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.)