What’s wrong with space-based solar power?
It is already expensive to build terrestrial solar arrays. A space based one would be astronomically (see what I did there 
) expensive.
Also, how do you get the energy back to earth efficiently?
If I recall correctly, it costs something around 10,000 dollars a pound to put stuff into orbit. Lets assume I invest 100,000 dollars for my share. I doubt 10 lbs solar stuff, even in orbit, would provide “my share” of energy needs.
It’s kind of like hydro power from dams.
Yes, there are tides everywhere but not every place is suitable for power generation.
Then you have to transport the power inland which has issues.
It is fine in some situations but not many.
Nothing really. It’s doable. Getting the parts up into to orbit cheaply is a huge problem.
I believe the Japanese are spending more on the idea than the US is. Here’s a $21 billion deal.
Their goal at this point isn’t to reduce launch costs so much as reduce the weight and increase efficiency by about 1,000 times. The Japanese are terrible at making things smaller and more efficient, so it’ll be awhile.
Transmitting power to earth via microwave results in intensities far below OSHA safe limits.
But at what efficiency?
- Convert solar to electricity
- Convert electricity to microwaves
- Transmit microwaves 22,000 miles (distance of a geostationary orbit) and through the atmosphere
- Capture microwaves and convert back into electricity
Seems to me there are a lot of places for losses to crop in. Not sure how much efficiency you gain in space that wouldn’t be lost through that process.
Not saying it can’t be done but it is a lot of cost and effort. Without a substantial upside not sure it is in the cards as a real answer to our energy problems.
$21 billion to power a touch less than 300,000 homes seems…excessive. And that’s if they could actually do it at the projected costs, which would have a lot of experimental or untested equipment on it. I don’t see that as being particularly cost effective even if it works exactly as planned right off the bat though. To power a city of just a million would cost $60-80 billion dollars (assuming that the $21 billion includes all of the infrastructure needed, all of the receiving stations, converters, etc etc).
-XT
Its proof of concept or proof of technology value is potentially many trillions.
You know this isn’t a commercial roll out; why are you pretending it is?
Breeder reactors already have $50 billion sunk into them minimum, but you don’t see me whipping out my calculator and slapping that onto BN-600’s output.
Energy to me is a national security issue. Look at Europe held hostage to Russia over natural gas–or us and our pusher/junkie relationship with the Middle East. The US has the natural resources and the land mass to be energy independent. It just takes will power to wean off the old, established technology and into the plethora of solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, etc.
Unfortunately, the american people and the politicians they elect have the attention span of a gnat and reconfiguring our energy supply will take decades to enact. With power shifting every 2-4 years the funding stability will never be there to make it happen.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Its proof of concept or proof of technology value is potentially many trillions.
[/QUOTE]
Which, as an engineer, means it’s relationship to actual costs are pure fantasy. Such a system might end up costing substantially more, and since we don’t have the details we don’t even know what that price includes…or does not include.
Why not? It’s a ball park for the costs and doesn’t seem unreasonable considering the cost of putting anything in orbit…let alone anything that big. How many trips would it take (and hundreds of millions a trip) to get everything into orbit and assembled? What would it cost to build the receiver (how close could it be to the target city)? How realistic are their specs, considering that afaik no one has ever tried to beam power from orbit, so we have no idea how it will work in practice?
There are so many unknowns that you really can’t base anything off of it…so, why not simply use their projected costs as a baseline and look at just that aspect? It’s no more valid than anything else, but gives some idea of what capabilities you’d be getting for that projected cost.
You keep saying that as if it means something. Breeder reactors aren’t built for political, not engineering reasons. The technology was first looked at in the 50’s and 60’s for the gods sake. NO nuclear power plant is going to get approved to be built in the US, so it’s a moot point from our perspective. I believe there have been several FBR test beds build in the US in the past (even a commercial one), and other countries have toyed with the idea (I think China has a prototype going, France and Germany used too, and I think India has one or is building one).
The technology you are talking about in a spaced based solar transmission system is…well, not complete fantasy, but far from reality. And since I’m a huge advocate of manned space flight and utilizing space for commercial uses I’d LOVE for it to be reality. But it’s not, nor is it likely to be any time soon.
-XT
The Fermi 1 reactor outside Detroit is a fast breeder reactor. It suffered a partial meltdown in 1966.
So, not exactly cutting edge technology waiting for the proper breakthroughs to make it possible to build the things, ehe? How many people died when Fermi 1 ‘suffered a partial meltdown’ btw?
