Powering the Planet

[danhezee]

The following link is a 19 minute documentary about space based solar power.

http://www.thefutureschannel.com/docket ... lar_power/

What do you like/dislike about space based solar power?

Do you think it is feasible?

 

[The_Chef]

I think it's possible & feasible. I think some small group of university or maybe even high school students will eventually put up a satellite that costs next to nothing that'll send down enough power to light up a small experiment & the big boys will have to pay attention. I'd really like to see Elon help out with a slot on a Falcon for just such an experiment. A big group could even put up something on a Falcon 1e for a very low budget. This is THE clean energy alternative that is the wave of the future.

 

[tampaDreamer]

Elon said he doesn't think it's feasible.

I didn't get this from him, but I think the major obstacle is the cost of maintaining hardware in orbit vs. on the ground. You may get several times the power in orbit that you would get on the ground, however the costs are multiplied by orders of magnitude.

 

[danhezee]

I think it's possible & feasible. I think some small group of university or maybe even high school students will eventually put up a satellite that costs next to nothing that'll send down enough power to light up a small experiment & the big boys will have to pay attention. I'd really like to see Elon help out with a slot on a Falcon for just such an experiment. A big group could even put up something on a Falcon 1e for a very low budget. This is THE clean energy alternative that is the wave of the future.

I agree. From what I understand, the only hurdle is we havent done large scale space construction. We have never attempted it because we never had a reason. Hopefully, this will be our reason.

In the movie, they said one mirror was the size of a football field. The whole structure appeared to have 100's of those mirrors. If we build something that large, would we be able to see it with the naked eye?

 

[The_Chef]

I think it's possible & feasible. I think some small group of university or maybe even high school students will eventually put up a satellite that costs next to nothing that'll send down enough power to light up a small experiment & the big boys will have to pay attention. I'd really like to see Elon help out with a slot on a Falcon for just such an experiment. A big group could even put up something on a Falcon 1e for a very low budget. This is THE clean energy alternative that is the wave of the future.

I agree. From what I understand, the only hurdle is we havent done large scale space construction. We have never attempted it because we never had a reason. Hopefully, this will be our reason.

In the movie, they said one mirror was the size of a football field. The whole structure appeared to have 100's of those mirrors. If we build something that large, would we be able to see it with the naked eye?

A mirror the size of a football field would be easily visible. A large group of them would be visible during daylight.

 

[nimbus]

Elon said he doesn't think it's feasible.

I didn't get this from him, but I think the major obstacle is the cost of maintaining hardware in orbit vs. on the ground. You may get several times the power in orbit that you would get on the ground, however the costs are multiplied by orders of magnitude.

Where can I see more of this argument? Isn't VASIMR supposed to be pretty much optimal for this sort of issue?

 

[tampaDreamer]

Elon said he doesn't think it's feasible.

I didn't get this from him, but I think the major obstacle is the cost of maintaining hardware in orbit vs. on the ground. You may get several times the power in orbit that you would get on the ground, however the costs are multiplied by orders of magnitude.

Where can I see more of this argument? Isn't VASIMR supposed to be pretty much optimal for this sort of issue?

The maintenance issue is a matter of boosting the stuff into orbit and getting people/robots up there to repair it, not for helping it maintain its orbit, which VASIMR would probably be good for.

For example, using mostly made up figures, If we buy a solar panel for $1000 bucks, and it weighs 20 pounds, and we pay 10k/lb to get it to orbit, we've turned a $1000 solar panel into a $201,000 solar panel. At this point you haven't even taken into account the transmission to the ground and distribution from there, safety, etc, and you're paying 200 times as much in construction costs. Now since this is a solar panel that's manufactured to normal tolerances, as opposed to the NASA check it 1,000 times standards, after 5 years there's a 10% chance that some hinge will need replacing or some wire will shake loose. If it were here on earth we just pay some guy $45/hr to go and jiggle the wire back into place or replace the hinge. But since its in orbit you've got to send the guy up there or have some space station up there to house him and you just switch them out every six months and send supplies, etc.

