An anonymous reader writes "By 2030 [Japan] wants to collect solar power in space and zap it down to Earth, using laser beams or microwaves. The government has just picked a group of companies and a team of researchers tasked with turning the ambitious, multi-billion-dollar dream of unlimited clean energy into reality in coming decades."
Space elevators, orbital solar power station, and an orbital laser that can do massive damage with pin point accuracy. Just like you planned Japan, just like you planned. Now all you need is a bunch of rogue scientists building a base in a bunch of asteroids.
Your argument is a bit silly and is ignoring the economy of scale.
The majority of the cost in Rocket development is in personnel and support. The actual physical materials and fuel used aren't nearly as expensive. With a large investment into capital and mass manufacturing of rockets, cost can be driven down significantly.
> Your argument is a bit silly and is ignoring the economy of scale.
Ahhh yes, the economy of scale claim. People have been making that claim since the 1960s (Seahorse) but in spite of 40 years of new technology it still isn't true.
You did read the linked articles right? You need a reduction in launch costs of over 100 times before it can think about breaking even. I _might_ be inclined to believe a 10 times reduction, but 100 times? Riiiight....
And that's ignoring the space debris issue, the fact that most of this technology doesn't exist, that the rest has a 100% failure rate, and that you're economically better off leaving them on the ground anyway. That last one is vitally important. Space power gets you about 2x the power from the same panel on Earth, once you beam it down.
That's it, that's the end of the argument right there. Build twice as many panels right here, and you get the same amount of power for 1/100th to 1/1000th the cost. It doesn't make a difference what panels you use or what technology, anything that changes the economics of the panels in space does the same for the panels on Earth. So I'll just buy 100 times as many and deliver 50 times the power. Why the heck would you put them in space? (if you're going to come back with "24 hours" or some other vapid argument, read the other articles first).
I'm sorry, but I would disagree that the argument is "a bit silly".
You did read the linked articles right? You need a reduction in launch costs of over 100 times before it can think about breaking even. I _might_ be inclined to believe a 10 times reduction, but 100 times? Riiiight....
Well true or false, you've got to admit its a better way of stimulating jobs and research with government money than giving it straight to failing banks, right.;)
And that's ignoring the space debris issue, the fact that most of this technology doesn't exist, that the rest has a 100% failure rate, and that you're economically better off leaving them on the ground anyway. That last one is vitally important. Space power gets you about 2x the power from the same panel on Earth, once you beam it down.
That's it, that's the end of the argument right there. Build twice as many panels right here, and you get the same amount of power for 1/100th to 1/1000th the cost. It doesn't make a difference what panels you use or what technology, anything that changes the economics of the panels in space does the same for the panels on Earth. So I'll just buy 100 times as many and deliver 50 times the power. Why the heck would you put them in space? (if you're going to come back with "24 hours" or some other vapid argument, read the other articles first).
Of course, you assume that there is somewhere reasonable to place the panels to maximise their effect. Sure, you don't need SPS in Arizona where it's sunny 85% of the time, but at higher latitudes with greater cloud cover the available solar power is reduced. So, someplace like Japan has different economics, where they might require 4-10x (or more) the panels on earth. Don't forget that Japan has very little available land. Doubling or quadrupling the required footprint of a power plant is not to be taken lightly.
I guarantee the first system will not break even. The second probably won't either. But it's certainly conceivable that it will at some point in the future. Better to start now and learn to make it effective if/when that happens. It's not a silver bullet, but it's still worth a shot.
Wind and solar are toy projects pushed by rabid environmentalists' infectious propaganda; they very much realize how adoption of these power sources will force severe limits on human progress by suppressing energy availability.
There's no limits on human progress by using solar instead of dirty technologies like coal. However, no matter what technologies we use for generating power, there are limits on human population because of resources. Humans need to stop breeding like rabbits.
And I've no doubt that's exactly what they want--less technology, back to nature Ludditism and, especially, enabling a socialist reworking of human civilization.
