Beamed Space Solar Power Plant To Open In 2016? 512
Eric_S writes "Anybody who managed to get a decent city going in Sim City 2000 remembers the microwave power plant; now it seems like a real-world equivalent might be coming up on the horizon.
The Pacific Gas and Electricity Company, per this 'interview' with the CEO of Solaren on their affiliated site, announced PG&E's plans to buy 200MW of base-load power from a Solaren beamed space solar power plant by 2016." I wish the skeptic in me would be quiet.
In Space (Score:5, Insightful)
In space nobody can hear your company go bankrupt.
There will be a lot of pissed off investors on Earth though.
Re:In Space (Score:4, Interesting)
lots of pissed birds, bats, pollen and insects too.
Re:In Space (Score:5, Funny)
lots of pissed birds, bats, pollen and insects too.
Hell hath no fury like a pollen scorned.
Re:In Space (Score:5, Funny)
You mean 'scorched'.
Re:In Space (Score:4, Interesting)
[citation needed]
See, I think that your comment is FUD. I think that if these microwaves are at the right frequency to excite water molecules (and thus hurt animals) that they'd also be absorbed by the atmosphere and thus not useful for the transmission of power. But every time this story comes up, someone makes a post based on fear. How sad.
Re:In Space (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, environmentalists:
Reasonable people: Let's use this wonderful new technology!
Environmentalists: No way! It's dangerous!
Reasonable people: Err, no it's not. The technology is based on well-understood principles we've been using for decades.
Environmentalists: But how do you know that this particular combination of principles won't cause some damage! You have to prove it. Do you have any evidence that this technology doesn't hurt anything?
Reasonable people: Okay, we'll humor you. Let's run an experiment.
Environmentalists: No testing! We don't know whether this technology is safe! You might hurt someone or something!
Come on. You should know better. We know what microwaves do at the energy densities indicated. We have absolutely no reason to believe they might cause wide-scale changes to ecosystems. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is actually a harmful effect.
Re:In Space (Score:5, Insightful)
Davis-Besse reactor (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe we can build them safely, but maintenance is another issue. This is the same plant that almost went postal in 1985. See http://www.cleveland.com/powerplants/plaindealer/index.ssf?/powerplants/more/1095759100318143.html [cleveland.com] for just one reference.
cell phones? DDT, PCBs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's not forget PCBs and DDT and Mercury based felt hats and lead paint as all things that were WIDELT beleived to be safe and a boon to mankind until they turned out not to be.
Id say the jury is still out on long term problems with cell phones and powerlines. People are only now rethinking the subtle effects of heat islands produced by cities. And there's some concern that the plasticizers in water bottles is now showing up in human organs.
It was not long ago people figured out some animals use
Re:In Space (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In Space (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In Space (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate people who take a stance without considering all the possibilities
All the possibilities huh. There's a difference between rational consideration and the constant cynical sniping that is so common today. We can't suggest *anything* without people leaping over themselves to suggest a doomsday scenario associated with it. Those are the people (and you're in that group) that need to STFU. If there's a scientist or an engineer who says, "wait a minute" then I'll listen. Everyone else is just being attention whores.
Someone proposes wind power. Response:whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities! Low frequency noise from the blades could cause earthquakes!!
Someone proposes creating an "internet" Response: whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities! Haven't you read 1984??
GPS. Response: whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities! Those satelites contain nuclear clocks. NUCLEAR! If they crash, they'll explode and kill all life on earth!
Electric cars. Response: whoa whoa whoa, batteries contain toxic chemicals!
Millions of years ago in Africa: hey, let's get the fuck out of here and move North. Response: whoa whoa whoa, you haven't considered all the possibilities.
