More information on the UK’s work on space solar power plant from a previous article:
The vision sounds far-fetched: If a kilometer-scale satellite could be outfitted with a hybrid array of photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) panels and launched into orbit 22,400 miles above Earth, it could continuously harvest 3.4 GW of solar power and beam it down to Earth via microwave radiation for grid consumption, potentially delivering 2 GW of dispatchable and baseload power. But according to a “whole systems” set of detailed engineering and economic feasibility studies conducted by systems, engineering, and technology-oriented Frazer-Nash Consultancy for the UK government, this concept of a typical space-based solar power (SBSP) system is both technically and economically feasible—and it can be achieved within the next 18 years.
While still at an early stage of technical maturity, SBSP systems research and development has progressed steadily since the 1970s, spearheaded by several government space programs, including in the U.S., Japan, China, South Korea, and the European Union. And while it has existed for more than a century—it derives from Nicolas Tesla’s grand vision for wireless power transfer (WPT)—the world’s white-knuckle fight against climate change in the context of energy security, affordability, and scalability is making SBSP an extraordinarily attractive pursuit, noted Martin Soltau, lead of Frazer-Nash’s Space business, and a lead developer of the report for the UK government.
All well & good - however, the initial experiment only achieved 10% efficiency - where did the other 90% of the energy go? Even at 90% - something is happening with the remaining 10%; what? — That was the Japanese effort - not the Chinese test.
And the efficiency of the Chinese test (also over 55 meters) was what?
It will be interesting to see how they accomplish this.
It’s basically a gigantic power station in space…with a 2 GIGAWATT microwave transmitter consisting of tons of high power transmitter parts and failure points. It will have tons of failure points in wiring carrying thousands and thousands of amps, heat dissipation problems. The efficiency to convert electricity to microwave power is not all that great. Even at 70% efficiency, that’s 600 MEGAWATTS of power that has to be dissipated in space somehow. More likely 50%.
This isn’t going to be your usual geosynchronous satellite that might weigh under 10,000 lb.
In addition, you’re going to have means of keeping it ‘on station’ as all geosynchronous satellites drift and must be maintained in their orbit slots.
If you think the ISS did nothing, then why is China planning their own space station?
Oh, and you’ll need probably 10 square miles of desert somewhere to put the microwave receivers for this project…and maybe even more of a ‘restricted zone’ around that. I guess the Gobi desert would work fine. All you need is a couple tens or hundreds of of millions of new power lines out to there.
AGW! No denying that the warming was caused by humans!
The direct warming from human energy use is not significantly heating the planet. It is the CO2 released by getting that energy from fossil fuels that heats the planet.
The planet uses 5.8 x 10^20 Joules of energy per year. Climate science uses W/m^2 which is Joules per sec divided by the area of the planet. If I did the math right, the planet uses 0.036 W/m^2 of energy.
The CO2 we release traps outgoing infrared light and warms the planet about 1 W/m^2, or about 28 times as much as the heating from using the energy itself. This is good news. It means if we transition to clean energy, we can continue using the same amount of energy without significantly warming the planet.
Oh, and you’ll need probably 10 square miles of desert somewhere to put the microwave receivers for this project…and maybe even more of a ‘restricted zone’ around that. I guess the Gobi desert would work fine.
I was thinking somewhere on the Tibetan plateau to minimize the transit through the atmosphere.
The article said geostationary orbit which is on the order of 25,000 miles from the surface (Google will know for sure). I would image that the microwaves are plenty scattered over that distance.
My thought as well – scattering. So a lot of the microwave energy gets scattered and simply misses the receivers.
I was thinking somewhere on the Tibetan plateau to minimize the transit through the atmosphere.
If we are using geosynchronous satellites (which we are) then receivers on the equator makes the most sense. But not a lot of land mass along the equator, except in Africa and South America. Arizona and New Mexico make sense for us, being largely south and desert, but the angle of reception means the beam travels longer through the atmosphere.
The direct warming from human energy use is not significantly heating the planet. It is the CO2 released by getting that energy from fossil fuels that heats the planet.
Carbon dioxide accounts for about two-thirds of greenhouse gas forcing. And then there are land use changes.
“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,” said Stone… www.enn.com/articles/40693
The article said geostationary orbit which is on the order of 25,000 miles from the surface (Google will know for sure). I would image that the microwaves are plenty scattered over that distance. — My thought as well – scattering. So a lot of the microwave energy gets scattered and simply misses the receivers.
And the 10% efficiency was while transmitting a distance of 55 meters.
I was thinking somewhere on the Tibetan plateau to minimize the transit through the atmosphere. — If we are using geosynchronous satellites (which we are) then receivers on the equator makes the most sense.
How do you then get the power from the equator to China?
“If we are using geosynchronous satellites (which we are) then receivers on the equator makes the most sense. But not a lot of land mass along the equator, except in Africa and South America. Arizona and New Mexico make sense for us, being largely south and desert, but the angle of reception means the beam travels longer through the atmosphere”
Actually the tropics would be horrible because of cloud cover and lots of rain for the most part.
Carbon dioxide accounts for about two-thirds of greenhouse gas forcing. And then there are land use changes.
OK, sure. There’s also methane, and other things. My main point is that the actual energy we use and dump in the climate system as waste heat has little impact on the climate. We can keep our high energy lifestyle and not warm the planet if we change how we get the energy needed.
I find it hard to believe that the Chinese are the only ones with this insight.
They aren’t. Many people have dreamed about this for decades. The theory has been there, the engineering has not. Maybe now we can do it, and do it practically.
I wonder if this kind of research in the US is being stymied by the fossil fuel lobby? Anything based on solar or fusion is going to be a threat to the ruling oligarchy.
America thrives on corruption.
This is VERY wrong. America thrives on money. If there’s a way to make money from this, especially if it’s big money, it will be happen. No doubt about that. Furthermore, fossil fuels and their associated oligarchy is MUCH smaller today than they were 40 years ago, both in terms of power and their portion of the overall economy.
How do you then get the power from the equator to China?
The transmitter doesn’t have to point directly down. If it is is pointed at a slight angle, it can be aimed at many other places on earth. Same as all geostationary* communications satellites. And these don’t necessarily have to be geostationary, they could be geosynchronous.
geostationary are above the equator, geosynchronous matches the rotation of the earth.
There’s plenty of solar power out there, and about half gets to the surface. The problem is collecting it and then distributing it. Space based solar will have niche applications, but small local solar will always be more economical.
I definitely remember seeing discussion of the idea in the 1970s. The 1960s, I was too young - not even into reading SF yet.
In the early 1980’s I did a middle school science fair project on alternative energy. One of the solutions I showed was orbiting solar power stations with microwave transmission.