Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Power

Is It Possible to Beam Solar Power From Outer Space? (cnn.com) 130

Posted by EditorDavid from the looking-on-the-bright-side dept.
"[F]or years it was written off," writes CNN. " 'The economics were just way out,' said Martin Soltau, CEO of the UK-based company Space Solar.

"That may now be changing as the cost of launching satellites falls sharply, solar and robotics technology advances swiftly, and the need for abundant clean energy to replace planet-heating fossil fuels becomes more urgent." There's a "nexus of different technologies coming together right now just when we need it," said Craig Underwood, emeritus professor of spacecraft engineering at the University of Surrey in the U.K. The problem is, these technologies would need to be deployed at a scale unlike anything ever done before... "The big stumbling block has been simply the sheer cost of putting a power station into orbit." Over the last decade, that has begun to change as companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin started developing reusable rockets. Today's launch costs at around $1,500 per kilogram are about 30 times less than in the Space Shuttle era of the early 1980s.

And while launching thousands of tons of material into space sounds like it would have a huge carbon footprint, space solar would likely have a footprint at least comparable to terrestrial solar per unit of energy, if not a smaller, because of its increased efficiency as sunlight is available nearly constantly, said Mamatha Maheshwarappa, payload systems lead at UK Space Agency. Some experts go further. Underwood said the carbon footprint of space-based solar would be around half that of a terrestrial solar farm producing the same power, even with the rocket launch...

There is still a huge gulf between concept and commercialization. We know how to build a satellite, and we know how to build a solar array, Maheshwarappa said. "What we don't know is how to build something this big in space..." Scientists also need to figure out how to use AI and robotics to construct and maintain these structures in space. "The enabling technologies are still in a very low technology readiness," Maheshwarappa said. Then there's regulating this new energy system, to ensure the satellites are built sustainably, there's no debris risk, and they have an end-of-life plan, as well as to determine where rectenna sites should be located. Public buy-in could be another huge obstacle, Maheshwarappa said. There can be an instinctive fear when it comes to beaming power from space.

But such fears are unfounded, according to some experts. The energy density at the center of the rectenna would be about a quarter of the midday sun. "It is no different than standing in front of a heat lamp," Hajimiri said.
The article argues that governments and companies around the world "believe there is huge promise in space-based solar to help meet burgeoning demand for abundant, clean energy and tackle the climate crisis." And they cite several specific examples:
  • In 2020 the U.S. Naval Research Lab launched a module on an orbital test vehicle, to test solar hardware in space conditions.
  • This year Caltech electrical engineering professor led a team that successfully launched a 30-centimeter prototype equipped with transmitters — and successfully beamed detectable energy down to earth.
  • The U.S. Air Force Research Lab plans to launch a small demonstrator in 2025.
  • Europe's its Solaris program aims to prove "the technical and political viability of space-based solar, in preparation for a possible decision in 2025 to launch a full development program."
  • One Chinese spacecraft designer and manufacturer hopes to send a solar satellite into low orbit in 2028 and high orbit by 2030, according to a 2022 South China Morning News report.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is It Possible to Beam Solar Power From Outer Space? More

Is It Possible to Beam Solar Power From Outer Space?

Comments Filter:

  • All they need to do is watch Gundam 00 to see how vast solar arrays in space can provide limitless energy to the world.

  • Probably possible, not worth the effort (Score:3)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Saturday December 30, 2023 @01:40PM (#64117235)
    If we can beam power from space, we can put solar farms in North Africa and beam it to Europe. It will be far easier to send repair men there.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Space based solar works 24/7 if you position it correctly.

    • I'm always astounded people plaster arable land with solar panels. Just because you may not be farming it right now doesn't mean that growing grass or trees aren't making their own contribution to the globe.

      Absolutely the only places solar panels should be installed is on rooftops, concreted areas, and desert. Anywhere the sunlight does not have a useful purpose.

      Anywhere anything biologically benefits from sunlight should not be covered in solar panels.

      On the topic of beaming power from space - this i

      • I'm always astounded people plaster arable land with solar panels. Just because you may not be farming it right now doesn't mean that growing grass or trees aren't making their own contribution to the globe.

        Absolutely the only places solar panels should be installed is on rooftops, concreted areas, and desert. Anywhere the sunlight does not have a useful purpose.