All I'm saying is that I'm tired of people like you that think it's your duty to imagine some scary consequence. If there were a few of you, it wouldn't bother me, but you're legion. It pisses me off. Your attitude should be, let's try something new and keep our eyes and minds open to see how it works. Once we have at least one of these stations working, THEN we talk about what it's doing to the environment. If it's bad, we shut it down or work to fix it. Sitting back in your chair criticizing proposals by actual smart people just pisses me off - it's a bit like that scene in Cryptonomicon where the snooty academic says, "how many neighborhoods will be bulldoze to build this information superhighway." The guy thought he was being clever, but actually he was just making a fool of himself. He didn't understand the technology - he should STFU.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try looking at the energy densities per square millimeter. That 200 MW beam is spread out quite a bit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Try looking at the energy densities per square millimeter. That 200 MW beam is spread out quite a bit.
Well, spread out a bit until SkyNet get angry, then it's a cannon. At that point we'll see which side sent the governator back in time to authorize this. For all we know, the orbital microwave cannon is the weapon needed to defeat SkyNet early!
Frankly, I find arguemtns that the governator was actually sent back in time by SkyNet exactly as credible as environmentalist concerns that we might hurt one fluffy bunny.
Re:In Space (Score:4, Informative)
Your math is wrong, you are forgetting that you are dealing with sqare units (the common notation for square units is rather confusing which doesn't help). There are 10000 square centimeters in a square meter and 1000000 square meters in a square kilometer. You also seem to be in a bit of a mess with the units of various figures.
200,000 W = 200,000,000 mW
200,000,000 mW / 50 (mW/cm^2 )= 4,000,000 cm^2
4,000,000 cm^2 = 400 m^2
sqrt(400 m^2/3.14) ~= 128m
so a 128m diameter receiver, not small but not massive either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison...."
Paracelsus had no way of anticipating photons, but they act the same way. Regular old light is harmful if sufficient concentration, and gamma rays are harmless at low enough ones. (Which is why we're not building shields against gamma ray burst
They should try this over San Francisco (Score:4, Funny)
Because the people over there are pretty progressive on the green energy front, and if there are any problems it will be over San Francisco.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given how much space there is, and how much matter there is (that is, enough to, at a reasonable density, fill up only a really teensy fraction of the space), it seems unlikely that we could "fill up space" with anything.
And, really, until you've created a Dyson swarm or Dyson bubble, which should keep you occupied a long time, I don't see what your issue is here as far as what to do once you've built out to capacity with space-based solar po
Funny... (Score:5, Funny)
Sim city (Score:5, Funny)
Human Size Ants (Score:5, Informative)
Because you haven't run the numbers on the beam power density. The Microwave beam is wide, because it's trivial and cheap to make a huge ground antenna, and because agriculture can be carried out under the antenna. THe beam power density can be held down to just a few times noon sunlight power, and still deliver plenty of energy.
That way, both airplane and albatross are safe to transit the beam area.
Re:Human Size Ants (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again perhaps we can use an albatross to lift this system into orbit as we certainly lack launch capacity for almost anything right now.
Re:Human Size Ants (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps we can contract the launch out to North Korea? I hear they've been making some real strides in that area and could use the $$.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you think that?
Just because the shuttle is not going to be around anymore does not mean we have no launch capability.
We still have the Falcon 9, Delta IV and Atlas V launch vehicles.
Delta IV can launch 23,904 lb to GTO [wikipedia.org]
Atlas V can put 28,660 lb into GTO [wikipedia.org]
Just to compare the Shuttle capacity to GTO is only 8,390 lb
On Launches to LEO the Shuttle is still outclassed by Atlas V (53,600 lb to Atlas's 64,860 lb)
Re:Human Size Ants (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, the power being there doesn't mean that you absorb it. We're talking about microwaves (and not the cooking kind). It's not visible light or ultraviolet. You won't notice a thing. You won't get a sunburn.
Second, rectennas are stupidly efficient: 87%. We can barely get to 50% with solar. Furthermore, it's a lot cheaper to build a kilometer of rectenna than a kilometer of solar panels, and you can actually use the land underneath for something useful. And also unlike conventional solar, this thing would work all day and all night, every day of the year.
Re:Human Size Ants (Score:5, Insightful)
We've lived with radio waves all over the place for over a century. Countless studies have shown that electromagnetic radiation produces no deleterious effects. The burden of proof is on you to come up with repeatable experiments providing evidence for falsifiable claims that radio waves are harmful at the levels proposed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Human Size Ants (Score:5, Informative)
Somethings seems wrong with this reasoning.
