's about the only major difference I can see.

(Again, the argument here has nothing to do with space and solar power, only the space beaming as an actual project being attempted. I'm all for research into the components, but not into the system as a whole.)

Who says we have to replace current coal or Nuclear power plants?

Keep in mind that public relations also plays a part in economic decisions.

Did you read the second link in the OP? I am wondering where you are getting your numbers.

Besides, we can do experiments and revisions of power transmission through atmosphere without going into space. Ans rethinking the system has a lot of advantages in the way the system can be financed, and "monitized".

The gov't give "future carbon credits" to companies that aim to implement parts of this sort of system (perhaps even maintain partial rights to carbon credits of future users, etc.)

Rethinking the way systems are implemented may yield an form that requires far less from the components (perhaps repeated power transmission stations, at several levels in the atmosphere, etc.) We should not dismiss system research due our over-simplistic view of a system that view as unfeasible. (In fact, I would say this is all the more reason to think in terms of systems) This is an engineering project, not a science project. We ought not wait for our 'anti-gravity' module to proceed with conceiving of different system implementations and trying to make that as cheap as possible.
 

Dark Razor

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
271
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Look at past revolutionary jumps forward, both a great improvement in information technology (written language, printing press) and energy technology (farming instead of hunting-gathering, steam engine) are needed to move society to a new era. WE have a lot of new information technology but we have a crisis in energy.

Any thoughts?

Its because most humans are more interested in the iPhone and the Playstation 3 than in something like, say.. not becoming extinct within the next 100 years.

That's why we allocate far more ressources inot the development of ever more sophisticated useless crap instead of something like alternative energy, so basically its because people prefer watching retarded youtube clips on a 2 inch screen to the survival of their own species, it makes you wonder how the human race ever evolved past the stone age.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
Would these systems use energy that would already be absorbed by the Earth? Or would they gather energy that would pass by, without intervention?

It depends. I don't think you have to worry about it blocking out the sun, etc. though.
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
To explain what people see in space solar power, the idea is that in space, there is no atmosphere to absorb solar radiation, so more can be collected and transformed to a type that can be sent through the atmosphere without interference. There are of course a lot of inefficiencies and problems in thjis approach, but that is the general idea. (There is also more room in space.)
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
This also seem incredibly assumption loaded (Have you already designed the system in your head, decided it is the only way and made the cost estimate based on that?). Yes, the manufacture of one solar panel will cost more than the manufacture of many, generally speaking (though at the scales we're talking about, even that is probably not true. There are reasons why silicon wafers aren't giant, you know.)

Even IF you disagree than launching redundant parts of a network would be cheaper (and perhaps there is some element that scales really poorly), the reality is that 200,000sq meters of panels = 200,000sq meters of panels. The core of the cost remains the same. That was the point - the scope of the project is identical. Small contributions add small contributions - for a high cost. The relative cost is not changed significantly.

It's a simple problem - you need a certain amount of "floor space" to generate a certain amount of energy. Efficiency isn't even the problem here, you could bump it up beyond 100% in some strange removal of the laws of the universe and it would still be large.

Do your analysis on cell-phone and GPS research the same way you did for this, and see if you come up with them being feasible at the time. System and component research have to go on in parallel, because components don't magically create a system. If you want your ROI for component research, you need a system for the components to plug into.

You mean like how radios, short wave radios, microwave relays... or the other side, like triangulation, atomic clocks etc were all proven in advance?

I see the analogy as being perfect... unless you are talking about building cell phone networks when the radio was invented, which would of gathered the same arguments in miniturisation and data/binary transmission.

Who says we have to replace current coal or Nuclear power plants?

That's like asking "Who says we have limited resources?". We have limited resources and they should be directed towards the most important projects. This would replace another power system or it would be a waste of resources to build.

The gov't give "future carbon credits" to companies that aim to implement parts of this sort of system (perhaps even maintain partial rights to carbon credits of future users, etc.)

This is the same reason I used nuclear power as an example. There are current options that could be subsidised.

This is an engineering project, not a science project. We ought not wait for our 'anti-gravity' module to proceed with conceiving of different system implementations and trying to make that as cheap as possible.