        Anywhere anything biologically benefits from sunlight should not be covered in solar panels.

        You can do both at once: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by catprog ( 849688 )

        https://reneweconomy.com.au/so... [reneweconomy.com.au]

        “The sheep we are running have actually done better than the sheep under normal farming conditions,” says Keith.

  • I'd overlooked launch cost changes (Score:3)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Saturday December 30, 2023 @01:41PM (#64117239)

    I've always been a champion of space-based solar. Once you have your station in place, it's zero-carbon power until the platform fails. It's incredibly safe to beam power from the satellites to a rectenna farm - the systems are self-aiming.

    Basically, if you can get a microwave beam and a large solar array into high orbit, you've just given 'free' power to wherever that beam points. No dams flooding ecosystems, no nuclear waste accumulation, no CO2 release, no vast areas of land covered with solar panels, and no dependence on season, time of day, or weather.

    If the revolution in space access SpaceX started has brought the launch price down to something anywhere near competitive, we should be building experimental space power systems right now.

    • Itâ(TM)s not free unless you overlook the costs of launch, maintenance, upkeep, repairs, and eventual replacement. Even with all of those costs accounted for, it still might be worthwhile, but then again it might not be.
      Iâ(TM)m particularly wondering about the longevity of these systems in the face of space debris and/or deliberate attack. If/when your nation starts to rely on them, they would become a high-value target for hostile nations and they would be very difficult to defend.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        While most of our energy will be extremely cheap renewables in future, there will be maybe 5% that is more expensive. It will require pricey things like fossil fuels with carbon capture, nuclear, or space based solar.

        As for security, all other centralised generation makes an easy target that is hard to defend too. At least an attack won't cause a nuclear accident.

    • The issue is the scale. This would be the single largest thing humanity has ever built by orders of magnitude.

      Beaming microwave power isn't new, but it's not lossless. I believe Japan did a 10km experiment and it was over 90% loss. Being a signal isn't the same as beaming power; i.e. the Voyager signals from edge of solar system. With signal you just need a sensitive enough antenna to get the info. If the goal is getting useful power out, then the strength of the received signal matters. Inverse

      • >This would also need to be in geo stationary orbit

        Why? For full infrastructure with 100% coverage you could have multiple satellites switching receiving stations as they orbit. They really only have to be high enough you don't have to constantly boost them due to atmospheric drag, and you could be 1/30th the way to GEO and have that benefit.

        • I think they are right on this one. It's hard to see the advantage of easier heavy lift and serviceability in LEO being enough to justify the loss of availability. GEO Orbital solar works at night and is only eclipsed for brief periods per day (around local midnight, averaging 30 minutes) for about a month before and after each equinox. In LEO your availability goes way down, and you also have larger headaches of drag, pointing and beamforming to a variable distance receiver.

          • Point being there's MEO, and that's a lot of range to play with.

            • wouldn't geostationary speed at less than geostationary orbit mean orbit decay? if it has to boost, now it has to be much stronger/heavier to handle that stress.

              It's a fabulous idea that's gone from pure fantasy to maybe technically doable but ridiculously expensive but still is beyond our realistic means when other options exist for much less.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            The advantage of being in a lower orbit is much easier pointing and especially beam forming. You need a much smaller antenna in orbit to hit a given size antenna on the surface.

    • The fact that SpaceX isn't already doing it themselves seems to strongly imply that the numbers still don't add up, because otherwise it would be right up their alley, like Starlink.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Not really SpaceX's thing. Starlink is designed to create demand for launches by polluting LEO with thousands of satellites. Cybertruck was supposed to make the steel needed for Starship cheaper by increasing demand.

        Basically Musk only cares if it furthers his goals, and space based solar doesn't need as many launches as spamming LEO for internet access. Maybe if Starship needs a Shuttle style cargo bay or something like that.

    • Experimental , special use cases such as power to remote locations this could be worth a try. But apprehensive putting more space debris when there r alternatives. Nuke m Danno. Or solar with storage on earth.

  • Not quite that simple (Score:5, Informative)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Saturday December 30, 2023 @01:45PM (#64117251)

    That $1,500 per Kg is for low-earth orbits which are unsuitable for beaming power back to earth because they can't focus their energy on a single location on the planet's surface.

    The price I saw quoted for boosting payloads into geostationary orbits (which is a lot further out and requires a lot more energy) was $11,300 per Kg (cite [wikipedia.org]) which is a *lot* more expensive.