First, a "few times" noon sunlight power, I think would be pretty brutal. To take you literally, it would be like standing in the sun at noon where the sun is say three times brighter than it is. I'm not a physicist, so feel free to tell me why a three times more power sun at noon wouldn't be a problem for me.
Sunlight has two components that make it uncomfortable or dangerous. First is the infrared, which is the heat energy. Second is the Ultraviolet, which can damage skin cells. Because the energy is not in infrared or UV radiation, you will experience neither of these effects. If you're worried about microwave radiation, remember that this includes the frequencies that make up the WiFi, Bluetooth, and AM/FM radio waves that pass through your body all the time.
Secondly, Doesn't a "few times" noon sunlight power mean that your getting only a "few times" what you'd be getting from the sun by itself, which isn't all that much. Doesn't sound like your going to deliver the concentrations of power that cities need.
So, I'm inclined not to put too much stake in what you said.
Converting electrical power to and from microwave radiation is an order of magnitude more efficient than solar. Also remember that the solar panels placed in space have a large surface area than the antenna, receive more solar energy per area (due to not having losses due to the ozone layer, etc), and can beam power 24/7. So imagine if the sun was 4x more powerful, and the solar panels were 80% efficient, rather than 20%. Using these (thumbnail estimate) numbers, that makes microwave 16x more efficient per unit area than solar. It becomes even more efficient when you take into account that the sun is not as bright at other times of the day (such as 8AM, or 11PM).
And yes, I am an Electrical Engineer.
Re:Human Size Ants (Score:5, Informative)
This orbiting solar plant would have to be in a geosynchronous orbit to beam the energy to the antenna. It could not beam power 24/7.
You are correct, this was a slight overstatement.
However, the ammount of time where the satellite is in darkness is significantly less than when a ground based solar panel is in darkness. As well, when not in darkness, the solar energy density is very close to its average maximum, which is significantly more than even the noon-time maxiumum for a ground-based solar. In other words, a solar panel on earth generates less energy at 7PM than at noon (due to light passing through additional atmosphere, and even less if the panel is not aimed), but a satellite produces nearly the same amount of power whenever it is in sunlight.
The earth will occlude the sun for about 20 degrees of its 360 degree rotation at geostationary orbit. So the system will not be in sun for 1 hour, 20 minutes each day. Not 24 hour power (more like 22.7 hour), but still much better than solar. A pumped storage or other facility would still allow nighttime off-peak energy to be used during this "dark" time, or during peak hours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's right [google.com]:
For practical purposes, a geosynchronous orbit's solar irradiation is close enough to constant that it doesn't matter. If your satellite is actually solar thermal, then it really doesn't matter.
Hell, the mains power goes out more often than that here in Buffalo, NY.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that in space, you don't need to deal with atmospheric attenuation. That increases the effective power output of your solar cells quite a bit, even if their efficiency is the same. 50% (to pick an arbitrary figure) of 500MW is a lot more than 50% of 250MW.
Re:Human Size Ants (Score:4, Informative)
So imagine if the sun was 4x more powerful, and the solar panels were 80% efficient, rather than 20%.
And yes, I am an Electrical Engineer.
The issue is that the best cells in the world are still in the high 30% range... And yes, I do build satellites for a living, and will certainly not invest my money in this company.
Many ground based photovoltaic cells are not operating at this maximum efficiency. Regardless, microwave power efficiency will always be greater than solar. I only intended the efficiency numbers as a rough estimate.
As a satellite designer you should also recognize that it's the solar power density in space, rather than panel efficiency, that make solar so useful in space. The panels receive more energy from the sun, regardless of how efficiently they convert this energy to electricity. In space, it's about 1300W/m^2, at the equator it's about 1000W/m^2 at noon on a sunny day.
If we want another thumbnail calculation, a square meter solar panel in space gets 1300W 22.7hours a day, making an average power of 1230W. For a panel at the equator on a sunny day, assuming it gets full sun 12 hours a day, its power is only 500W on average. Any practical application (not at the equator, cloudy days, additional shade, etc) will reduce this number farther.