So, basically at SOME point this is probably feasible. However, unless the sunlight is 10,000 times as powerful up there, it's probably not a great option right now given the cost to orbit.

Perhaps there's a study on it somewhere with real numbers, but I believe those would be the major issues you would encounter.

 

[nimbus]

I understand, thanks.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Very well said tampaDreamer!!

 

[frodo1008]

Except for placing small experimental types of power stations into orbit and beaming their power either down to the Earth or outwards to other space stations this is not a feasible alternative because of the relatively enormous launch costs from the Earth.

However, if any here have read G. K. O'Neill's ideas in his famous book "The High Frontier" you realize that by using the materials from the moon and possibly NEO's, we can eventually reduce the costs down to a level where such power would actually be competitive with Earth based power systems.

I do realize that the initial costs of going back to the moon to mine for such materials is going to cost quite a bit anyway. But in order to really build up a spaced based infrastructure large enough to support the human exploration, exploitation, and eventual colonization of the solar system, without which humanity will NEVER get off of spaceship Earth in time to avoid our eventual demise, we are going to have to use the resources of space itself! And in the short and even long run that will mean going back to the moon not only for further exploration, but absolutely for the exploitation of the many materials that exist there.

And getting those materials off of the moon in either a finished state, or more likely a mined state is going to eventually be far less expensive than bringing up those materials from the earth itself! This is because of not only the far less gravity of the moon, (1/6 that of the Earth) but also the almost total lack of an atmosphere on the moon.

Until humanity can learn to mine, smelt, machine, weld, and assemble large scale structures from the materials that are actually out in the solar system itself, starting with the materials of the moon, such large scale projects as solar power stations are not really going to be inexpensive enough to be commercially feasible, and until then are going to have to wait.

And, while I may be sorry to some extent about that (as I am), it IS never-the-less the truth!!

 

[tampaDreamer]

We buy stuff that was made halfway around the world.. no reason why someday we couldn't send stuff made on earth up into space in a commercially feasible way.

 

[docm]

On Earth you can load a million pounds of cargo on to a boat and drive it around the world using a diesel engine or sails and wind. Try that to LEO.

 

[frodo1008]

True! And even when it might become far less expensive to have commerce between the Earth and its civilization out in space due to such concepts as space elevators, it will be somewhat stupid to be shoving the limited resources of the Earth out into the solar system, which has literally thousands of times more such resources than the Earth does.

Using these relatively unlimited resources of the solar system (there are enough materials in the asteroid belt alone to build space colonies with a total land area of some 3,000 times that of the Earth, including the oceans) is the only way to really build a true space faring civilization!! Further, humanity is incredibly fortunate to have a source of most of the necessary minerals for such a civilization only some 240,000 miles from Earth in the moon. Let us go and get these necessary items from such a great source as soon as possible!

I worked on the engines that helped to place men on the moon for the fantastic Apollo project, and I would be just as glad to still be around to see us do it again! And even further this time place men on the moon in a permanent manner!!

 

[Stewie_Griffin]

Space solar is a waste of money.

The cost of putting things in geosynchronous orbit is so tremendously high with our current technology that it makes space solar not worth all the hype.

So what if the sunlight isn't filtered by the atmosphere. The cost of bringing a good size solar farm into GEO would be over ten times that of the actual cost of the solar panel itself. Plus, if it broke down you would have to send workers up to GEO something that is harder than anything we've already done, excluding the Apollo missions.

So, with all the money that you would spend getting the solar panel up into space and all the maintenance costs you could easily buy a ten times the solar panels and put them on the earth's surface. It would be cheaper, easier, and the maintenance costs would be practically zero than the so called space solar.

I also haven't even mentioned the cost of the microwave beam that would transmit the power back to earth.