No, we need more technology, cleaner technology, technology which lets us live better with nature (so we can still have nice places to go camping on vacations, and nice fish and seafood to eat that aren't filled with mercury and PCBs), and we need fewer humans with higher standards of living so we can enjoy our resources and manage them better, instead of fighting over them and squandering and polluting them. We also need fewer people so we can avoid more extreme forms of socialism. The only way to manage larger and larger populations of people will be socialism, and in particular the more nasty kinds that impose all kinds of limits on our freedoms. You can't have many freedoms when we're all packed together in ultra high-density housing; we'll have to have stricter rules and more government to keep us from killing each other, or keeping some nutcase from committing mass-murder. You want less government interference and more freedom? Work for a smaller population. Stop having so many babies.
Space power gets you about 2x the power from the same panel on Earth, once you beam it down.
That's it, that's the end of the argument right there. Build twice as many panels right here, and you get the same amount of power for 1/100th to 1/1000th the cost. It doesn't make a difference what panels you use or what technology, anything that changes the economics of the panels in space does the same for the panels on Earth. So I'll just buy 100 times as many and deliver 50 times the power. Why the heck would you put them in space? (if you're going to come back with "24 hours" or some other vapid argument, read the other articles first).
Space power also doesn't suffer from cloudy weather (if the beam you're using to send it to the ground is in the right frequency range), can operate at night (if the sattelite is high enough to avoid being in the shadow of the Earth), and doesn't take up acres of space on the ground. It may not necessarily be economical right now, but as the world's population approaches 10 billion or more, and as we run out of space to build the things (and start needing what little space we have for things like farms instead of solar plants), alternatives that use up less space are going to become more attractive.
Plus, you're overlooking one very very important point... the rockets they can use to launch solar arrays into space are not purpose built. That is to say, they can be used for things other than launching solar arrays into space. The space agency is going to spend the money building/developping them anyway, because they're still useful for launching communication/navigation sattelites, and because the technology can be adapted to manned space flight. The bulk of the cost of a launch comes from the development and testing process, and that's money that's going to be spent anyway. And as new players enter the market, the cost of launching a sattelite is going down significantly... the ISRO in India, for example, charges about half what it costs the Americans to launch a sattelite.
Well, I read your link you titled "read it and weep". It disagrees with everything you say, so I'm not sure I read the parts of it you were hoping to? First, it says that both NASA and the ESA think that a 50-100x decrease in costs is possible in the near future. Further, it estimates that only 12x is needed for a solar sat to be economically sound when compared with a conventional, terrestrial power plant, a cost decrease about the same as what you admit may be possible, and far less than both NASA and
Not going to happen. No use writing why AGAIN, I think this reply to the original post is just fine
I like a well laid out argument as anyone, but people have historically been very poor at guessing what will work and what not via dry analysis. Indeed, according to our knowledge, most of the technology and achievements we have today would never work.
In business there's a saying: "Never mind how well you plan, your plan will never work out. But never start without a plan". This is why it is good that some people take on a project by leap of faith, or take a risk, if you will. You never know when a small
I find your reply inadequate. It assumes that no solution will be found to the problem of space debris, which is probably false; if commercialization of space is intended to proceed apace (And where else will the robber barons rob next? We're running out of stuff that's easy to rip out of the planet) this is a problem which will need to be addressed. It also assumes that launch costs will remain fixed, which is also probably false. It also assumes that these satellites will be as vulnerable to impact as cur
The gist is, if you can pack things to withstand 2,000 Gs of acceleration, you can launch an object into orbit using just electricity. Once the cargo reaches apogee, you need to adjust the orbit to one that won't re-intercept the atmosphere, but that only take a small solid fuel thruster. H
> seems at least a few people are convinced enough to spen some serious money on this project
I'm not so sure on that count... a few million here and there it seems.
To put that in perspective, they're supposedly blowing $2 billion on a study for high speed trains between Toronto and Montreal (although I hope that's a typo in the newspaper!)