Obviously, the power is more efficient per unit area, both of ground and solar panel. If the costs of the satellite are low enough (to be determined), the beamed energy plant will be much more efficient.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If wifi,bluetooth and am/fm waves are so similar, there must be plenty of energy floating around us. Why can't we just recover that energy? Power your laptop from your WiFi signal. Heck, with all the radio stations transmitting around us we should be able to pluck a few dozen frequencies and power the radio itself.
How efficient are these antennas again?
The stray microwave radiation is of a much lower average power. In addition, it is spread across a much larger spectrum, making it difficult to grab all the energy at once.
This plant will send a higher power, focused beam of a single frequency, making it highly efficient. Nokia is working on a system like you describe, though it only gets about 10mW of power currently.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the OP didn't reply, I'll have a stab.
"First, a "few times" noon sunlight power, I think would be pretty brutal."
The OP was talking about transiting the collection area, not camping out there. Also we're talking about microwaves rather than visible/UV from sunlight, you will have to ask someone else what the equivalent energy of 3x noon sunlight in microwave form will do, but the point is we're not simply talking about noon sunlight x3, it's not visible/UV at all.
"Doesn't a "few times" noon sunlight p
Oh, come on... You can't have it both ways. (Score:3, Informative)
Either a "few times noon sunlight" is a lot, or it isn't.
You can't bash the idea as both "dangerously hot/bright" and "too cold/dark for practical use".
Sun at noon can easily generate temperatures over 40C - if a "few times" that is 2.5 or higher, then you're over boiling point of water.
You can harvest that energy using 19th century means - like steam engine.
That WOULD be quite dangerous, though. No need to argue there.
If "few times" is lower than 1.5 - those are temperature extremes observed in nature. Gra
At least they've got courage ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... even if they haven't got a clue as to how financially reckless they're being. You kind of have to admire that.
Economical for remote power (Score:3, Informative)
Folks like the US military are interested. It's expensive to ship fuel for generators to remote outposts. At those prices for power, SPS are competitive. You also get to remove one logistics vulnerability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
how do you collimate the beam tightly enough that it doesn't spread out and you lose most of the power?
You don't. You use a rectenna (basically just a grid of metal) spread over farm fields, with plenty of light getting through to grow crops underneath.
Demand? (Score:4, Interesting)
While this kind of power beaming technology is possible, I can't imagine that it's all that efficient. Are we really low enough on other forms of power that there will be enough demand to support this kind of remote endeavor?
For specific applications, YES! (Remote Military) (Score:5, Interesting)
For specific kinds of applications, yes, there is demand. DARPA is interested in this, because electronics use, and there fore electricity use, by the military has expanded tremendously, even in remote locations. A diesel generator has to receive a constant supply of fuel. This is very expensive and inconvenient on the top of a mountain in Afghanistan. A solar power receiving station doesn't. The power supply is invulnerable to attack. The receiving station doesn't make constant noise. In such contexts, power delivered at rates an order of magnitude higher than commercial generation is very competitive.
We should build something like the Iraqi Super-cannon. The thing was built out of 70's tech and was slated to deliver stuff to orbit for $600/Kg. We could improve on that with new tech and mass production of the rocket-boosted projectiles. Construction materials for SPS could be packaged to survive the G's of being shot out of a cannon. Even electronic components could be built to survive. The US government has specs for electronic components that can survive 100,000 G. (Yes, one hundred thousand!) That would make SPS much cheaper.
Re:For specific applications, YES! (Remote Militar (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, invulnerable. There's a huge difference between hitting a satellite in low earth orbit and geosynchronous orbit, which is a few times higher up and which requires a lot more delta-v to reach.
Re:For specific applications, YES! (Remote Militar (Score:4, Informative)
You are right, the Solaren CEO does say it would be in geosynchronous orbit.
My bad. I was wrong, you were right.
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to ground-based photovoltaic cells, lots of things are efficient.
Re:Demand? (Score:5, Interesting)
On power: The object of the exercise is to put the solar arrays in space, cut out all the atmospheric attenuation due to air and clouds, and then send the power down using microwaves, on wavelengths that are not significantly attenuated by air and clouds.
