Pentagon Urges Space-Based Solar Power 552
eldavojohn writes "The Pentagon issued a report indicating that space-based solar power 'has the potential to help the United States stave off climate change and avoid future conflicts over oil by harnessing the Sun's power to provide an essentially inexhaustible supply of clean energy.' The report, from the Pentagon's National Security Space Office, calls for funding the development of space-based solar power culminating in 'a platform in geosynchronous orbit bigger than the international space station and capable of beaming 5-10 megawatts of power to a receiving station on the ground.' The Pentagon's interest in such an effort stems from the need to acquire energy on the battlefield, which today often comes at a painful premium."
Could be a tremendously capable tool, but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
5-10Mw? That's stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, a nice focused microwave ray can literally bake people without (much) damage to property.
Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse yet is something that didn't make it past the editing in my submission of this summary. I read around and it seems like a lot of people think that this budget for such an expensive extensive project would almost certainly be cut from any other alternative energy sources.
In my opinion, our defense spending is already through the roof, this could be a political move to put something powerful in space and get the money from alternative energy spending (or at least under the guises of it). Maybe my tin foil hat is on too tight but a lot of news sources were saying that this could drain and/or draw attention away from other just as valid efforts at escaping the grip of fossil fuels.
Like everyone's been saying, our solution to these problems of dependence on the middle east & emissions is going to be a host of different solutions specific to different areas. I fear that the funding and attention will go into this and we'll have all our eggs in one basket
Re:Could be a tremendously capable tool, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:USA USA USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid! (Not) (Score:2, Insightful)
So what this will need, in order to work, is Star Wars missile defense, which is in trouble now. We'd have to start funding that again.
There are stupid ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
The initial version may not be impressive but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kumbayah, indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the technology already exists (Score:2, Insightful)
From an environmental standpoint (which I don't care much about anyway, but whatever), it'd be nice to see China's growing space agency grab onto this idea as well, since they're the largest source of pollution in the world, and their energy demands are only increasing. But, in any case, at least someone is starting to take the concept seriously.
Not a bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Space-based power would be a tremendous gain. Setting up base in a remote corner of Iran to perform Intel? No problem. Spaceman Spiff justs adjusts the microwave transmitter from the orbital solar array, and you get instant power.
I haven't thought through all the implications, but I can see substantial military advantages in something like this.
Sounds like a money-transference scheme (Score:3, Insightful)
Been there. Done that.
Re:Could be a tremendously capable tool, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is only proof of concept, 5 or 10 megawatts is a drop in the bucket for commercial or military use. Heck, there are operating 5 megawatt wind generators.
The point is that somebody should at least try to demonstrate the feasibility (or infeasibility) of space-based solar power stations, and NASA isn't going to do it so who else is there?
The important thing is to develop the technology and techniques to build solar power stations. Once we have those, commercial power companies can just contract out to Boeing or Lockheed to have them built. But it's developing the technology and techniques that are critical.
It's like the Navy is funding Dr. Bussard's Polywell [wikipedia.org] project. The Navy can ostensively use it for powering naval vessels, but once (if!) it works, the technology will be available for commercial use. The military has a long history of sponsoring R&D that has dual military and commercial uses.
After all, if the Pentagon (US government) plays its cards right,
I'm curious, do you have any examples of the US "playing its cards right" in any foreign policy matters?
Re:Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually, this could save money... (Score:3, Insightful)
If we give the Pentagon a giant space laser, why do we have to send troops at all? At very least we should be able to cancel any further developement on bombers with this thing.
Yes I know it's supposed to deliver a beam to create electricity, not a destructive beam, but be realistic this is the Pentagon we are talking about.
Re:bullshit reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:USA USA USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why the government & banks pump 10-14% more money into the economy every year, causing the stock market and property markets to rise exponentially and thereby moving value away from those who only have cash in the bank and CPI limited salary rises to those who own assets and stocks.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Re:There are stupid ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
I seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to one of the big worries over standard solar arrays: land use.
Funny to hear that about a country which 42% of its territory is desertic.
Re:Can never break even on energy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can never break even on energy. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bottom line-> don't spend billions on oil exploration and refineries etc. Just put massive solar cells in space or on moon and get cheap energy forever more.
Re:Could be a tremendously capable tool, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Could be a tremendously capable tool, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From (Score:3, Insightful)
In my area, the average cost of energy for 2007 was around $65/megawatt on the open exchange market. Multiply this by 10 megawatts and then by the 15 hours of good sunlight (there would be likely more usable sunlight) and you would have about $9700 or so per day during Peak hours. Then consider this multiplies by 365 days in a year because there will be no cloud overs and so on, and you should get a return of around $3.5 mill a year.