FTFA: "laser beams shooting down from the sky, roasting birds or slicing up aircraft in mid-air."
What about this? Would a flock of birds disrupt the beam? I'm assuming the beam would be narrow enough that this wouldn't affect bird populations too much, but what about the reliability of the system? Will the power be stored in batteries before it goes out to the public? Or will a bird in the beam cause everyone's lights to dim?
I read this... uh two weeks ago? All the same things we said back then still apply (you'll lose ~99% of your power over the 20,000 mile beaming distance), et cetera, et cetera. Highly inefficient.
Now maybe if they converted the solar to hydrogen first, and then used that to fuel spaceships to colonize Mars and other planets, it might make sense.
(shrug). Whatever. I think mankind is about to experience a major energy drought. The last two centuries were built-upon the solar power captured over 100 million years (by evergreens). Now it's almost all gone. We won't die-out of course, but life in the 2100s might look a lot like life in the 1700s (cold homes, very little travel, and dark nights).
You are aware that enough energy falls on the Earth in the form of sunlight in 1 hour to power all the energy needs of the Earth for 1 year, correct? It's just a matter of harnessing all that power.
If it comes to that, we have nukes. By the 2100s, we might even have fusion power too (I'd hold out for 2200s for that, though, myself). Heck, even coating the landscape with solar panels and windmills is cost-effective if the alternative is "cold homes, very little travel, and dark nights".
And really, even some of the "dark nights" are being solved in Africa through simple hand-cranked LED lanterns. Light has gotten incredibly cheap.
(using the American notation of 1 Trillion = 1,000 Billion). Anyway, they are putting the cart before the horse so to speak. They should really put their effort behind:
1) making long carbon nano-tubes on an industrial scale to build a space elevator. I read somewhere that with such "unobtanium" it would (only) cost 5 Billion to build an initial elevator from which supposedly they could expand.
2) support deep space exploration with the goal of eventually mining asteroids. To build a really decent sized e
From: "[ExI] Thoughts on Space based solar power" http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2008-November/046620.html [extropy.org] """ I spent a long time around 2003 and 2004 on the SSI email list (now on yahoo groups if you want to look at the archives) explaining why space-based solar power will not in any likely time frame be of any value on Earth.:-) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ssi_list/ [yahoo.com] And I want to make it clear I was a SSI Senior Associate (five year pledge of money) back in the 1980s, and even took a (intro Physics) course from Gerry O'Neill. So this in not just a casual disagreement. I am very sad that the Space Studies Institute even now pushes an outdated agenda (well, now they are moving to scaring people with asteroids, to the extent they are still operating). I feel if Gerry O'Neill was around now he might agree with this analysis of the current prospects for space-based power in the next few decades, since he always was an adaptable and innovative guy, even if, unfortunately, ultimately an unsuccessful businessperson with GeoStar and LAWN with which he hoped to fund space habitation. I think by coupling the two -- a desire to build space habitations coupled with economic arguments for space solar power (or even other space activities) -- that one may miss out on sooner realizing the dream of space habitation done for its own sake (as a hobby).