On pointing: You've never heard of electronically-steered phased array radar, have you?
On efficiency: When the Jet Propulsion Lab tested microwave power beam technology in the 1960s, between two mountains several miles apart, they were hoping to get 63% transmission efficiency. They actually got over 80%. (I think the number was 88%, but don't quote me.)
The key concept on the efficiency question is that solar power in space is effectively unlimited, when compared with available solar power at ground level, because of atmospheric attenuation of light. (Photographers who shoot outdoors know all about this.) Once you have unlimited power at the head end, you don't really care very much about losses due to beamforming.
My source on this is a talk given by Jerry Pournelle in Austin TX in the late 1970s. His slides included photographs of the actual test apparatus, including one of the lit-up light board at the receiving site.
Global warming? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Personally I think that geothermal energy is still a method of energy production that has yet to be tapped on a more massive scale.
Strictly speaking, you are correct, geothermal is a method that hasn't been tapped on a massive scale (outside of a few places like Iceland). Problem is, there are issues with induced earthquakes with geothermal. Google Basel Geothermal for an example...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly is the issue with diversifying our efforts? There is no rule that states we can only work on one type of technology at a time. I'm tired of all of this "we shouldn't be doing X before we do Y" crap.
Re:Global warming? (Score:5, Interesting)
I asked this question of an Environmental Physicist. The answer is that it will *prevent* global warming. The reasoning is this:
Right now, we primarily burn coal to produce energy. This isn't an efficient process at all, putting out about 30% energy and 70% heat. Also, there are all the waste products dumped into the atmosphere associated with burning coal. Meanwhile, beaming the energy back to the Earth will (theoretically) be very, very efficient, as in almost all the energy beamed back will be reclaimed as electricity. Replacing coal with this method would reduce the overall heat by 70%.
So yes, this idea will heat the Earth, but not nearly as much as coal. As far as causing other weather changes, health problems, and electronic problems, those are possibilities that are unknown until they try it. The signal should be directed quite precisely to their receiver on Earth, and with any intelligence, they will have a safety system such that the beam shuts off immediately if the receiver notices a dip in power.
Woops sorry about your farm... (Score:3, Funny)
"Solaren Insta-Tan (tm)" (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, that's one way to get a quick tan I'm sure.
We could sell time in it to celebrities.
Or just run animals* through for quick roast dinners.
* or celebrities
Dear Canada (Score:5, Funny)
February 12th, 2020
Dear Canada,
Yesterday a piece of space trash knocked our Microwave Power Plant operating over Oregon off target from its station. Unfortunately, it continued to beam a strong powerful ray of energy down as its sights fell over your Western provinces. We are sorry.
We urge you not to think of it as "a swath of destruction" so much as "a wicked cool tattoo"
Williston Lake was a very beautiful lake right up until it evaporated
We're also sorry that instead of shutting it down, we just swung it back over Canada to its power station in Oregon and next time we will totally just stop it before this happens. To make up for it, we'll send you some extra power so your people stop rioting and Mad Maxing.
We hope there's no hard feelings,
Sincerely,
The United States
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Memo from Canada
February 13th, 2020
Dear United States,
We've know for long that your education system was in trouble, but we didn't know the situation was so desperate. You might want to get a refresher course in geography, but just FYI, Canada is to the north, not to the south of Oregon. If you needed economic support, you should have asked.
Sincerely,
Canada
PS: Somebody boiled the Bay Area, you might want to check it out.
Ouch! (Score:5, Funny)
From the Wikipedia article linked:
"In 1964, William C. Brown demonstrated a miniature helicopter equipped with a combination antenna and rectifier device called a rectenna."
Heh, rectenna sounds like some alien probing device.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry for your loss.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I thought it sounds like something Professor Farnsworth would come up with [wikia.com]. (Fing-Longer, Maternifuge, Smell-O-Scope, etc...)
cool but (Score:2)
if everything works perfectly this will be awesome, but nothing ever works perfectly and just the thought of the things that can go wrong scares the hell out of me.