Again, the cost of generating one system equivalent to one nuclear power plant is way way out of whack. Every nuclear generator could remove coal/oil/ugly fossils. Or build a wind farm, or a wave generator, or a gound based solar farm...

Did you read the second link in the OP? I am wondering where you are getting your numbers.

I skimmed it. What I saw was the ground station would cost 8-15 billion for 250mw. I saw no size estimate for the GW production floating in space. I see no reason to even believe these numbers either, unless they aren't including the space segment.

Since there is no background on how they got this information, I looked up the the current state of solar panels and their efficiencies and sizes. Maybe there is a gigantic difference in space, but looking at the "current" (older, I suppose) panels, to generate power, I'd be generous to say 200,000sq meters. It's closer to 300,000 based upon the ISS power generation. And of course, that's not even including the loss from beaming.

I'm not sure what number they got for sending stuff into space, but it seems unusually low... about $470/kg. I don't know what the current cost is, but I remember it is being... a whole lot higher (wasn't the commercial launch in April somewhere around 15,000?)
 

spirilis

Senior Membrane
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
2,687
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Just surface intuition gives me the impression that this project is a very bad idea. No way in hell we're making a space solar power station that actually makes economic sense...

I'd much rather see money pumped into this project personally.
Even if their claim of "making break-even fusion" is a pipe dream, it's a better step in the right direction than space-based solar power, IMHO. Why capture energy from the sun? Bring the sun right here to earth.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
The second link in the OP has referring, and referenced articles linked at the top for those interested in how they derived their numbers/

A lot of the criticisms (including comparison to nuclear power, and terrestial solar power) are addressed in this wikipedia entry.

We can make up whatever numbers we want to prove our case. But needless to say the costs of taking things to space is coming down, and having reusable transport means (as-opposed to one-time satellites launches) can give us economies of scale.

Dismissing the idea outright, seems like a hasty conclusion. Costs are based upon the designs themselves, and since solar power from space will provide steeper return on investments than terrestial sources (quite a bit more energy), doing it in smaller chunks would be a way to have it pay for itself (IOW, increasing our limited resources). The power from these systems is going to be ~20 time more expensive (but you still get power) that fossil fuels, but economies of scales are expected to bring that down into fossil fuel range over time. The added benefits are all the externalities we derive from making this investment.

You can read this article: FirstScience - Solar Power from Space as well.

I have HW to do right now, but I may answer in more detail if I have time.

I still think this is the best thing I've heard proposed for getting us off of fossil fuels. It is a solution based on renewable sources. The power is a clean source as well. It makes use of things we already know how to make/do (no new discoveries are needed for its possibility, but perhaps for its feasibility, so it is an engineering project not a science project, like cold-fusion, and therefore has means to pay for itself over the long run). There are many who believe it feasible (again you can quote numbers from wherever to prove one way or another).

I have yet to hear a better proposal.
 

kelric

Feline Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,169
MBTI Type
INtP
While I'm all for solar power and renewable resources, and I see nothing wrong in pursuing this as a problem in engineering, I don't think this is likely to solve the major energy problems that we face now. As PTGatsby says, the scale of power generation isn't too impressive compared to existing technologies (I'm thinking nuclear in particular) and there's a LOT of overhead in deploying and maintaining things in space - it's likely going to be hard to get things to a point where the extra efficiency of receiving solar energy outside of the atmosphere overrides the inefficiency of operating in space and beaming it back to earth. Point in case... need to replace faulty/broken panels? How much more does it cost to send an astronaut repair crew up to repair this thing than it would to send a guy in a truck out to a desert-based solar array? It's not like the earth's suffering from a lack of solar radiation - like PTGatsby says, what's wrong with cheap(er), plentiful solar arrays on earth?

The cynic in me says that this is simply a ploy to redirect funds allocated for renewable resource research and development into a project more in line with the goals of (here it comes, the cliche of conspiracy theories...) Eisenhower's military industrial complex. If I remember right, one of the main reasons for this plan is to deploy energy to mobile military units in the field. I'm seeing a cash cow of major proportions to defense contractors - with corresponding reductions in R&D that's actually going to address energy concerns.