The core points of the argument I advanced there:
* About a third to one half the cost of residential electric service is maintaining transmission lines. So, at best, space solar even if *free* at the ground station will be at best one-third the cost of utility power is now at the home meter. As the costs of home power generation fall from advanced manufacturing, the cost of home solar power (or wind, or cogeneration) will drop below that cost at some point for self-contained homes producing all or most of their own power, making space solar power obsolete for home use. Since space solar power will initially be expensive, it is non-viable right now. And since the cost of solar panels (like Nanosolar's) is dropping way faster than the cost of space operations, and since solar space satellites have a twenty to thirty year time horizon for significant production, they are a non-starter and too risky investment comparatively. Things might have been different in the 1970s, but it is thirty years later. Also, one can make an argument for limited solar power for large commercial facilities producing aluminum or liquid fuels or doing laser launching, but that is only likely to be worth doing once we already have a space presence since then only the incremental costs will need to be paid, rather than expect solar power to pay to develop a space infrastructure as O'Neill and others proposed (and people still propose). I'm sure one can look hard at situations where transmission costs are minimized, but this cost of transmission argument is a very deep one and I've never seen it rigorously discussed. We know how to do solar on the ground, there are ways to store the energy at night (molten salts, ever improving batteries, pumping water up hill, compressed air, production of synthetic liquid fuels, production of hydrogen, a superconducting world wide grid backbone, etc.), and there are complementary technologies like wind power and cogeneration by burning biomass that together with solar produce fairly reliable power (as well as a lot of local hands-on jobs in the short term). And there are organizations promoting R&D to make this all even better: http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/ [google.com]
. . . meanwhile, some space experts have questioned Japan's plans for a shark crew.
A NASA spokesman commented, "I'm just not exactly sure, but something seems not quite right with a laser satellite to be crewed by sharks."
A Japan space agency spokesman countered, "Sharks don't sleep, so we will be sure that they are always paying attention to the sensitive instruments, 24/7. And they don't get cancer, because of some mysterious substance in their cartilage. Sharks have survived for millions of years in the oceans of the Earth. Outer space is the next logical challenge for them."
If we remain in Afghanistan to stop AQ, then getting supplies into there is hard. A big part of this is fuel for electric power. This is the ideal situation for a small 10-50 MW space generator to beam it into bases, esp. forward bases. We can cut the power to the base, if it is taken. In addition, it prevents fuel from being used as a weapon. We could easily have a small version available within 2 years.
In addition, this same idea could be used in the US and other locations to beam 10 MWs into disaster locations. The ability to bring in say 1 MW into multiple locations within 1 hour would make a HUGE difference in say hurricane, earthquake, or even another 9/11.
Version A) The microwaves are going to ionize the atmosphere. Breaking down earth's magnetic shielding from the solar wind. And then igniting the entire atmosphere.
Unless you give me... ONE...MILLION...DOLLARS!!! MUHAHAHAHAAAAA...
Version B) Our power needs will go up so far, that we will fill the whole area around the sun with solar panels, and live on top of them. Thereby making us invisible for any aliens. So we grow, and become more and more evil and power-hungry. Until we set out, to harvest other suns. And the aliens on other planets see sun after sun... vanish from the sky.
"Prepare for an epic billion-year long battle! In a 40-hour movie, that will burst even LOTR's time frame! Now in cinemas!"
P.S.: On a more serious note: What effect does this have on the atmosphere? I'd guess somewhat the same as in a microwave: Ionization and heating. The heating won't change much, I guess, when compared to the global warming of fossil fuel power plants. But the ionization certainly has a effect. What are the long-term results of those effects? And how big of a focus point on the surface are we talking about? I don't want to be at the spot where it hits when it's mis-calibrated... If those questions are answered, it's a pretty good plan in my eyes. I always wondered why we erect power plants, when nature already gave us the biggest fuckin' fusion reactor one can think of! ^^ (Yes there are bigger stars. But try imagining them!:P)
The real life systems distribute the microwave energy over a very large area... In the case of Japan, potentially an off-shore site that would pick up the microwave radiation.
One of them was a microwave beam misdirect. Note that while you could only manually trigger that disaster with the help of the cheat it could also happen randomly (assuming you have "no disasters" turned off).
Threat? (Score:2, Funny)
Great , now we not only have to worry about stray godzilla attacks, now japan gets pew pew lasers
Re:Threat? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I invoke Giant Robot and his Atomic Punch on your Mothra and Godzilla. p0wn3d!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty much, [slashdot.org] yeah...
So this is how... (Score:3, Funny)
Godzilla is made, all that microwave radiation frying the Lizard DNA...
Don't tell Japan they had it coming to them!
