Solar power for the future -- cool concept

[Kaj]

http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Sp...uture_999.html

The gist: Using space-based solar power generators orbiting the earth. In contrast to power from terrestrial solar power stations, space solar power would flow continuously to a power grid independent of the season, weather or location (and it's clean and green). Sunlight is eight times less intense on the earth's surface than in its geostationary orbit. So why not collect it in space and beam its energy to Earth via microwave power beam, which can penetrate the atmosphere more efficiently?

Long pole in the tent seems to be who's willing to pay for development (no surprise). Current launch costs also make deployment cost prohibitive.

[T50_Omaha8]

They stole this from Sim City 2000!

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Sp...uture_999.html

The gist: Using space-based solar power generators orbiting the earth. In contrast to power from terrestrial solar power stations, space solar power would flow continuously to a power grid independent of the season, weather or location (and it's clean and green). Sunlight is eight times less intense on the earth's surface than in its geostationary orbit. So why not collect it in space and beam its energy to Earth via microwave power beam, which can penetrate the atmosphere more efficiently?

Long pole in the tent seems to be who's willing to pay for development (no surprise). Current launch costs also make deployment cost prohibitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

When it is economically correct to do so, things like this will happen. Until then, it would be a waste of resources.

[TimM]

This has been discussed since the 1970s at least. Aren't the potential health effects of high power non-ionizing radiation like microwaves still in question? I was under the impression that collection antennas would need to be isolated from populated areas and fail safe mechanisms would need to be in place in case the beam went off target.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Sp...uture_999.html

The gist: Using space-based solar power generators orbiting the earth. In contrast to power from terrestrial solar power stations, space solar power would flow continuously to a power grid independent of the season, weather or location (and it's clean and green). Sunlight is eight times less intense on the earth's surface than in its geostationary orbit. So why not collect it in space and beam its energy to Earth via microwave power beam, which can penetrate the atmosphere more efficiently?

Long pole in the tent seems to be who's willing to pay for development (no surprise). Current launch costs also make deployment cost prohibitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

When it is economically correct to do so, things like this will happen. Until then, it would be a waste of resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But the potential costs remain high, discouraging entrepreneurs and the government from investing in it. The major expense -- transporting equipment and materials into orbit aboard a space shuttle -- is $20,000 per kilogram of payload, or the carrying capacity of a space vehicle.

Proponents of space solar power believe the project would become viable economically if the payload cost could be reduced to below $200 per kilogram,

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine why there isn't more investment, a mere 99% reduction in costs makes this economically feasible.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Sp...uture_999.html

The gist: Using space-based solar power generators orbiting the earth. In contrast to power from terrestrial solar power stations, space solar power would flow continuously to a power grid independent of the season, weather or location (and it's clean and green). Sunlight is eight times less intense on the earth's surface than in its geostationary orbit. So why not collect it in space and beam its energy to Earth via microwave power beam, which can penetrate the atmosphere more efficiently?

Long pole in the tent seems to be who's willing to pay for development (no surprise). Current launch costs also make deployment cost prohibitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

When it is economically correct to do so, things like this will happen. Until then, it would be a waste of resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But the potential costs remain high, discouraging entrepreneurs and the government from investing in it. The major expense -- transporting equipment and materials into orbit aboard a space shuttle -- is $20,000 per kilogram of payload, or the carrying capacity of a space vehicle.

Proponents of space solar power believe the project would become viable economically if the payload cost could be reduced to below $200 per kilogram,

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine why there isn't more investment, a mere 99% reduction in costs makes this economically feasible.

[/ QUOTE ]

The space shuttle is the most expensive spacelift today. The price of spacelift would come down in a major hurry if it's technologies and launches weren't so government subsidized. Why invest in a cheaper launch means yourself when you can pay a little to hop on a government rocket?

[m_the0ry]

I'm pretty excited in general about private industry entering space, and I think we'll see more and more of it in the next few years.

The way I see it the $/kg limit is so daunting we will need a massive breakthrough in getting to orbit in bulk with lower energy consumption. I'd really like to see the space elevator concept get somewhere but obviously there are a lot of outstanding engineering hurdles.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So why not collect it in space and beam its energy to Earth via microwave power beam, which can penetrate the atmosphere more efficiently?

[/ QUOTE ]