Japan Eyes Solar Station In Space 247
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the they're-gonna-need-a-gundam-to-defend-it dept.
from the they're-gonna-need-a-gundam-to-defend-it dept.
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."
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.
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).
Steering malfunctions more like! (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Re:Old news (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good luck with that... (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:Good luck with that... (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 current models, which is probably true, but not necessarily. For example, I see no reason why they could not implement them as microsatellite clusters using anything from magnetic attraction to one another to itty bitty winches with brushless motors to maintain relative position. It is likely that solar power satellites would use a phased array; there's no reason it couldn't be implemented as a cluster.
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.
Re:Good luck with that... (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. Here's one that is very cheap to make: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/091021-tw-alice-rocket.html [space.com]
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?
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.
Re:Old news (Score:2, Interesting)
You are aware that there's enough energy in a single gallon of crude oil to power an entire American home for 1 year, right? It's just a matter of harnessing all that power.
Point-
It isn't that easy. The inefficiencies inherent in converting one form of energy to another leads to waste. Solar panels are lucky to get even 1% of the solar energy converted top electricity. They also take-up a lot of room... which is already occupied by homes, roads, trees, et cetera.
I can live pretty cheaply (trees for shade in the summer; minimal heating in the winter), but I know most Americans would not be willing to make that sacrifice.
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.