While it's an interesting engineering problem, I'd much rather see resources put into decreasing the costs of getting things into orbit (and beyond), and development of a less fossil-fuel-centric energy infrastructure, in particular more efficient ways to store energy generated from nuclear/solar/wind/etc. power generation (be it fuel cells, etc.).
 

spirilis

Senior Membrane
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
2,687
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I dunno, my biggest issue here is the fact that we're beaming it across such a large distance. Since any transference of energy induces loss, I am a firm believer that it's best to collect or produce the energy closest to the place of consumption. I would believe in widespread rooftop solar panels of high efficiency before I'd believe in space-based centralized solar collection/distribution.

If we have a significant orbital presence some day, where spaceflight becomes cheap and orbital development surges, a central solar array like this would be a great idea, beaming power between orbital platforms. But down to the planet... just doesn't sound sensible IMHO.

Nuclear fission in its current form (in much of the USA anyhow) is ridiculously fuel-inefficient and dangerous; there are better designs out there (pebble bed, Integral Fast Reactor although dev. on that was halted) but I am leaning towards either solar and/or (if we see any breakthrough) fusion as the ideal power source for our future. I have a feeling that solar won't do the trick for our growing and increasingly energy-hungry society: while solar is plentiful, at some point the power-per-capita ratio will outpace our ability to efficiently collect solar energy to meet those demands, especially as our average quality of life becomes more dependent upon advanced technology. It is this reason I propose nuclear (fusion, ideally, if not, the best form of fission we can employ) as the best solution for our future energy growth.

One thing is for damned certain: we need to STOP using ground-sourced chemical fuels for our electricity needs. Problem is, chemical fuel is still the best way to transfer power for power-hungry portable machinery (eg cars/trucks), and that won't change for a long time. Electricity storage technology still sucks for high-energy portable applications, and even if we did have advanced batteries (or supercapacitors) to power our vehicles, the public utility power grid was not designed for transferring arbitrarily large amounts of power to residential sites (this is the true "long-term" problem with "all electric vehicles", IMHO)

Fun fact:
Did you know that by pumping 10 gallons of gasoline in 5 minutes, you are transferring raw potential (chemical) energy through a hose at a rate of roughly 4.3 MEGAwatts (computed from 131MJ/gal)? It's incredible how much power our vehicles use in comparison to the electronics we're accustomed to in our households. Bear in mind though, our cars typically only get to extract about 15-25% of that from the gasoline; the rest is wasted as overhead or vented out as heat.

By comparison, if you were to operate your house's utility power at full current, balls-to-the-wall, you'd be lucky to get 48 KILOwatts out of that. (computed from 240VAC * 200A = 48KVA, actual wattage will be lower. I got the 200A figure from the mains breaker in the circuit breaker panel down in the garage of my roommate's house)
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I dunno, my biggest issue here is the fact that we're beaming it across such a large distance. Since any transference of energy induces loss, I am a firm believer that it's best to collect or produce the energy closest to the place of consumption. I would believe in widespread rooftop solar panels of high efficiency before I'd believe in space-based centralized solar collection/distribution.

If we have a significant orbital presence some day, where spaceflight becomes cheap and orbital development surges, a central solar array like this would be a great idea, beaming power between orbital platforms. But down to the planet... just doesn't sound sensible IMHO.

I agree that I don't see appeal in beaming energy... I mean, what would happen to anything that got between the energy and the station? Couldn't a plane (or the people inside) get damaged? Couldn't it hurt the atmosphere? I don't like to trust solar cells even for my calculator. What if something got between the cells and the sunlight? One or two asteroids is all it would take.
Nuclear fission in its current form (in much of the USA anyhow) is ridiculously fuel-inefficient and dangerous; there are better designs out there (pebble bed, Integral Fast Reactor although dev. on that was halted) but I am leaning towards either solar and/or (if we see any breakthrough) fusion as the ideal power source for our future. I have a feeling that solar won't do the trick for our growing and increasingly energy-hungry society: while solar is plentiful, at some point the power-per-capita ratio will outpace our ability to efficiently collect solar energy to meet those demands, especially as our average quality of life becomes more dependent upon advanced technology. It is this reason I propose nuclear (fusion, ideally, if not, the best form of fission we can employ) as the best solution for our future energy growth.