Dupe from months ago? (Score:2)
I think I remember seeing the same story, here on /., _months_ ago.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think I remember seeing a search feature, here on /., _pixels_ ago.
Who's going to be the first to use it? You? Me?
The suspense is terrible.... I hope it lasts.
Dessert topping AND floor wax (Score:3, Funny)
not much of a story (Score:2)
Unlikely (Score:2)
I hope no one accuses me of blogrolling or something, but:
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/space-power/
New tag required (Score:2)
It's not a laser folks, stop crying? (Score:2)
Look on the bright side... (Score:3, Insightful)
I noticed this little tid bit:
200 megawatts of clean, renewable power over a 15 year period.
How much does that compare to the energy needed for getting it up in space, getting routine maintenance & repair up in space, the maintenance & repair itself, and possible decommissioning?
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just love this kind of objection.
How much does that compare to the energy needed for getting it up in space, getting routine maintenance & repair up in space, the maintenance & repair itself, and possible decommissioning?
So digging / drilling coal and oil out of the ground, and all the processing, transportation and generation infrastructure involved in fossil fuels cost nothing ?
I think the important point is, *once* the infrastructure for these new renewable energy forms is in place, the power itself comes at zero cost ... wind, sun and water costs nothing ... and doesn't involve the clean up that say coal, oil or nuclear does.
How to decommission a space based reflector ? Switch the thing off. Done. For extra good measure, fit a booster rocket to it, so we can fire it off into deep space once we're done with it.
A far cry from safely storing materials with a half life of 10,000 years, or getting rid of all the carbon dioxide we've pumped into the atmosphere in the last 150 years dues to coal and oil.
Assuming everything goes well (Score:2, Interesting)
Military funding (Score:2)
An idea with a lack of vision (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the gigantic effort to put this solar plant into orbit will create... 200MW of power?
Contrast to this: 0.3% of the Sahara could power the whole of Europe [guardian.co.uk]
It's expensive like hell, sure, but it would start delivering energy long before it's completed and its goals are way more ambitious than this flying solar panel's! Think no more unrenewable energy, no more CO2, no more pollutants (sulphur, heavy metals etc.) from coal plants, no more soil erosion due to dams, no more gas or oil (yeah, in italy they have plenty of those) power plants. Only a few windfarms and perhaps the French nuclear plants to iron out the energy needs during night time.
Don't tell me the USA has a lack of sun and deserts.
Re:An idea with a lack of vision (Score:4, Insightful)
I think there are some national security implications inherent in relocating all of Europe's electric power generation capacity to Africa. I hope nobody in Africa minds European armies building bases there to guard their energy sources.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True enough, I agree!
But there wouldn't be such implications if the USA built such a powerplant somewhere in Nevada, Utah or Arizona (or New Mexico, Idaho or... there's plenty of deserts in your country).
Compared to the USA, Europe is pretty fucked, when it comes to free areas with plenty of sunlight. But, EU politicians are sucking enough Arab dick, that the political climate may be somewhat favorable for us to build some plants in Morocco and Egypt, perhaps even Algiers, and with enough sucking, Mauritani
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, if you think orbital solar is expensive, imagine trying to string HVDC lines across hundreds of miles of shifting sand dunes, then under the Mediterranean sea or across Gibraltar. Then think how expensive it'll be to send people into the middle of one Earth's largest deserts to service all this equipment. It makes space look cheap.
You are wrong about this. The 200MW this space gimmick will produce is a drop in the ocean compared to what terrestrial mega-plants can produce. Besides, we already have oil drilling sites in much less hospitable (both politically as well as environmentally) places, and we have to build thick pipe lines to carry that oil, and the servicing of such infrastructure is way more complex than a solar powerplant of the same energy output. AND in addition to all this, the oil drilling site is temporary - it is exha
If this is real, do one over Afghanistan (Score:3, Interesting)
Numbers (Score:3, Interesting)
They must have some big economies somewhere they aren't talking about to make this profitable.