Oh no! There goes Tokyo! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Go! Go! Godzilla! (Score:2)
Helpless people on subway trains, scream 'My God' as he looks in on them.
Nobody picked up the gundam 00 reference. (Score:4, Interesting)
Space elevators, orbital solar power station, and an orbital laser that can do massive damage with pin point accuracy. Just like you planned Japan, just like you planned. Now all you need is a bunch of rogue scientists building a base in a bunch of asteroids.
Parent
Good luck with that... (Score:3, Informative)
Not going to happen. No use writing why AGAIN, I think this reply to the original post is just fine:
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/here-we-go-again-with-the-spss/
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:5, Informative)
Your argument is a bit silly and is ignoring the economy of scale.
The majority of the cost in Rocket development is in personnel and support. The actual physical materials and fuel used aren't nearly as expensive. With a large investment into capital and mass manufacturing of rockets, cost can be driven down significantly.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Your argument is a bit silly and is ignoring the economy of scale.
Ahhh yes, the economy of scale claim. People have been making that claim since the 1960s (Seahorse) but in spite of 40 years of new technology it still isn't true.
You did read the linked articles right? You need a reduction in launch costs of over 100 times before it can think about breaking even. I _might_ be inclined to believe a 10 times reduction, but 100 times? Riiiight....
And that's ignoring the space debris issue, the fact that most of this technology doesn't exist, that the rest has a 100% failure rate, and that you're economically better off leaving them on the ground anyway. That last one is vitally important. Space power gets you about 2x the power from the same panel on Earth, once you beam it down.
That's it, that's the end of the argument right there. Build twice as many panels right here, and you get the same amount of power for 1/100th to 1/1000th the cost. It doesn't make a difference what panels you use or what technology, anything that changes the economics of the panels in space does the same for the panels on Earth. So I'll just buy 100 times as many and deliver 50 times the power. Why the heck would you put them in space? (if you're going to come back with "24 hours" or some other vapid argument, read the other articles first).
I'm sorry, but I would disagree that the argument is "a bit silly".
Maury
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well true or false, you've got to admit its a better way of stimulating jobs and research with government money than giving it straight to failing banks, right. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bankers.
The rest of our money.
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm wondering - does this take into account land costs of ground based solar cells, particularly in Japan?
Parent
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's ignoring the space debris issue, the fact that most of this technology doesn't exist, that the rest has a 100% failure rate, and that you're economically better off leaving them on the ground anyway. That last one is vitally important. Space power gets you about 2x the power from the same panel on Earth, once you beam it down.
That's it, that's the end of the argument right there. Build twice as many panels right here, and you get the same amount of power for 1/100th to 1/1000th the cost. It doesn't make a difference what panels you use or what technology, anything that changes the economics of the panels in space does the same for the panels on Earth. So I'll just buy 100 times as many and deliver 50 times the power. Why the heck would you put them in space? (if you're going to come back with "24 hours" or some other vapid argument, read the other articles first).
Of course, you assume that there is somewhere reasonable to place the panels to maximise their effect. Sure, you don't need SPS in Arizona where it's sunny 85% of the time, but at higher latitudes with greater cloud cover the available solar power is reduced. So, someplace like Japan has different economics, where they might require 4-10x (or more) the panels on earth. Don't forget that Japan has very little available land. Doubling or quadrupling the required footprint of a power plant is not to be taken lightly.
I guarantee the first system will not break even. The second probably won't either. But it's certainly conceivable that it will at some point in the future. Better to start now and learn to make it effective if/when that happens. It's not a silver bullet, but it's still worth a shot.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wind and solar are toy projects pushed by rabid environmentalists' infectious propaganda; they very much realize how adoption of these power sources will force severe limits on human progress by suppressing energy availability.
There's no limits on human progress by using solar instead of dirty technologies like coal. However, no matter what technologies we use for generating power, there are limits on human population because of resources. Humans need to stop breeding like rabbits.