    • >The price I saw quoted for boosting payloads into geostationary orbits (which is a lot further out and requires a lot more energy) was $11,300 per Kg (cite) which is a *lot* more expensive.

      SpaceX was publishing $67m to put 8300kg into GTO, or $8k/kg in 2022, and is promising its next generation rocket will cut that much further.

      GTO does mean your payload has to have some thrust capacity of its own to circularize its orbit to a more standard GEO, and I'm afraid I do not have the ability to do the math on

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rbrander ( 73222 )

        Well, if you have to have multiple stations, then your weight per watt - and solar-cell costs per watt - just tripled or whatever.

        About that weight: never mind "normal" solar panels that are 10kg/m2 at minimum. "Thin Film" are wikipedia'd at 7-10 oz. Let's say 5 oz in future, to allow for progress. That's 1.3kg/m2. (that means squared, tiring to type ^ all the time).

        And let's drop launch costs to $1000/kg, I want to be sporting. So $1300/m2 in space. 1M m2/km2, so 1.3Billion/km2
        We will wave awa

        • >, if you have to have multiple stations, then your weight per watt - and solar-cell costs per watt - just tripled or whatever.

          If you put up multiple satellites and build multiple receivers, your mass per watt and cost per watt remain the same... you're just building a bigger base network.

      • GTO does mean your payload has to have some thrust capacity of its own to circularize its orbit

        The photovoltaic film would double as a solar sail. It is large and light-weight.

    • That $1,500 per Kg is for low-earth orbits which are unsuitable for beaming power back to earth because they can't focus their energy on a single location on the planet's surface.

      The price I saw quoted for boosting payloads into geostationary orbits (which is a lot further out and requires a lot more energy) was $11,300 per Kg (cite [wikipedia.org]) which is a *lot* more expensive.

      What about a large space based solar array combined with a battery bank/super capacitors and a good phased array xmit antenna so you can aim and jam or fry enemy satellites yet innocently claim it’s a power station to avoid the space weapons treaties? Looks like it would make an excellent weapon far before it would bring any kind of reasonably cost bulk power back down to earth.

    • Why not just pull a Starlink and stop worrying about 1:1 relationships with fixed points on earth?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by catprog ( 849688 )

        The problem with LEO is not aiming, it is a case of the generator is in the shadow of the Earth.

        At that point you lose the one adventage over ground based solar.

  • ...then you have a problem. We are little tiny things, that are merely part of the collective scum that covers that big round thing that you might have noticed under your feet. If you put too much energy into the big round thing--it hurts the scum that is over it--which you are part of.

  • Doesn't the sun already do this? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Saturday December 30, 2023 @01:51PM (#64117269) Homepage

    We have this giant ball of fire in the sky, that constantly beams power down to earth, in the form of heat.

    But what about at night, or when it's cloudy? Yes, there's a potential for orbital power stations to cover those scenarios. But the question is not, "Is it possible?" but rather "Is it cheaper than building earth-based solar power generators, combined with power storage for nighttime." If it's not cheaper, then what's the point, exactly?

    And then there's the air pollution caused by all those rocket launches, which is not insignificant.

    • Yeah, it's really just a great sci fi idea that is technically grounded in some science, but realities get in the way.

      I could see it for certain locations, such as arctic/antarctic bases etc where you simply can't do solar. At that point the 'costs' of ground based power are higher to make a space based concept a little more palatable - but even so, panels everywhere else and diesel gens for very small bases still comes out cheaper even if a little co2 is released. Or even off site solar produced hydr

      • I could see it for certain locations, such as arctic/antarctic bases etc where you simply can't do solar.

        That’s what an RTG battery excels at already, for far less cost, even in snow or clouds which can affect the efficiency of beaming down power. Probably something like 1,000 to 10,000 times cheaper per watt and runs for years to decades.

  • But such fears are unfounded, according to some experts. The energy density at the center of the rectenna would be about a quarter of the midday sun. "It is no different than standing in front of a heat lamp," Hajimiri said.

    If it only has 25% the energy density of solar... then we would just use solar, no? There's no point in collecting the energy in space and beaming it down to earth if we can only transmit 25% of what the sun does. It would be simpler just to use more solar panels on the surface then.