I was actually thinking research should go into Nuclear development. I just don't know if we can get people to accept it because of all the fallout and radiation risks. People are so opposed to it, despite all the long term risks we take by remaining dependent on oil, that they don't even seem to see. How close are we to developing Fusion? In addition to being a good potential power source, it was my favorite power plant in SimCity 2000.

One thing is for damned certain: we need to STOP using ground-sourced chemical fuels for our electricity needs. Problem is, chemical fuel is still the best way to transfer power for power-hungry portable machinery (eg cars/trucks), and that won't change for a long time. Electricity storage technology still sucks for high-energy portable applications, and even if we did have advanced batteries (or supercapacitors) to power our vehicles, the public utility power grid was not designed for transferring arbitrarily large amounts of power to residential sites (this is the true "long-term" problem with "all electric vehicles", IMHO)

I never thought electric cars were the best idea. Why wouldn't some form of alcohol work to replace gasoline? I think a car can be made to run on some kind of alcohol if I'm not mistaken. In fact, shouldn't any combustible fuel, even something like kerosene, work? I haven't formally studied Science, so I might be wrong. I think all we have to do is find another form of combustible fuel to replace oil.

Fun fact:
Did you know that by pumping 10 gallons of gasoline in 5 minutes, you are transferring raw potential (chemical) energy through a hose at a rate of roughly 4.3 MEGAwatts (computed from 131MJ/gal)? It's incredible how much power our vehicles use in comparison to the electronics we're accustomed to in our households. Bear in mind though, our cars typically only get to extract about 15-25% of that from the gasoline; the rest is wasted as overhead or vented out as heat.

By comparison, if you were to operate your house's utility power at full current, balls-to-the-wall, you'd be lucky to get 48 KILOwatts out of that. (computed from 240VAC * 200A = 48KVA, actual wattage will be lower. I got the 200A figure from the mains breaker in the circuit breaker panel down in the garage of my roommate's house)

Wow. My home uses that little energy? Why does a car need more energy than a computer/monitor or a television? It's such a simple machine with little more than a radio, a few lights, and an air/heating unit. It just needs mechanical energy to propel it... is that where the main energy cost comes from? Having to be propelled forward at high speed?
 

spirilis

Senior Membrane
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
2,687
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yes, the mechanical energy required to propel a car is the chief user of all that power. It is enormous.
Case in point:
A typical fuel efficient car may generate a peak power of 115HP (horsepower). Let's assume that for typical highway driving, it has to sustain about 2/3rds of that (~76hp). 76HP represents 56 kilowatts. That can go on for quite a number of hours; so to be fair, those 10 gallons of gasoline will last you a while, but still...
Your home won't come anywhere close to using the maximum capacity of the circuit breaker of course, so the actual power draw will be a mere fraction of that 48KW figure. I wouldn't know what a typical home's power draw is off the top of my head; there may be sites out there detailing that. A typical home power "backup generator" may ride along the 6KW figure though.

Cars can run off alcohol indeed, problem is, the contemporary production processes (corn growing) are very straining on the environment if I've heard correctly... raising the cost of corn, causing extra mass quantities of fertilizer to migrate down the Mississippi river, etc. There are other processes being looked at to produce ethanol which I believe is promising. Hopefully we'll have some traction on some of those processes. Examples include operating vats of genetically-engineered bacteria to process cellulosic waste crop materials, which would be a nice form of recycling... and cultivating algae which can produce it.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Examples include operating vats of genetically-engineered bacteria to process cellulosic waste crop materials, which would be a nice form of recycling... and cultivating algae which can produce it.

Has this been done yet in experiments? How sure are we that it's possible? It sounds to me like it might work. In fact, if it's that simple, why hasn't it been done yet? I think they do genetic engineering research all the time. Is anyone working on something like this?
 
Top