Its reasons like these that make space solar a stupid idea that won't be efficient for years to come. Anybody who really believes in it right now has not thought about the facts carefully enough.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Maybe not a stupid idea, but one that won't be efficient from a power or economic standpoint for many decades.

 

[frodo1008]

I almost get as tired of the negativism here, as I do over on the more political Free Space forum!!

Nobody that would support space solar power is saying that it is going to happen in even a few decades. We will not even be back to the moon before about 2017 to the 2020 time frame. And as for having a true moon base with mining operations, we are looking at least two decades into the future. And I would agree with anybody that says that the cost of placing such facilities into orbit from materials her on the Earth is indeed too much for the near future.

However, if we do not do initial testing and development in the meantime (just as we have to use such a facility as the ISS to develope the manufaturing capabilities needed for large scale space development) we are not going to be ready for this when it does become feasable.

Besides, even if it were cheaper to build solar power stations on the Earth itself, should we do that? Even with the recent improvements in solar cell technology powering the state of California alone would mean covering the entire state of Nevada with such cells!! Not a very practical solution in itself.

As to having to have space stations at GEO, the idea is not only a good one, it is a great one. We could then have only about three major platforms for geosynchronous satellites, and such satellites could then be worked on there. Thus guaranteeing that such satellites would always be able to do their jobs.

Besides this, such an orbit is a natural for having great views of the Earth, and is therefore also a natural for space hotels and such.

And for the very far off future, if we can get the development done for space elevators, the ONLY place that they are truly practical would be GEO!

There are plenty of reasons for having human facilities at GEO that have nothing to do with space solar power!

And where would it be more difficult to get human beings to GEO (at about 24.000 miles towards the 240,000 miles to get to the moon) than to get to the moon as we did with Apollo?

As I stated nobody is saying that this form of energy is going to be practical for quite sometime to come, but when it is, it is one of the best solutions for the vast amounts of energy needed to get all of humanity up to a reasonable standard of living. Further, unlike most other forms of energy production it will have no affect upon the pollution of this planet, and that is going to become more and more of a problem with such energy development as humanity goes further into the future. And in the long run that is going to be the most important factor of all, even over just plain cost, for the cost of such pollution will be the death of at least human life on this planet, if not all life on this planet!

 

[tampaDreamer]

Personally I think tidal power is the best solution. I understand that it has not been adequately solved from an engineering perspective, but look at the Pros:

1. Most of the world's population is near sources of tidal power
2. Tidal power is constant
3. Tidal power is virtually unlimited
4. Tidal power is technologically similar to the methods which supply 99% of the world's power at present: Movement of fluids.
5. Hydroelectric power (dams) has proven to be the most wildly successful source of 'green' power to date, excluding iceland.

This brings me to my second best idea.. geothermal. Most of the pros are quite similar to the above.

 

[frodo1008]

Whatever you do do, not take such ideas over to Free Space, there are people there that are almost totally against anything like this.

Even though I do believe that space solar power is a very good option for the farther out future of energy for this planet, I am also all for all those ideas that you have just brought out, including wind power.

What I am against is the continued use of hydrocarbons for fuel for both energy generations and transportation. These hydrocarbons are far too precious to be just burnt up into the atmosphere for these purposes. Mankind seems to be in a race between our using up such materials (with the resulting collapse of our civilization) and the almost total pollution of our atmosphere (with the extinction of life on this planet).

I am hopeful that such environmental efforts as recycling, conservation, and alternate energy sources will give mankind the time it needs for the ultimate solution to these problems. And that is to become a true space faring civilization, capable of using the almost limitless resources of our solar system, and then even going out further.

In the farther out future time there will be ONLY two directions for mankind. Extinction or expansion, there will be no other choices!

 

[gunsandrockets]

As pointed out, space based solar power is probably not economically competitive with Earth based solar power. But what if you turn things around 180 degrees?

There are all kinds of interesting applications for beaming Earth based power into space, such as laser lift launch vehicles. I have even heard of a proposal for powering a lunar base during the lunar night by means of beaming out Earth based power.

