Are Solar Power Satellites the Future of Renewable Energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility and implications of Solar Power Satellites (SPS) as a potential future source of renewable energy. Participants explore various aspects, including technical challenges, energy generation potential, and public perception, as well as specific projects like the Furoshiki experiment.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the potential energy generation from SPS and the size required to impact energy needs, referencing the mean solar flux and efficiency of solar energy conversion.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the transmission of power from space to Earth, particularly the effectiveness of microwaves in penetrating obstacles like water and heavy clouds.
  • Participants discuss the size of the SPS and its potential output, with estimates suggesting a SPS could generate 5 billion watts, which is significantly larger than conventional power plants.
  • Some argue that political obstacles and public fear regarding microwave transmission from space could hinder the development of SPS technology.
  • There are differing views on the feasibility of the receiving array's size and its potential interference with aircraft systems, with suggestions for ocean-based receivers to mitigate issues.
  • One participant provides calculations regarding the mass and cost of launching a solar collector of significant size, inviting others to verify the numbers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the technical and political challenges of SPS, with no consensus on the feasibility or public acceptance of the technology. Multiple competing perspectives on the effectiveness of microwave transmission and the practicality of SPS remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about efficiency rates, the impact of weather on energy transmission, and the political landscape affecting public perception. The discussion also highlights unresolved mathematical calculations regarding the feasibility of SPS projects.

Vast
Messages
284
Reaction score
0
I’ve been wondering for a while now whether there were any projects on the drawing board for Solar Power Satellites, (SPS) and today I came across a Japanese experiment set to launch on January 18, called the Furoshiki experiment. Furoshiki is a Japanese word for a cloth used to wrap up small possession. The experiment will test whether large structures can be constructed in space by having 3 satellites holding the corners of a Furoshiki 20m on each side, and having small robots crawl along and align themselves in order to transmit a signal.

ESA News Release can be found here:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMHVXVLWFE_index_0.html"

Along with some videos here:
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/power/solar_power_satellites_furoshiki.htm"

And a pdf here:
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/Furoshiki%20IAF04%20Paper%20KayaMankinsSummerer.pdf"

Would anybody know how much solar power could be generated from a SPS? What size would be needed to have any impact at all on our energy needs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
I always thought the problem was how to get the power from "up there" to "down here".
 
The amount of energy generated will depend upon the specific type of SPS. There are several different possibilities. Unless photovoltaic cells become even more efficient than they are now, I suspect that concentrated sunlight focused on a thermal generator will be the practical way to go.
 
I always thought the problem was how to get the power from "up there" to "down here".

What problems are you thinking of specifically? My guess would be to first put a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit which would allow it to be stationary over head, and forgive my ignorance, but beam the energy down to a ground station.

Ok, found a little something which describes the process.

http://www.freemars.org/history/sps.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While it's theoretically an ideal approach, there are still stumbling blocks regarding beamed power. For one thing, microwaves aren't great at penetrating water. Heavy clouds or rain can interrupt delivery. There's also the necessary size of the receiving array, which is rather sizeable. (It's been suggested that it be elevated with farmland underneath, so that might be a minor problem.) There are probably concerns as well about the effect of a beam upon aircraft systems that happen to get into the path.
One of the biggest obstacles, unfortunately, is political. You know how stupid the general public is when it comes to science. I wouldn't doubt that at least 80% of US citizens would be terrified by the concept of microwaves coming from space and vote out anybody who endorsed it.
 
Last edited:
Danger said:
While it's theoretically an idea approach, there are still stumbling blocks regarding beamed power. For one thing, microwaves aren't great at penetrating water. Heavy clouds or rain can interrupt delivery.

From the site I linked above, they say the power would be beamed in microwaves at a frequency of 2.45 GHZ which can apparently pass through heavy clouds.

There's also the necessary size of the receiving array, which is rather sizeable. (It's been suggested that it be elevated with farmland underneath, so that might be a minor problem.)

A conventional power plant supplies 1 billion watts, while the SPS they propose would generate 5 billion watts. 10 x 13 kilometers in size is quite sizable, but considering the returns, a project of this size should easily make their money back pretty quickly.

There are probably concerns as well about the effect of a beam upon aircraft systems that happen to get into the path.
One of the biggest obstacles, unfortunately, is political. You know how stupid the general public is when it comes to science. I wouldn't doubt that at least 80% of US citizens would be terrified by the concept of microwaves coming from space and vote out anybody who endorsed it.

And yet they also say that even at the peak of the beam, the intensity of the microwaves are practically nil. As far as aircraft, I’m not too sure whether it would interfere with instruments, but then just restrict the airspace.

The public are stupid, but unlike things which they have good reason to fear, this is not one of them, and could easily be educated about the misconception.
 
Vast said:
Would anybody know how much solar power could be generated from a SPS? What size would be needed to have any impact at all on our energy needs?
Well, the mean solar flux at our distance from the sun is 1369 w/m^2. Let's say you could make a parabolic dish and focus solar energy on the Earth and convert it to electricity at 40% efficiency. You'd need 1.8 square km to generate as much energy as a typical nuclear reactor or medium sized conventional plant of 1000 megawatts.
vast said:
A conventional power plant supplies 1 billion watts, while the SPS they propose would generate 5 billion watts. 10 x 13 kilometers in size is quite sizable, but considering the returns, a project of this size should easily make their money back pretty quickly.
Well, mylar has a mass of 1.3 g/cc. At .1mm thick, that 10x13km collector would have a mass of 160,000 kg and cost roughly $3.7 billion just to launch...

Someone please check my numbers...
 
Last edited:
Vast said:
From the site I linked above, they say the power would be beamed in microwaves at a frequency of 2.45 GHZ which can apparently pass through heavy clouds.
I was unaware of that. Good counterpoint.

Vast said:
10 x 13 kilometers in size is quite sizable, but considering the returns, a project of this size should easily make their money back pretty quickly.
I wasn't concerned about the cost, actually; it's a matter of where the hell do you put the thing.

Vast said:
As far as aircraft, I’m not too sure whether it would interfere with instruments, but then just restrict the airspace.
I'm not surea about it either, but I suspect that it would interfere with computerized control systems as well as instruments. There's a lot of restricted airspace already, and it's getting worse all of the time. An ocean-based receiver would alleviate the problem.

Vast said:
The public are stupid, but unlike things which they have good reason to fear, this is not one of them, and could easily be educated about the misconception.
Just don't try to build it in Kansas.

Russ, I know that you're referring to the solar collector there, and have no idea how to check your numbers. The hugeness that I was referring to is the receiving antenna.
 

Similar threads

  • Sticky
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
22K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K