Re:Miss (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Miss (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Miss (Score:5, Informative)
A bit more subtle: The transmitter is using a phased array, and the locking phase is a reflection of the signal from the ground. This is a completely fail-safe system: It doesn't have a machine that says "reference signal gone": if the reference signal disappears, the beam turns into a glow by the laws of physics, not by any allegedly safe automation. And the beam can *only* be aimed at something with an appropriate reflector, so even a mad scientist cannot redirect the beam to a city.
Re:Miss (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the laws of physics prevent the system from generating a beam without the ground reflector? I don't think so.
Explain it or I call bullshit. To be honest, I'll probably still call bullshit, but you deserve a chance anyway.
Translation: "I am already locked into believing that this technology is dangerous, and no matter how much solid scientific evidence you provide to the contrary, I will continue to believe that."
And for the record, the GP is right: without the reflection from the ground station, the transmitter cannot form a coherent beam.
Re:Miss (Score:5, Informative)
No, they cause all the transmitters to drift out of phase, so that instead of a coherent beam, you have a wide-angle glow. Transmission is done by a phased-array antenna, as used on most modern radar systems. If these all transmit in a carefully calculated phase relationship, interference directs all the energy into a tight beam. If the phase between the transmitters is random, which it will become if not positively locked to a reference beam, all interference disappears and the energy is dissipated in all directions. All you have to do is ensure that the reference phase is derived not from on board, but from the ground: when the reference beam disappears the transmitters lose phase and the beam broadens into nothing. The transmitters will probably lose lock easily anyway, but you can deliberately unstable if you want. To start the system requires someone on the ground to fire a fairly powerful beam from the target area up to the satellite; to maintain it requires a well-aligned reflector.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A phased-array antenna at 2.45 GHz still has a rather wide beam. I would say that a parabolic reflector has a narrower beam than a phased-array antenna - especially at 2.45 GHz. If this were operating at a higher frequency, then sure, you can get a pretty tight beam, but then you start having other atmospheric absorption problems. Rain would be terrible at just about any higher frequency, not to mention oxygen and nitrogen also start absorbing the higher in frequency you go.
Plus - a really tight beam has
Re:Miss (Score:5, Funny)
Satellite in geostable orbit. Receiving station on equator. Receiving station emits guiding signal to satellite, causing satellite to beam power to earth. If the guiding signal is missing, the satellite stops beaming power and starts using that power to adjust it's position. That's how I'd do it.
That's nice and all, but how about this: If the beam goes off-target, the satellite cranks the output up to full power, obliterating whatever it happens to be pointed at. This will create a bright column of light visible to cameras at the receiving station. Based on which direction this shaft of annihilation is from the station, the ground station transmits instructions to the satellite of which way to adjust the beam, walking it back onto the target and creating a massive swath of destruction in the process.
That's how I'd do it.
Re:Miss (Score:5, Informative)
If you're talking about attitude of a spacecraft in orbit, then as a matter of fact, there are purely electric systems: magnetic torquers [everything2.com]. Lots of satellites use them, including Hubble.
Re:Miss (Score:5, Informative)
Changing electrical energy into thrust? You got it [wikipedia.org]. Space agencies have been using it for years. And, as an added bonus, it makes a neat blue glow when you do it!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That ionizes Xenon gas to produce the thrust, you still need the fuel which is the gas. That is changing electrical energy and a fuel into thrust.
I want a purely electrical one, no gas, nothing consumed like ablating a surface.
Plus the ion engine dont have enough newton impulse to do station keeping for a satellite. at least the last time I looked at them they did not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Somehow I think I'm being trolled, but let's clear these up anyhow.
1. With the horror stories about living near power lines, and cell phone usage, what possibke problems could a massive beam of energy blasting from overhead cause?
As those are all false, it's a non-issue.
2. Terrorist with a simple transmitter causing the beam to come down into a nearby city.
Terrorists with a transmitter with enough power to focus a basically harmless beam into a nearby city instead of, I don't know, just using a bomb to blow shit up are hardly a credible threat. Nice movie plot, though.
3. How to you intend on using a power beam to adjust a satellites position, without blasting random sites on the earth? I doubt you can make manouver as necessary without pointing the beam in all directions.
