Japan building space-based power plant

In summary, Japan is developing a 1-gigawatt solar station in space with the hopes of having it operational within three decades. This station will be fitted with four square kilometers of solar panels and will be able to generate power from the sun regardless of weather conditions. This project is estimated to cost $21 billion, which is equivalent to providing power for 294,000 Tokyo homes. However, there are concerns about the practicality and cost effectiveness of this project, especially when compared to alternative options such as investing in fusion energy research.
  • #1
Mk
2,043
4
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aF3XI.TvlsJk [Broken]
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=why-not-spend-21-billion-on-solar-p-2009-09-02
Japan is developing the technology for the 1-gigawatt solar station, fitted with four square kilometers of solar panels, and hopes to have it running in three decades, according to a 15- page background document prepared by the trade ministry in August. Being in space it will generate power from the sun regardless of weather conditions, unlike earth-based solar generators, according to the document. One gigawatt is enough to supply about 294,000 average Tokyo homes.
Well this should be interesting. Japan is one of the leading nations in nuclear power and is not afraid to make breakthroughs in technology and engineering.

I remember when I was 7 years old and would play Sim City 3000. The best power plant you could build was the one where satellites would beam down a maser of energy generated from solar radiation. The future will be cool. :biggrin:

Future aircraft and avians will have to watch out to avoid getting fried.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Raise your hand if you think this will happen?









Didn't think so.

Some interesting tidbits from the articles:
($21 billion) Japanese project intending to build a giant solar-power generator in space within three decades...

the 1-gigawatt solar station
Assuming all of that is accurate, they are intending to provide the equivalent power of 1 nuclear reactor for twice the cost and taking twice as long to build (assuming pessimistic estimates for the nuclear plant and including US-like regulatory hurdles).
And other government agency estimates put the price tag for space solar at $1 billion per megawatt
So existing US government research/studies imply they are off in their price estimate by a factor of 5.

B-O-O-N-D-O-G-G-L-E.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I am with Russ, this is just too expensive. Another problem, the geocentric orbits are already crowded, at least over areas where you would need the power, so I doubt that there is room in that orbit for the huge antenna needed for this project. Now if they do not put the power station in a geocentric orbit a single receiving station is not possible. Now you need to first track the receiving station, then make a jump to the next as it comes over the horizon.
 
  • #4
If Japan doesn't build this where will James Bond go to save the world and enjoy Asian cuisine? Recall the last time he was in Japan they were sending russian rockets into space out of a volcano and hijacking US space capsules.

youonlylivetwice2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Its a cool idea and while it will work I just don't think it is cost effective. I think there are more than one companies working on the same concept although I don't think any have proven it to be economically viable. One of my professors has a pretty good blog write up about this, I'll see if I can find it.
 
  • #6
I welcome our space based giant magnifying glass overlords.
 
  • #7
That's a mere $70,000 per home - what a deal!

Maybe they could offset some of their development costs by magnetizing it - to collect space junk for a fee.
 
  • #8
why not pour that money behind iter and get us fusion energy faster?
 
  • #9
Ian_Brooks said:
why not pour that money behind iter and get us fusion energy faster?
Because the money doesn't exist. USEF is a small think-tank/quango outside the Japanese space agency.

They are no more likely to actually build or launch this than when some darpa funded researcher at a US university talks about legions of flesh eating robot zombie soldiers.
 
  • #10
mgb_phys said:
Because the money doesn't exist. USEF is a small think-tank/quango outside the Japanese space agency.

They are no more likely to actually build or launch this than when some darpa funded researcher at a US university talks about legions of flesh eating robot zombie soldiers.

Maybe there's a little room in the stimulus plan for a little joint venture?
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
Raise your hand if you think this will happen?
Didn't think so.

Some interesting tidbits from the articles: Assuming all of that is accurate, they are intending to provide the equivalent power of 1 nuclear reactor for twice the cost and taking twice as long to build (assuming pessimistic estimates for the nuclear plant and including US-like regulatory hurdles). So existing US government research/studies imply they are off in their price estimate by a factor of 5.

B-O-O-N-D-O-G-G-L-E.
Since when have boondoggle projects been deprived of funding? :wink:
Five, ten years ago the Japanese could not find enough boondoggles to fund. There's the airport without planes, and this http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/25/world/economic-stimulus-in-japan-priming-a-gold-plated-pump.html" [Broken] extension that nobody needed.