And I've no doubt that's exactly what they want--less technology, back to nature Ludditism and, especially, enabling a socialist reworking of human civilization.
No, we need more technology, cleaner technology, technology which lets us live better with nature (so we can still have nice places to go camping on vacations, and nice fish and seafood to eat that aren't filled with mercury and PCBs), and we need fewer humans with higher standards of living so we can enjoy our resources and manage them better, instead of fighting over them and squandering and polluting them. We also need fewer people so we can avoid more extreme forms of socialism. The only way to manage larger and larger populations of people will be socialism, and in particular the more nasty kinds that impose all kinds of limits on our freedoms. You can't have many freedoms when we're all packed together in ultra high-density housing; we'll have to have stricter rules and more government to keep us from killing each other, or keeping some nutcase from committing mass-murder. You want less government interference and more freedom? Work for a smaller population. Stop having so many babies.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Space power also doesn't suffer from cloudy weather (if the beam you're using to send it to the ground is in the right frequency range), can operate at night (if the sattelite is high enough to avoid being in the shadow of the Earth), and doesn't take up acres of space on the ground. It may not necessarily be economical right now, but as the world's population approaches 10 billion or more, and as we run out of space to build the things (and start needing what little space we have for things like farms instead of solar plants), alternatives that use up less space are going to become more attractive.
Plus, you're overlooking one very very important point... the rockets they can use to launch solar arrays into space are not purpose built. That is to say, they can be used for things other than launching solar arrays into space. The space agency is going to spend the money building/developping them anyway, because they're still useful for launching communication/navigation sattelites, and because the technology can be adapted to manned space flight. The bulk of the cost of a launch comes from the development and testing process, and that's money that's going to be spent anyway. And as new players enter the market, the cost of launching a sattelite is going down significantly... the ISRO in India, for example, charges about half what it costs the Americans to launch a sattelite.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not going to happen. No use writing why AGAIN, I think this reply to the original post is just fine
I like a well laid out argument as anyone, but people have historically been very poor at guessing what will work and what not via dry analysis. Indeed, according to our knowledge, most of the technology and achievements we have today would never work.
In business there's a saying: "Never mind how well you plan, your plan will never work out. But never start without a plan". This is why it is good that some people take on a project by leap of faith, or take a risk, if you will. You never know when a small
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find your reply inadequate. It assumes that no solution will be found to the problem of space debris, which is probably false; if commercialization of space is intended to proceed apace (And where else will the robber barons rob next? We're running out of stuff that's easy to rip out of the planet) this is a problem which will need to be addressed. It also assumes that launch costs will remain fixed, which is also probably false. It also assumes that these satellites will be as vulnerable to impact as cur
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not going to happen. No use writing why AGAIN, I think this reply to the original post is just fine:
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/here-we-go-again-with-the-spss/
You don't seem to realize that there's more than one way to launch a payload. Here's a /. article from 2006, for instance, that discusses ballistic launches: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/03/1732258 [slashdot.org].
The gist is, if you can pack things to withstand 2,000 Gs of acceleration, you can launch an object into orbit using just electricity. Once the cargo reaches apogee, you need to adjust the orbit to one that won't re-intercept the atmosphere, but that only take a small solid fuel thruster. H
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> seems at least a few people are convinced enough to spen some serious money on this project
I'm not so sure on that count... a few million here and there it seems.
To put that in perspective, they're supposedly blowing $2 billion on a study for high speed trains between Toronto and Montreal (although I hope that's a typo in the newspaper!)
Maury
Today's SMBC (Score:5, Funny)
Always dreamed about that... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Always dreamed about that... (Score:4, Interesting)
...ever since I played SimCity 2000... But I don't want the beam pointing toward my head when I am not wearing my tinfoil hat!
Physics FAIL [mit.edu] (unless your goal is to make your brains extra-crispy)
Parent
Re:Always dreamed about that... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Beam disruptions (Score:2)
FTFA: "laser beams shooting down from the sky, roasting birds or slicing up aircraft in mid-air."