 

[webtaz99]

The military is interested in space solar, because it frees them from fossil-fuel supply issues. And they aren't looking for gigawatts, just a few tens of kilowatts (per installation).

 

[bdewoody]

We buy stuff that was made halfway around the world.. no reason why someday we couldn't send stuff made on earth up into space in a commercially feasible way.

The things we buy from the other side of the world are for the most part transported on large ships that are very economical to operate. The general populace can hardly even afford to buy things that come via air transport. It will take a major breakthrough in achieving orbit and de-orbit before the cost of transporting materials into space becomes low enough to make space based power generation viable.

 

[tampaDreamer]

We buy stuff that was made halfway around the world.. no reason why someday we couldn't send stuff made on earth up into space in a commercially feasible way.

The things we buy from the other side of the world are for the most part transported on large ships that are very economical to operate. The general populace can hardly even afford to buy things that come via air transport. It will take a major breakthrough in achieving orbit and de-orbit before the cost of transporting materials into space becomes low enough to make space based power generation viable.

Did he just tell me what I said on the first page of this thread? Your reply illustrates why I included the word "someday" in the sentence above.

 

[LogicianSolutions]

I think putting satalites in orbit to collect solar power is foolish for the following reasons
1: You'd need to devise a deffence against meteor showers.
2: You need to send the engery down in some sort of engery waves like lasers or micro waves. These artifiscial enegeries will effect our enviornment. We will want/need lots of power so there will be a large impact on our world. If you don't know how things work. imo It's a bad idea to toss monkey wrenches around.
3: Putting up wind mills along mountain ranges is cheaper and provides fire breaks and shelter for wild life.
3.5 Mandating all new sky scrappers in coastal cities and where wind permits to have the top 6 or so floors to house windturbines will insure minimal power in cities regardless of power grids
4: Damming up rivers (perhaps as many as 50 along the Mississippi) is a known enviormental impact on our enviornment.
5: Tidal generators can be made to both foster reef life and provide energy on a known regular level since the tide is totaly predictable and comes 2x a day.
A combination of these technologies can provide both all our power needs and by using numerous different forms of natural continous power sources there is less chance of enviornmental catastraphy.

I left out undergrond thermal energy because regardless of how slow it may seem, cooling off our plaet's core faster is a bad idea. It's always a bad idea.
I left out solar because It's far less effective then wind/hydro power here on earth. However some smart limited use of solar is good. Perhaps in the near future they will develope roof shingles that are black in the spring/fall/winter and white in the summer.

BTW a little off topic but with people screaming about global warming (it was ice age in the 70's and then warming in the 90's and now that the data no longer support global warming it's "climate change") Has anyone look to some factors like the amount of black man made surfaces? Many roofs, lots of pavement. Factors like the amount of heat that leaks out of homes that are heated? The amount of heat given off by car engines? Seems we want to blame cattle (which probablely produce a similiar amount of methan that the millions of buffalos did 200 years ago). To be honest the world can easily handle a 10 degree increase. We'd build some levies but we'd live. What the real danger is are the trace elements. In the 70's I recall rubbery egg shells I saw in my life in the country. I've not seen any in decades. There truely was a danger with the lead added to the air. So what trace elements are hurting life it self? As for the o-zone? they can't even accurately measure it to say if there is a hole or no hole or two holes or if hoes exist naturaly. I'm concerned about atmosphere venting into space faster then natural but I'm not worried about this planet taking a small step back to being a little bit warmer.

Some of you may have noticed that I tend to get "off subject" The reason for this is because when I see a issue I see tenticles spreading out from it and into it. I do censor myself more then you'd think ttyl

 

[aaron38]

The way I see it, as much as I would love it, we have no need for space solar power until we've covered the roof of every warehouse, shopping mall and big box store with solar panels. The launch costs would be much better used building out a land based array. Once we're out of developed land to use, that's where we can focus on a space based array.