So no hands raised if you phrase the question "Is this a practical alternative", but phrased "if you think this will happen", and they gave themselves 30 years - you might well lose that bet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
not sure boondoggle is the right word here. it's a proof of concept. lots of engineering will go into designing something that hasn't been built before. but if there's anything the japanese are good at, it's building thousands of them smaller and cheaper.

or, maybe it's just a japanese cash-for-clunkers program. keeps their economy "stimulated" and keeps scientists and engineers and whatever technological know-how they've accumulated in-country.

in any case, it's a lot less silly than lunar/mars missions.
 
  • #13
Another thought occurs: if space based solar power is placed in the same category as space exploration, especially manned, i.e. do it because a) we-want-to-see-if-we-can, and b) we'll make scientific and engineering advances along the way, then this project wins out in my mind over collecting another bag of rocks from the Moon, or even the first from Mars.
 
  • #14
mheslep said:
Since when have boondoggle projects been deprived of funding? :wink:
Five, ten years ago the Japanese could not find enough boondoggles to fund. There's the airport without planes, and this http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/25/world/economic-stimulus-in-japan-priming-a-gold-plated-pump.html" [Broken] extension that nobody needed.
The difference is in whether it will happen or not. Building a subway no one needs is still a functional subway. This project is not even intended to happen. The MO is the same as Bush's promised trip to Mars:

1. Promise the moon (or Mars, or in this case, the Sun). Be sure the timeline of your promise far exceeds your term in office.
2. Attach a cost to it. It doesn't matter if the cost is realistic or not, attaching a cost shows commitment.
3. Put together a funding schedule that starts with small-scale studies for you, now; and real engineering and development costs that have to be comitted by someone else, a few years from now.
4. Commit just enough funds to the project to keep a few hundred engineers running around on hamster wheels, generating reports, until your term in office expires.
5. Leave office and hand the completely worthless project off to your successor.

This just in:
WASHINGTON — A White House panel of independent space experts says NASA's return-to-the-moon plan just won't fly.
The problem is money. The expert panel estimates it would cost about $3 billion a year beyond NASA's current $18 billion annual budget.

"Under the budget that was proposed, exploration beyond Earth is not viable," panel member Edward Crawley, a professor of aeronautics at MIT, told The Associated Press Tuesday.

The report gives options to President Obama, but said NASA's current plans have to change. Five years ago, then-President George W. Bush proposed returning astronauts to the moon by 2020. To pay for it, he planned on retiring the shuttle next year and shutting down the international space station in 2015.

All those deadlines have to change, the panel said. Space exploration would work better by including other countries and private for-profit firms, the panel concluded.

The panel had previously estimated that the current plan would cost $100 billion in spending to 2020.

Former NASA associate administrator Alan Stern said the report showed the harsh facts that NASA's space plans had "a mismatch between resources and rhetoric." Now, he said, Obama faces a choice of "essentially abandoning human spaceflight" or paying the extra money.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-08-nasa-future_N.htm
Raise your hand if this surprises you.







Didn't think so.

So no hands raised if you phrase the question "Is this a practical alternative", but phrased "if you think this will happen", and they gave themselves 30 years - you might well lose that bet.
No, I'd bet my house on it...well, maybe my car.

Possible exception: The ISS has been kicked-around since the early '80s. I toured a life-sized mockup of the then Space Station Freedom when I went to Space Camp in around 1989 (also in the hanger, a life-sized mockup of the Shuttle-C to heft it into orbit). I fully believe Reagan intended this to happen and he comitted real development money to the project, but the timeline still required commitment across multiple administrations, making it difficult to sustain/complete the project.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
russ_watters said:
...

No, I'd bet my house on it...well, maybe my car.
Tempting bet, unless you drive an clunker.
 
  • #16
Proton Soup said:
not sure boondoggle is the right word here. it's a proof of concept.
If you are referring to this:
The trade ministry and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, which are leading the project, plan to launch a small satellite fitted with solar panels in 2015, and test beaming the electricity from space...
...you are reading something into it that isn't there. Don't worry - it is intentionally misleading:

-The actual work being started is 4 years of research on wireless power transfer. No promise of even a prototype/proof of concept delivery was attached to that (in the article). That's in paragraph 2, which contains the only real news in the entire article.
-4 years doesn't take you to 2015, so we cannot conclude from the article that the proof of concept satellite is being funded. The timeline mismatch and lack of a statement about a deliverable in the one paragraph of real news implies that it isn't.

This is funding for 4 years of running engineers around in hamster wheels, nothing more.
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
The difference is in whether it will happen or not. Building a subway no one needs is still a functional subway.
This space gizmo in no way disables the existing power grid. I'm sure it will be much less obtrusive than all the torn up subway streets. Worse case they're out $20B worth of tax yen.