What about this? Would a flock of birds disrupt the beam? I'm assuming the beam would be narrow enough that this wouldn't affect bird populations too much, but what about the reliability of the system? Will the power be stored in batteries before it goes out to the public? Or will a bird in the beam cause everyone's lights to dim?
Re: (Score:2)
I think this post needs a 'frikinlasers' tag.
Steering malfunctions more like! (Score:2, Interesting)
Old news (Score:3, Interesting)
I read this... uh two weeks ago? All the same things we said back then still apply (you'll lose ~99% of your power over the 20,000 mile beaming distance), et cetera, et cetera. Highly inefficient.
Now maybe if they converted the solar to hydrogen first, and then used that to fuel spaceships to colonize Mars and other planets, it might make sense.
(shrug). Whatever. I think mankind is about to experience a major energy drought. The last two centuries were built-upon the solar power captured over 100 million years (by evergreens). Now it's almost all gone. We won't die-out of course, but life in the 2100s might look a lot like life in the 1700s (cold homes, very little travel, and dark nights).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
maybe if they converted the solar to hydrogen first
How might they do this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Old news (Score:4, Insightful)
So, who is going to volunteer to put a bunch of water into orbit?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And really, even some of the "dark nights" are being solved in Africa through simple hand-cranked LED lanterns. Light has gotten incredibly cheap.
Re:Old news (Score:5, Informative)
Losing 99% of the power? Why? You can beam the power down using wavelengths that are not absorbed by the atmosphere.
Parent
multi-Trillions not billions (Score:2)
(using the American notation of 1 Trillion = 1,000 Billion). Anyway, they are putting the cart before the horse so to speak. They should really put their effort behind:
1) making long carbon nano-tubes on an industrial scale to build a space elevator. I read somewhere that with such "unobtanium" it would (only) cost 5 Billion to build an initial elevator from which supposedly they could expand.
2) support deep space exploration with the goal of eventually mining asteroids. To build a really decent sized e
Oh Japan, you silly silly country (Score:2)
The Agriculture Ministry is not in charge of Gundam.
Not yet.
Why ground based solar makes more sense (Score:3, Funny)
From: "[ExI] Thoughts on Space based solar power" :-)
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2008-November/046620.html [extropy.org]
"""
I spent a long time around 2003 and 2004 on the SSI email list (now on yahoo
groups if you want to look at the archives) explaining why space-based solar
power will not in any likely time frame be of any value on Earth.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ssi_list/ [yahoo.com]
And I want to make it clear I was a SSI Senior Associate (five year pledge
of money) back in the 1980s, and even took a (intro Physics) course from
Gerry O'Neill. So this in not just a casual disagreement. I am very sad that
the Space Studies Institute even now pushes an outdated agenda (well, now
they are moving to scaring people with asteroids, to the extent they are
still operating). I feel if Gerry O'Neill was around now he might agree with
this analysis of the current prospects for space-based power in the next few
decades, since he always was an adaptable and innovative guy, even if,
unfortunately, ultimately an unsuccessful businessperson with GeoStar and
LAWN with which he hoped to fund space habitation. I think by coupling the
two -- a desire to build space habitations coupled with economic arguments
for space solar power (or even other space activities) -- that one may miss
out on sooner realizing the dream of space habitation done for its own sake
(as a hobby).
The core points of the argument I advanced there:
* About a third to one half the cost of residential electric service is
maintaining transmission lines. So, at best, space solar even if *free* at
the ground station will be at best one-third the cost of utility power is
now at the home meter. As the costs of home power generation fall from
advanced manufacturing, the cost of home solar power (or wind, or
cogeneration) will drop below that cost at some point for self-contained
homes producing all or most of their own power, making space solar power
obsolete for home use. Since space solar power will initially be expensive,
it is non-viable right now. And since the cost of solar panels (like
Nanosolar's) is dropping way faster than the cost of space operations, and
since solar space satellites have a twenty to thirty year time horizon for
significant production, they are a non-starter and too risky investment
comparatively. Things might have been different in the 1970s, but it is
thirty years later. Also, one can make an argument for limited solar power
for large commercial facilities producing aluminum or liquid fuels or doing
laser launching, but that is only likely to be worth doing once we already
have a space presence since then only the incremental costs will need to be
paid, rather than expect solar power to pay to develop a space
infrastructure as O'Neill and others proposed (and people still propose).