    Any microwave beaming of power back to the earth, ABSOLUTELY will have enough energy density to be deadly, otherwise the level of energy we are getting is negligible and it would be pointless.

    • >Any microwave beaming of power back to the earth, ABSOLUTELY will have enough energy density to be deadly, otherwise the level of energy we are getting is negligible and it would be pointless.

      The boffins insist this intuitive answer is absolutely incorrect, and I suspect they know more about it that either of us.

    • A few clarifications.

      The big reason for building orbital solar is that it works at night, when it rains, and when it snows. The availability of light to panels on the surface is under 50% accounting for weather and nighttime. Above the atmosphere at GEO it's 95% and you get significantly more power per square meter too. The 5% outages are due to eclipses, and those are mathematically predictable.

      The energy density delivered to the rectennas on earth is a function of how clever we can be with beamforming

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      No.

      The 25% energy density is concentrated in the range of wavelengths your rectenna is most efficient at absorbing. Solar energy is not, and worse, the wasted solar energy heats up your cells which makes them less efficient.

      Despite your confidence, there's a wee bit more to it than you think.

  • This came up years ago on /. and I stopped to look up the papers on losses from
    a) electricity to microwaves
    b) loss in transmission
    c) microwaves to electricity ...and they add up to over 50%. So, ground-based loses 75% (dark half the time, and half more lost unless you expensively point the panel at the sun all the time, then there's weather.)

    So, space-based produces 2X as much power for the same acreage of cells.

    If you can launch 100 km^2 into space for the expense of where you were going to put 200 km^2

    • > If you can launch 100 km^2 into space for the expense of where you were going to put 200 km^2 on the ground where the rectenna would have been, you can break even.

      Ground is harder to come by in the middle of the ocean.

      But maybe they should use sails instead of solar microwaves from space.

  • You know the ground exists, right? You can just build the solar panels on the ground. What little you gain by putting things in space doesn't offset the cost. Are thermal batteries and liquid air batteries (basically anti-thermal batteries) expensive at grid scale? Yes. Are they more expensive than lifting all that mass of solar panels into space? Hell-fucking no. Every plan on the subject ever put forth always ignores the much cheaper and easier alternative because the architect of the plan just wants his

  • The Sun does it 0-24 so it should not be that complicated.

  • Bullshit Bulletpoints (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sudonim2 ( 2073156 ) on Saturday December 30, 2023 @02:22PM (#64117349)

    In 2020 the U.S. Naval Research Lab launched a module on an orbital test vehicle, to test solar hardware in space conditions.

    That was testing solar panel tech that's used to power satellites, not stuff on the ground.

    This year Caltech electrical engineering professor led a team that successfully launched a 30-centimeter prototype equipped with transmitters — and successfully beamed detectable energy down to earth.

    This is otherwise known as a radio transmitter and a rectifying antenna. You can buy them at Radioshack. Well, no you can't. But you could buy them at Radioshack back when Radioshack sold actual radio electronics equipment.

    In June the U.K. government announced over $5 million in funding to universities and tech companies "to drive forward innovation" in the space-based solar sector.

    That's a Tory grift to funnel money to supporters. Also known as a kickback.

    The U.S. Air Force Research Lab plans to launch a small demonstrator in 2025.

    From the article: "The goal of SOLARIS is to prepare the ground for a possible decision in 2025 on a full development programme by establishing the technical, political and programmatic viability of Space-Based Solar Power for terrestrial clean energy needs."

    It's a proposal to begin a fact finding committee to organize an investigation into the possibility of a research program. Which is bureaucratic-speak for, "This is how we waste money for twelve years then say nothing came of it."

    Europe's its Solaris program aims to prove "the technical and political viability of space-based solar, in preparation for a possible decision in 2025 to launch a full development program."

    Same as above.

    One Chinese spacecraft designer and manufacturer hopes to send a solar satellite into low orbit in 2028 and high orbit by 2030, according to a 2022 South China Morning News report.

    This is just a scam. It might actually just be propaganda; it might just be a scam without a scam.

  • If you have X kWh in space, you can simply install 5*X on ground and easy to maintain it, keep up to date and replace, and simply add a physical or electro-chemical battery or whatever method to store the energy : it will still be far far more efficient than sending stuff in orbit , even at 1000$ per Kg, have them fail through micrometeorite or degrade, mis-align the beam back etc.... Really, space solar make zero sense whatsoever even at 120$ pr pound.