This project is not even intended to happen. The MO is the same as Bush's promised trip to Mars:

1. Promise the moon (or Mars, or in this case, the Sun). Be sure the timeline of your promise far exceeds your term in office.
2. Attach a cost to it. It doesn't matter if the cost is realistic or not, attaching a cost shows commitment.
3. Put together a funding schedule that starts with small-scale studies for you, now; and real engineering and development costs that have to be committed by someone else, a few years from now.
4. Commit just enough funds to the project to keep a few hundred engineers running around on hamster wheels, generating reports, until your term in office expires.
5. Leave office and hand the completely worthless project off to your successor.
Yep, trouble is many real long term big ticket programs have that same look in the beginning. The ISS as you note was/is a good example. Heck subways are often a 10-20 year gig.

This the country of space borne Godzilla foes. I think they're due for something like this.
 
  • #18
mheslep said:
Tempting bet, unless you drive an clunker.
2004 Mazda 6i, 102,000 miles. I'd guess it is worth about $8 grand. I love that car. But I consider this easy money.

Would you also like to bet on Australia's "Solar Tower"? Remember that one?
 
  • #19
mheslep said:
This space gizmo in no way disables the existing power grid. I'm sure it will be much less obtrusive than all the torn up subway streets.
You missed my point. The subway was built. This solar transmitter will not be built. One is a boondoggle that costs $1B and is built, the other is a boondoggle that is projected to cost $40B, but $1B is spent and it produces nothing.
 
  • #20
russ_watters said:
You missed my point. The subway was built. This solar transmitter will not be built.
I get it, I get it.
One is a boondoggle that costs $1B and is built,
$10B
the other is a boondoggle that is projected to cost $40B,
$21B
but $1B is spent and it produces nothing.
Nothing spent yet by Japan, per those original articles.

These projects can get built in one-offs if there's enough excitement about them: inefficient California wind turbines in the 70s, same with the the 30-40 year old 'Solar One' solar thermal plant. Remember we're not talking about an entire industry here, just one bunch o' floating mirrors. And I need only one to collect your ride. I'd say if it happens they'll scale it down to 100-300MW. Does that get me a spare tire and your hood ornament?
 
Last edited:
  • #22
mheslep said:
Remember we're not talking about an entire industry here, just one bunch o' floating mirrors. And I need only one to collect your ride. I'd say if it happens they'll scale it down to 100-300MW. Does that get me a spare tire and your hood ornament?
100-300 MW would get you at least that, yeah, but what is more likely (if anything happens beyond what I speculated) is a proof of concept mirror of a few hundred (dozen?) kW that never gets scaled-up to full-size. That would be similar to:
Prototype was built in Spain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-EvV...layer_embedded
How many tires for that?
That gets you a finger-point and laugh.

The original Australian proposal was for a 1km tower. The current one calls for 400 m. That would fit your 100-300 kW speculation for the space solar if it ever happens, which it won't. The proof of concept tower in Spain is an unrelated project, but if the Australian company had started with the intention of a 1 km tower (not sure the kW) and ended with a 195 m, 50 kW tower, they'd get nothing more than a giggle out of me.
 

1. What is a space-based power plant?

A space-based power plant is a proposed type of energy infrastructure that would capture solar energy in space and transmit it to Earth for use as electricity. It would consist of solar panels or mirrors in orbit around Earth, and a system for transmitting the energy to receivers on the ground.

2. Why is Japan interested in building a space-based power plant?

Japan has a limited amount of land and natural resources, including fossil fuels, making it difficult to meet its energy needs. By capturing solar energy in space, Japan could potentially harness a nearly unlimited source of clean energy, reducing dependence on imported fuels and decreasing carbon emissions.

3. How would the energy from a space-based power plant be transmitted to Earth?

There are several proposed methods for transmitting energy from a space-based power plant to Earth. One is through microwave or laser beams, which would be received by antennas on the ground and converted into electricity. Another is through a system of cables or tethers connecting the power plant to a ground station.

4. What are the potential benefits of a space-based power plant?

If successful, a space-based power plant could provide a reliable and renewable source of energy to meet growing global demand. It could also reduce the need for fossil fuels and decrease greenhouse gas emissions, helping to mitigate climate change. Additionally, the technology and infrastructure developed for a space-based power plant could have other applications, such as powering space exploration missions.

5. What are the potential challenges and risks of building a space-based power plant?

There are several challenges and risks associated with building a space-based power plant. These include the high cost of developing and launching the necessary technology into space, and the potential for damage or failure of the infrastructure. There are also concerns about potential impacts on Earth's atmosphere and the environment, as well as potential safety and security concerns related to transmitting energy from space to Earth.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
817
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
52
Views
7K
  • General Engineering
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
11
Views
5K
Back
Top