-XT
Resulting in no release of radiation.
Regards,
Shodan
On the down side, it only continued to operate until (IIRC) 1973 though, so there is that…
-XT
They’ve toyed with the idea of breeder reactors? If by “toyed with” you mean they’ve been actively pursuing it for 60 years and every single country or organization that has tried has failed. It’s right up there with fusion and other fun things to think about, but not realistically.
We’re supposed to be averaging around 120 satellite launches/year over the next 10 years, so it’s not something that can’t be done. It’s just expensive.
I’m not saying it’s just around the corner or anything. If it were, we’d probably be hearing more about it.
Up until the Gingerbread House Banana Boo-boo, Japan was free to spend $21 billion on breeders. Did it? Here’s a European company working on it too.
If by “tried and failed” you mean they have been built since the 1950’s in a number of countries and not all were failures (running decades in some cases) then sure.
Companies are even looking to market them. From the link above:
“In April 2007, the Japanese Government selected Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as the “core company in FBR development in Japan”. Shortly thereafter, MHI started a new company, Mitsubishi FBR Systems (MFBR), with the explicit purpose of developing and eventually selling FBR technology.”
Missed the edit window.
To add:
Nope…no one is pursuing them. Nothing to see here. Move along. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
They’ve toyed with the idea of breeder reactors? If by “toyed with” you mean they’ve been actively pursuing it for 60 years and every single country or organization that has tried has failed. It’s right up there with fusion and other fun things to think about, but not realistically.
[/QUOTE]
Whack-a-Mole already answered this but…huh? What are you talking about? Did you not know that several have been built and actually gone through entire life cycles of commissioning and decommissioning?? Again…it’s not a matter of technology or engineering…the things haven’t been built because of political considerations. As with most things nuclear, it’s not a matter of if it COULD be built…it’s a matter of if it will be ALLOWED to be built.
-XT
FWIW I thought readers of this thread might be interested in this.
Small but interesting what cap and trade can motivate.
Asked and answered, post 75. Nuclear power requires about ten times LESS concrete and steel per unit of energy compared to wind, coal about 5 times less of each, and natural-gas combined cycle uses a rather impressive 150 times less steel and 40 times less concrete than wind.
From one point of view it doesn’t matter. A tonne of steel starts life as a few tonnes of dirt (ore) and a half-tonne of coal. Process them together and turn them into a wind turbine tower, in a few years the electricity generated has saved the same amout of coal from being burned in a power plant and then continues to save coal. Overall we save coal, and iron ore is abundant.
From the point of view of meeting the world’s growing energy demand, especially for giving China an alternative to building coal and nuke plants, it absolutely does matter. We’re talking about significantly increasing the world’s production of basic construction materials to cover the manufacture of all these turbines. Building the plant to rip more iron ore and coal out of the ground, the blast furnaces to smelt them together etc. is no small undertaking. Powering the world with wind, or even 50% of the world with wind, will require restructuring our current civilisation’s hardware in more ways than one. Windfarms that you can drive through for days without coming to an end, electrification of light transport… interesting times.
I agree! And I wish we had built the Moon bases. Certainly more constructive than all the military hardware we’ve built, maintained, and scrapped in the intervening years. The question is, do we have the will to do the renewable power thing large scale when we have the alternative of burning fossil and just seeing what happens, or developing a nuclear-powered world for a lot smaller cost resources-wise?
I started out as pro-nuke, anti-wind, and willing to consider solar. My opinions on wind and solar were based on the relative land requirements I calculated. I’m gradually coming over onto side of wind rather than solar on the feasibility point of view. Solar may require 5-10 times less land than wind but ALL that land has to be covered with photovoltaics or sun-tracking mirrors or dishes. I’m thinking that in terms of basic resources, solar may be even harder than wind. Wind turbine load factors are improving - I thought 25% was typical and 33% optimistic, but 36% is apparently typical for newer turbines with 40% in sight. OTOH, this may mean large windfarms have to occupy even more land - doubling the spacing means 4 times the area!
Like bases on the Moon, powering the world with wind turbines or desert solar is clearly, even trivially, possible. Whether we have the will and stomach to do it is another matter. In the short-to-medium term, there will be a cost. The long-term benefit is power without CO2 or nuclear waste/accident risk. People with a visceral dislike of nuclear power or a belief that increasing CO2 will lead to catastrophe will weigh that cost-benefit rather differently to me.