StringJunky Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Space chiefs are to investigate whether electricity could be beamed wirelessly from space into millions of homes. The European Space Agency will this week likely approve a three-year study to see if having huge solar farms in space could work and be cost effective. The eventual aim is to have giant satellites in orbit, each able to generate the same amount of electricity as a power station. ESA's governing council is to consider the idea at its Paris HQ on Tuesday. While several organisations and other space agencies have looked into the idea, the so-called Solaris initiative would be the first to lay the ground for a practical plan to develop a space-based renewable energy generation system. Read more https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62982113 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 5 hours ago, StringJunky said: Space chiefs are to investigate whether electricity could be beamed wirelessly from space into millions of homes. The European Space Agency will this week likely approve a three-year study to see if having huge solar farms in space could work and be cost effective. The eventual aim is to have giant satellites in orbit, each able to generate the same amount of electricity as a power station. ESA's governing council is to consider the idea at its Paris HQ on Tuesday. While several organisations and other space agencies have looked into the idea, the so-called Solaris initiative would be the first to lay the ground for a practical plan to develop a space-based renewable energy generation system. Read more https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62982113 What intrigues me is how the risk of the microwave beam going off-target is managed. I see the beam is said to be too diffuse to harm living organisms. But I wonder about that, if the power being beamed is several GW in intensity. I can see they should be able to avoid the most obviously dangerous parts of the microwave spectrum, e.g. water absorption region, but it still seems a bit glib to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fabian Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 It has been looked at before but technology does advance so another like would be good. I'll be very surprised if this can be a cost effective energy option, let alone something that can help us decarbonise energy production but investigating the possibility seems appropriate for a space agency. However I wouldn't want to see our legitimate goal of clean energy hijacked to advance entirely different goals; the confidence in the clean energy outcomes need to be there, before the massive investments and not buy into the "bootstrap" hype - going there first and then figuring it out just isn't good enough. As I usually do when space based solar gets attention, I wonder whether the energy transmission elements could be used without the solar collectors, to beam power up from one place on Earth and down at another, possibly with an intermediate transceiver to take it to the other side of the world. My understanding is that beaming power loses a lot of power, so maybe not but the less stuff we have to put into space the less it will cost; costs of launching payloads have come down a lot but it is still extremely expensive. Did I read somewhere else that they were considering directly powering things like aircraft with power beamed from space? If so that seems even more unlikely to be feasible - no diffuse beam could do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 On 11/22/2022 at 3:14 AM, exchemist said: What intrigues me is how the risk of the microwave beam going off-target is managed. I see the beam is said to be too diffuse to harm living organisms. But I wonder about that, if the power being beamed is several GW in intensity. I wonder, if it’s that diffuse, then how is it better than just putting the solar panels on the ground? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fabian Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, swansont said: I wonder, if it’s that diffuse, then how is it better than just putting the solar panels on the ground? Constancy of supply would be the main reason why, including beaming from power satellites in sunlight down to places where it is dark. I suppose they'll have short periods of being in Earth's shadow so no single space solar farm will be enough. Edited November 24, 2022 by Ken Fabian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 (edited) Count me among the dubious. What happens if a jet accidentally flies through the beam? (Murphy's law cannot be violated) Why wouldn't ground solar arrays with battery or gravity storage (to even out the supply) be orders of magnitude cheaper? A kilo to geostationary orbit is estimated around $7000(US). And they're talking an array that's a km each side, plus all the maintenance, robots, stabilizing jets, flare shielding, etc. In any case, with research progress on ambient temp superconductors, I would think there's a brighter future for grid distribution on the planets surface. Edited November 24, 2022 by TheVat Btfsplk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said: Constancy of supply would be the main reason why, including beaming from power satellites in sunlight down to places where it is dark. I suppose they'll have short periods of being in Earth's shadow so no single space solar farm will be enough. At 2 GW, it’s a given that one won’t be enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts