NIMBYies in panic mode.
lol, what an insane idea…
A physical cable back to Earth is impossible, otherwise we’d already have space elevators.
Any other wireless transmission would have all the same weather problems and energy losses, it would be WAY cheaper to just build more solar panels on the ground.That sounds like the least economical way possible to build out solar.
The article is actually discussing a feasibility study for the far future (25 years from now as per the article):
For the first time, researchers from King’s College London have assessed the possible impact that generating solar energy in space could have for Europe. They found it could cut energy battery storage needs by more than two-thirds.
The study, published in Joule, analysed the potential of a design by NASA for solar generation, which is planned to be in use by 2050. The findings show the design could also save money by reducing the cost of the whole power system in Europe by up to 15%, including energy generation, storage and network infrastructure costs – an estimated saving of 35.9 billion euros per year.
Space-based solar power generation involves in-space continuous collection of solar energy. This involves placing large solar panels on satellites in orbit, where they are exposed to much more sunlight and can continuously collect energy without being affected by clouds or the day-night cycle. This energy would then be transmitted to one or more stations on Earth. It is then converted to electricity and delivered to the energy grid or batteries for storage.
It’s a cool idea and I’d imagine we’d need an array spanning the globe rather than just over one continent
(25 years from now as per the article)
Anything 20 years or more away is a pipe dream that isn’t likely to happen anywhere close to speculation.
You could build a circle of satellites on the dawn dusk line, just have them do polar orbits. I think there’s such a thing as a solar stationary orbit.
The thing is, 25 years isn’t really that far in the future. Not when you count all the lead in time. Firstly you have to invent the microwave power transmission array, that’s probably going to take it a decade, and that’s been optimistic, then you’ve somehow got to arrange to launch hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of solar power satellites, then you have to figure out a way for the satellites to transmit the energy to the transmission array, and you have to build the receiving array on earth.
It took them 10 months just to build our companies new building, and it’s the most generic thing you’ve ever seen. How are they going to do all this in 25 years?
All fun and games until a piece of space junk knocks into the satellite and you accidentally cut through the Dutch sea wall.
There would absolutely have to be safety measures on this to avoid that exact scenario from occurring. I cannot remember the author of the book right offhand, but there’s a book called PowerSat that goes through something very similar to this. As long as the beam is diffuse and not incredibly focused, it should be fine if something flies through it like a bird or if the beam gets knocked off course, it wouldn’t damage infrastructure. There would also need to be good auto cut off functionality built into the thing so that if it realized it was off target, maybe by like a focusing laser or something, it would automatically shut itself down.
I think this was one of the possible disasters that could happen in Sim City 2000
Or until sabotage happens, like with the baltic cables and pipes
that’s some easier said than done statement there
This energy would then be transmitted to one or more stations on Earth.
And how do you suppose to do that?
Beam the power from space like they do in Mirai Shounen Conan? Or space shuttles with batteries? Or a giant cable that somehow doesn’t break?
It’s not possible.
Feasible? Only time will tell. Possible? Caltech did it two years ago. Look up MAPLE. Wireless energy transfer to/from space was achieved.
At what scale? Milliwatts? Watts? On cloudy days?
This seems very much to fall into the “technically” possible, but impossible to scale realm.
Naw, you just beam it back to earth as a laser. That way you could highjack the signal and fill a house with popcorn kernals a to start a huge neighborhood block party.
Deathray!
That’s a real genius plan.
Microwaves or even Masers. This is nothing new, lot’s of studies and experiments. It’s not infeasible, efficiency not that bad either. But solarpanles on earth have only advantages, especially on roofs or walls.
RD1 generates power 99% of the year and collects solar radiation by autonomously redirecting its reflectors toward a concentrator to focus sunlight throughout each day. RD2 uses flat panels, with solar cells facing away from Earth and microwave emitters facing toward the Earth. RD2 generates power 60% of the year due to its limited capability to reposition itself or redirect solar radiation toward its solar cells.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230017756/downloads/ASCEND SBSP Final 05162024.pdf
It would probably be done with lasers. Its not perfect tech rn but it is possible. If not the most efficient for its price
The solar panel is easy, it’s the cable run that’s a real bitch
That, and wiping off the caked dust.
LoL
Yeah, sending it wirelessly would have massive loss, probably around 90%+
Are they really losses when the leaking, unfocused energy turns all buildings in a kilometer radius into microwave ovens? Just fill them up with popcorn packets and invite everyone over for movie night. We could watch one of the James Bond movies where the villain has an orbital deathray. I think there’s at least a couple of them.
I saw this documentary about a device that can concentrate solar energy, called a “Solex Agitator.” The project went sideways when this guy, who looked an awful lot like Christopher Lee, stole the prototype and tried to sell it to the highest bidder.
The British government somehow got involved and sent a spy to…
Wait… maybe that wasn’t a documentary.
It’s less about the loss and more about the space required for the receiver and the environmental hazard
Here’s the paper from NASA that this is based on.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230017756/downloads/ASCEND SBSP Final 05162024.pdf
Wouldn’t that bring more solar energy to earth and contribute to energy imbalance?
In short. Presumably the idea would be to 1. only beam down what is needed, and 2. have it replace fossil fuels, which are very much responsible for the change in the planet’s energy imbalance.
It would also reduce the energy cost of less efficient ‘on Earth’ solar arrays, which have problems like intermittency that orbital solar panels wouldn’t have.
IF this is anywhere near technically feasible it seems like exploring the idea publicly like this isn’t a bad thing.
BUT, after a couple decades of watching proposed miracle tech going nowhere, I can say that ultimately hopium really isn’t healthy: we needed to get real a decade or two (or three or four) ago. Relying on non-functioning future tech like carbon capture/storage (or this, if it isn’t actually feasible) is nothing more than justification for not making necessary changes now.
Trivial amounts compared to the solar energy hitting the entire surface of half the Earth.
The problem isn’t incoming energy, it’s outgoing energy. Greenhouse gases reduce the amount of energy radiated back into space and that’s what increases the mean global temperature.
Adding a few hundred square miles of surface area wouldn’t change much.
That’s not what they are talking about.
They’re talking about instability in the electrical grid. If we could just snap our fingers and have instant fusion power tomorrow we still couldn’t actually use it because the demand of electricity wouldn’t keep up with the supply.
Yes you can store power in batteries and via other methods but only to a certain point, you can consider that storage to just be demand, but beyond that you start to have issues with grid stability. You have to start inventing ways of wasting that power just to get rid of it. As more energy intensive technologies come online you make less and less use of that mitigating technology. Of course the better thing to do would be simply to keep supply roughly in line with demand, which means we don’t invent massive energy generating systems if we don’t yet need them.
They’re talking about instability in the electrical grid. If we could just snap our fingers and have instant fusion power tomorrow we still couldn’t actually use it because the demand of electricity wouldn’t keep up with the supply.
I’m not sure I understand. Our problem isn’t that we have too much electricity, it’s that the demand for electricity exceeds the production from renewable sources and forces us to rely on burning fossil fuels.
If we replaced all of the coal and gas generation with fusion it would be an immediate improvement. The energy output of controlled fusion can be adjusted in real-time to match the grid needs, exactly like fossil fuels generation.
One of the points of space based solar was that you don’t need batteries.
Terrestrial solar needs energy storage technology because the sun doesn’t shine at night. That’s not true for space based solar, it is always in the sun so the power output is reliable and controllable.
Space-based solar would generate orders of magnitude more power than we actually have a use for.
Is this the microwave power from space idea again? /wcgw…
solar panels on earth could reduce it 100%
Or just provide more subsidies for solar panels at residential home roofs
I think climate change mitigation can be the next scam after AI. Once AI bubble bursts they will start looking for new investments and I think climate change is ready to start generating profits. People are desperate enough to start investing money in things that will limit effect of climate change. Who will profit? Corporation that will work on those projects. Anything space related (solar panels in space, geoengineering) will require Space X/Blue Origin. Google, Microsoft and Amazon are already invested in nuclear fusion and modular reactors. Tesla is an energy provider. Any CO2 sequestration projects will require new startups, obviously backed by the same corporations. My guess is very soon we will see governments paying those companies to solve the problem they created. Even more money will be pumped to the 1%. It went form “climate change isn’t real”, to “climate change isn’t caused by humans”, to “it is caused by humans but nothing can be done about it”. Next step will be “we can fix it if you pay us”.
Pay to win is always the default in corporate world.
A good reminder of the definition of a parasite is it cannot live without a host. These corporations and capitalists can’t live without us but we can live without them which makes them a parasite.
The scammers are already all over it like flies on shit.
Fusion would be much more practical than beaming back power from space. I think the chance of seeing either of those by 2050 is about 0%.
Fusion does not exist and wouldn’t be in time if we started buildong commercial plants today. Low lead time is the only shot we have.
Space based solar has already been demonstrated, but will not provide substantial power since the receiver is basically a giant solar array and dead zone where life gets toasted.
Might as well just start building the dyson sphere instead