I'm sure one can look hard at situations where transmission costs are
minimized, but this cost of transmission argument is a very deep one and
I've never seen it rigorously discussed. We know how to do solar on the
ground, there are ways to store the energy at night (molten salts, ever
improving batteries, pumping water up hill, compressed air, production of
synthetic liquid fuels, production of hydrogen, a superconducting world wide
grid backbone, etc.), and there are complementary technologies like wind
power and cogeneration by burning biomass that together with solar produce
fairly reliable power (as well as a lot of local hands-on jobs in the short
term). And there are organizations promoting R&D to make this all even better:
http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/ [google.com]
* A rebuttal to this is
Pointless, Fusion will be here in 2050 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
. . . laser satellite with a shark crew . . . (Score:5, Funny)
. . . meanwhile, some space experts have questioned Japan's plans for a shark crew.
A NASA spokesman commented, "I'm just not exactly sure, but something seems not quite right with a laser satellite to be crewed by sharks."
A Japan space agency spokesman countered, "Sharks don't sleep, so we will be sure that they are always paying attention to the sensitive instruments, 24/7. And they don't get cancer, because of some mysterious substance in their cartilage. Sharks have survived for millions of years in the oceans of the Earth. Outer space is the next logical challenge for them."
UN/America needs to do this now (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, this same idea could be used in the US and other locations to beam 10 MWs into disaster locations. The ability to bring in say 1 MW into multiple locations within 1 hour would make a HUGE difference in say hurricane, earthquake, or even another 9/11.
I smelll a movie plot... (Score:3, Funny)
Version A)
The microwaves are going to ionize the atmosphere.
Breaking down earth's magnetic shielding from the solar wind.
And then igniting the entire atmosphere.
Unless you give me... ONE...MILLION...DOLLARS!!! MUHAHAHAHAAAAA...
Version B)
Our power needs will go up so far, that we will fill the whole area around the sun with solar panels, and live on top of them.
Thereby making us invisible for any aliens.
So we grow, and become more and more evil and power-hungry.
Until we set out, to harvest other suns.
And the aliens on other planets see sun after sun... vanish from the sky.
"Prepare for an epic billion-year long battle!
In a 40-hour movie, that will burst even LOTR's time frame!
Now in cinemas!"
P.S.: On a more serious note: What effect does this have on the atmosphere? I'd guess somewhat the same as in a microwave: Ionization and heating. The heating won't change much, I guess, when compared to the global warming of fossil fuel power plants. But the ionization certainly has a effect. What are the long-term results of those effects? :P)
And how big of a focus point on the surface are we talking about? I don't want to be at the spot where it hits when it's mis-calibrated...
If those questions are answered, it's a pretty good plan in my eyes. I always wondered why we erect power plants, when nature already gave us the biggest fuckin' fusion reactor one can think of! ^^
(Yes there are bigger stars. But try imagining them!
Re:SimCity 2000 (Score:4, Interesting)
The real life systems distribute the microwave energy over a very large area... In the case of Japan, potentially an off-shore site that would pick up the microwave radiation.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It can also be focused to destroy your enemies. No nation would willingly permit another nation to put this thing up.
Re: (Score:2)
One of them was a microwave beam misdirect.
Note that while you could only manually trigger that disaster with the help of the cheat it could also happen randomly (assuming you have "no disasters" turned off).
Re:But Can The Solar Station (Score:5, Funny)
Sushi is raw fish with this everything gets cooked even you.
Parent