    • In orbit neither night nor season need affect you.

      Overnight and dunkelflaute surviving storage are hard.

      • Beaming back the energy from your installation in space in concentrated and safe manner would be magnitude harder - the microwave beam would need a very large collector surface and near the point of usage... Degradataion would be more significant with the large collective surface (micrometeorite, cosmic ray, solar storm) It is much easier to do something on the ground, and find a way to store it, than try to get that power from space on the ground. Not even counting, to make sense you would need a quite lar

        • Ironically the best place to beam the power to is... a solar installation, because you can design the solar panels to also be receiving rectennas.

          It's not an either-or, you can have both.

  • If the Master allows it (Score:3)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Saturday December 30, 2023 @02:46PM (#64117397)

    There is no master but Master, and QT-1 is His prophet .

  • What happens to them? Definitely birds will, but planes and such will too.

  • Geez... it's like the person who posted this has never read Slashdot before.

    Almost every question asked in a Slashdot headline ends up getting answered in a negative!

  • If thin film PV with no protective covering can survive in space, then you can put a whole lot of it there with not a lot of weight. Not solar panels, just a couple of kilometre of solar ribbon kept taught by centrifugal force. Solar wind is probably going to implant and slowly destroy the PV though, maybe you could string some wires to divert the charged particles with an electrostatic field? Might also help with the amount of solar wind force it catches.

    Then you just need a klystron and a huge rectenna ar

  • wirelessly transmit electricity? which kind? AC or DC most likely AC at a high frequency (whats the frequency kenneth?) will it cause harmonics and RFI on other radio frequencies? whats to stop it from charging other things that have natural capacitance to hold a charge? grannys flower pots blow up on the patio, various electronics go bad, i think high voltage should be confined to wires

    • Didn't Darth Vader do that from the Death Star? Wait, I don't think the Death Star was solar powered, knowing his evil mind it probably ran on fossil fuel and polluted the Galaxy with greenhouse gasses...

    • Most likely a Klystron sending microwaves to a field of rectennas.

      Klystron is the only way to get the needed beam quality AFAICS.

  • In a word, yes - the Sun has been doing just that since, well, forever!

  • And then it gets hacked and used as a weapon to fill a house full of popcorn until it explodes.

  • Just Stupid (Score:2, Interesting)

    by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 )

    We have a hard enough time shedding the energy that is already hitting us from the sun, and they want to double down and increase the amount of energy the earth has to absorb from the sun. Just stupid.

    We need to cool the earth, so what do they propose? Gathering up huge amounts of energy in space, finding a way to concentrate it, and then send it to earth to be turned into mechanical energy and more heat (that pesky nothing is 100% efficient thing). On top of the energy that is already striking the earth.

  • If you have a way to collect and beam down high power energy beams in some focused way, so the collector on the ground is some reasonable size, you have an orbital energy beam that can incinerate whatever you point it at.

    You probably don't want one of those up there. Even if the people who control it are friendly, have you seen the quality of spacecraft data link security lately?

    You're proposing the terror weapon to end all terror weapons.

    You're better off making a ground based solar concentrator rather tha

  • "This year Caltech electrical engineering professor led a team that successfully launched a 30-centimeter prototype equipped with transmitters — and successfully beamed detectable energy down to earth."

    The first satellite ever launched, Sputnik, successfully beamed "detectable" energy down to Earth.

    The Caltech test did the same thing, at about the same power level, 66 years later.

    They managed to word the press release in a way that made it sound impressive, but it wasn't. They detected a radio signa

  • but not until the usual suspects get their tribute billions guaranteed.

  • Isn't this what the "Microwave Power Plant" did in SimCity 2000? A solar collector in orbit would power a microwave laser and "beam" the power down to a receiver in your city. Occasionally the beam would "miss" the receiver and start a huge fire... I wouldn't want to live anywhere near one of those things.

  • Let's assume that the only advantage of space-based is that it can produce stable power 24/7 from geostationary orbit and thus doesn't need storage (any differences in efficiency or amount of power is simply a potential mass reduction). How much would a traditional land-based photovoltaic and storage system cost that can provide constant stable power 24/7 (meaning it has to be over-spec'ed to provide a certain minimum amount of power even on days with poor weather conditions)? Your space-based power system,

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close