It would depend a lot on how much the space counter part would weight and what type or launch vehicle was used. I doubt the shuttle is going to take it up, A delta two rocket can take around 4000 pounds into geosynchronous (stationary) orbit for about 55 mil but I doubt it would take the entire 4000 pounds so there would be some savings there too. But lets say 55 mil would/could cover two systems into orbit for 55 million. I'm thinking maybe 3 but size will also be a factor. but with two in orbit, it would only take 7 years to recoup the expense if the going market rates don't increase. And I am in the middle of America, I'm sure in larger areas like Texas and either cost, the costs are a little higher, it could probable be recouped even faster. But I'm really shacky on the "15 hours of good sunlight", it might be more at such a high orbit. And even if you cannot run at full steam 24/7, it isn't going to shut down, just degrade a little so instead of 10 megawatts, it might only be 5 for those other 9 hours.
I think it is feasible if it plays out right.
Re:Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not necessarily a bad thing, given that the United States Federal Government's alternative fuel of choice is ethanol from corn. If the development of space-going solar power arrays takes funding from the corn subsidies and the billions of dollars being spent on ethanol production facilities, I'm all for it. This is a lot like the NASA of old
Re:bullshit reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, it's possible to launch such a system, but there were a feasible way to transmit power from space to earth, then the reverse would also be true. Wouldn't we already powering space based systems from earth if this were remotely easy? Wouldn't it be cheaper to power the shuttle by beaming power to a dish rather than sending up all those heavy batteries and fuel cells?
I think launching this system will be the easy part.
The military. And space. And energy. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of the reasons the US military is interested in space-based power. One of the many, of course. Providing troops with power is a benefit. The militarisation of space, the extension into earth's orbit of US control, is a benefit. It's an exercise for the reader to decide which is a tangential benefit, and which is primary.
Re:Could be a tremendously capable tool, but.... (Score:1, Insightful)
The *ONLY* purpose of something like this would be to get around the no space based weapons deal in that treaty which last I remember we've since pulled out of.
Best way to get a weapon where you need it? Call it something else.
Re:American Agri-business Versus DOD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Long term Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this like an intelligent design thing where the greenhouse gases knows to only reflect the heat going out back and not reflect the heat coming in, out? Are there little demons with mirrors riding around on CO2 molecules bouncing the IR photons in one direction only? Seriously wouldn't logic seem to indicate that the greenhouse gasses are as likely to scatter the IR away as they are toward the Earth
Re:Actually, this could save money... (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't.
Look up anything about the international court for proof.
Re:American Agri-business Versus DOD (Score:4, Insightful)
Around Passover time, you can find coca cola in the U.S. with real sugar instead of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup). You will still have to travel to certain major metro areas (i.e. the ones with lots of Jews.) Google for "passover coca cola" for more information.
Re:Actually, this could save money... (Score:3, Insightful)
Illegal? Don't you mean it would be breaking several treaties? I see this constantly on Slashdot. Is there some sort of thing going on in Europe where the meaning of this word is different in various places?
Re:Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Redistribution == Stealing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Also the Fear of Where the Money Comes From (Score:5, Insightful)
One tenth the size and rather than powering a city they can http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/22/0420239 [slashdot.org] or if they prefer they can http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/22/0420239 [slashdot.org] and torture a whole city at once.
Personally with their current track record, there are a whole lot of countries that will not trust the water boarding US military with an enormous energy weapon in space.
Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, what happens when a micrometeorite damages the control systems and they accidentally fry a city, it might be clean but it is inherently very high risk.
Re:There are stupid ideas (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Actually, this could save money... (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no such thing as international law, only international agreements.
Re:Redistribution == Stealing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Redistribution == Stealing (Score:4, Insightful)
And you realize that's a crock right? Lots of countries with public health care run balanced budgets (Canada, New Zealand, etc). It's not about borrowing, it's about priorities. If the US wasn't flushing money down the toilet in Iraq, you could fund public health care and have money left over for a decent education system without a running a deficit.
Re:American Agri-business Versus DOD (Score:5, Insightful)
Add to that the fact that it is limited to one crop per growing season, is a mono-culture highly susceptible to natural or artificial pathogens, drought, floods and hail and you have what is probably the least desirable energy source of all.
What is pushing the Ethanol industry? Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That's $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced). There are 17 NEW Ethanol plants being built in Nebraska because of those subsidies.
What makes the WHOLE THING A TOTAL DISASTER is that Ethanol is NOT the path or even a bridge to energy independence. It is merely a drain on the Federal treasury driven by greed and corruption.
Knowing a few angry, American farmers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Actually, this could save money... (Score:2, Insightful)
The rights were declared "unalienable".
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
Note "self-evident" and "unalienable"!
Don't get hung up on reference to a Creator or a Diety. The idea here is that we didn't have to fight for these rights. We didn't have to steal them from the British or any other ruling power. We simply have always had them. To a theist, this is "given" or "endowed" by a Creator. But the principle that these rights are completely innate is not dependent on theism.
Re:American Agri-business Versus DOD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Could be a tremendously capable tool, but.... (Score:2, Insightful)