Physics not your strong point? Don't feel bad, most people aren't physicists. But you should avoid expressing strong opinions about what's physically possible when you lack any understa
Science/tech illiteracy (Score:5, Informative)
But this hare-brained idea will heat the atmosphere
Fail.
Most power generation schemes are *heat engines.* The typical efficiency is less than 40%. Microwave transmission starts at 50% efficiency, and is likely to get better. For the same amount of electric power, you're going to have less waste heat than with coal, nuclear, or natural gas power plants.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My religion, or yours? (Score:5, Informative)
Based on Wolfram Alpha the Earth gets about 1.3 kW per square meter. with the earth being 6.4*10^6 m radius with find the area facing the sun is pi*r^2 = 1.28*10^14. Multiplied by the power gives 1.67*10^17 W hitting the earth. Now since the power company wants to sell 2*10^8 W of power we can conclude that the extra energy reaching the Earth would be in the region of 0.0000001%.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Luckily, I do, after a quick Wikipedia check on the Sun...
Actually, that's 1.368 kW/m^2 in orbit. In the form of sunlight.
I presume you're surprised by now, since it's not, in fact, "a few (at least) orders of magnitude higher"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That does in fact block a lot of energy. ever been in a total eclipse? I have, it get's cold! It's a incredible example of how much energy the sun actually get's to the earths surface.
Re:My religion, or yours? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, no, it won't heat the atmosphere significantly.
"Atmospheric heating from microwave loss" is another word for "atmospheric attenuation". The trick is you choose microwave frequencies that are not significantly absorbed by nitrogen, oxygen, and water (dihydrogen monoxide), and that knocks out your atmospheric attenuation problem right there.
This is Physics 102, people.
Your real losses are going to be in beamforming and beam wander. You fix beam wander by using a BIG receiving antenna (which also lets you use low power density in the beam: win-win).
Re:woot! (Score:5, Informative)
This is a dupe of http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/04/14/0317236/PGampE-Makes-Deal-For-Solar-Power-From-Space [slashdot.org]. They announced this in April.
Hell, the linked interview in summary is in the original story from MSNBC.com. This submission contains nothing new to add...
Re:woot! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just the lack of night, but not having the atmosphere block out a lot of light before it hits your solar cells.
Sim City was fiction. The microwave beams here aren't concentrated enough to be useful as any sort of weapon, either purposely or accidental. The frequencies choosen need to be transparent to water (since it'll have to cut through a lot of it to get to the surface), and the "beam" is spread over a wide area to make simple rectenna receivers possible.
Re:200MW. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Environmentalist's Fallacy
It goes something like this:
In reality, X produces far less overall pollution than Y.
I've seen this argument used to oppose:
All of these are great technologies. If we're ever to make any progress, we have to learn to think past the environmentalist's fallacy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Still the economics of this are a bit puzzling. In 2008, California used 285 million megawatt-hours [ca.gov] of electricity, so even if this project could generate 200 MW 24x7 that still comes to just 511,000 megawatt-hours per year, or a little under 0.2% of Californian consumption. At a wholesale price of $50 per megawatt-hour [doe.gov], that would earn Solaren about $25 million per year. Even over the fifteen year projected lifespan that comes to just $375 million (actually less if you take inflation into account). Is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That report is heavily biased, and overlooks details like the fact that microwave ovens are rated as such becasue the don't run for extended periods of time.
The exposure time from a beamed microwave signal will be for an extended period.
It also overlooks the fact that the math doesn't seem to add up.
None of that matter, becasue it is cost prohibitive compared to earth based solution.
For the cost of the launch alone, you could build a 200MW Solar thermal plant and have enough money to light cigars with 100 b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pointlessly distant. We know the distance to geosyncronous orbit too.
"we know it's movements"
We know the movements of geosynchronous satellites too.
"it doesn't involve putting up more floating space junk"
You mean besides the discarded booster rockets needed to get such a ridiculously further distance out just so we can deal with the difficulties of an additional gravity well?
"it's surface is always facing the sun"
If by "always", you mean half the time - 14 days out of every 28.
"unlik