Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

[aaron]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

Delays in drilling/extracting fossil fuels should be eliminated by Executive Order from the President. Delays in building nuclear power plants should be eliminated by Executive Order. And new hydro-electric dams should be constructed, again without delay, through Executive Order from the President..

It makes absolutely no sense to drill for oil right now. The U.S. government's current energy policy is working well enough. The oil underneath the ground is our National Treasure and should not be touched until the Middle East, South America, Mexico (soon), and Canada have been drained first. That oil is in reserve and will be used to build the next generation of ________ to power our future. I put a space in there, because we not know what will be best. We'll let other countries do the testing first.

Hydro-electric.. seems like a no-brainer. I do like a good salmon, however. I think a few million dollars ought to be good enough to repopulate other areas with fish. Are there many places that still have yet to be damned?

[SamAdams]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

I don't think you are thinking about this very carefully. As I suggested above, the gain in power output from putting a solar collector in space (ANYWHERE in space, either on the moon or in orbit) will NEVER be more than perhaps 1.5 or two times that same solar collector on the ground.

The COST of putting that solar collector in space is ALWAYS going to be MUCH MUCH MORE than a factor of two greater than doing it on earth. I don't care if launch costs could be cut by a factor of 10,000, which is baloney. You still have to build and operate it in space -- which is ALWAYS going to be hugely more expensive than doing so on the ground. It won't EVER be economically viable. Why anyone would think this is "a great idea" eludes me.

Keep in mind you need to look at the whole system (not just the specific output of a panel on the ground vs in space) when comparing power output / cost. A similar output ground based system would be more geographically constrained and require massive transmission investment to have the same capabilities as a worldwide beaming system - or you could use satellite beaming for the ground based system as well which would negate some of the cost advantages. Further, the lack of continuous baseload power from ground based solar systems would imply that you will need redundancy. I forget the ratios but for wind power systems in the US you need some large fraction of each 1MW of wind power supplemented by a big portion of natural gas turbine backup - otherwise your risk grid instability.

Another point is pure energy abundance. In 50 years or so we may be pushing the limit of what we can get from conventional energy sources. This system is a possible way to get virtually unlimited power output without massively interfering with activities on the ground. The red tape around doing anything in energy within the US at least will make us very energy poor within a few decades if not much sooner.

Also I would point out that this idea while might seem stupid vs options we have on the ground - it might be a very good idea to power industry IN space - that is setting up a wireless power transmission infrastructure there so that new solar systems are not needed to be constructed at every facility. A space electric utility if you will.

Likely the others are right here - SSP will remain too expensive. However without some kind of technology breakthru, even with very aggressive renewables development, there is no way the US will be able to output the kind of energy requirements we will have in the coming decades. Expect price controls, rolling blackouts and energy rationing as is currently happening in Venezuela and other places - to speak nothing of peak oil.

[peakishmael]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

The idea of putting a solar energy station on the moon or putting such a station onto a satellite in geo-synchronis (sp?) orbit around Earth would be a boondoggle. This type of stupid proposal makes me think that funding for NASA should be greatly reduced, along with a reduction in funding for the U.S. Dept of Energy, not to mention reductions in funding for the EPA and the U.S. Defence Department.

And I think the stupidity of this boondoggle (and as you can tell from my other comments, I agree it is a boondoggle) mean that you should be fired from your job, Steve. For you are just about as responsible for this proposal as NASA, DOE or EPA. Not sure about DoD.

I work at NASA HQ. There is one advocate for SSP that I know of in the whole building. Ex-military guy. Everyone else I've talked to knows that it's crap. Read the article, it is not a NASA proposal.

[peakishmael]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

David Criswell at least addresses the lift problem in his lunar power proposal. He points out that for satellite based systems to be cost effective, the cost of lifting material into orbit would have to be reduced by a factor of 10,000 from today's costs. He suggests that the lunar model is superior because many of the required components could be manufactured on the moon from readily available materials.

It's a great idea, but first we have to develop the required expertise and experience in moon-based construction and manufacturing! Shouldn't take more than a few hundred years, at today's pace.

The power of these ideas though, is that they show that in the long-term future humanity may have many more options to solve the problems we struggle with today. Prospects for the rest of this millenium may be very bright -- if we survive the current century, and do not abandon technological progress.

I don't think you are thinking about this very carefully. As I suggested above, the gain in power output from putting a solar collector in space (ANYWHERE in space, either on the moon or in orbit) will NEVER be more than perhaps 1.5 or two times that same solar collector on the ground.

The COST of putting that solar collector in space is ALWAYS going to be MUCH MUCH MORE than a factor of two greater than doing it on earth. I don't care if launch costs could be cut by a factor of 10,000, which is baloney. You still have to build and operate it in space -- which is ALWAYS going to be hugely more expensive than doing so on the ground. It won't EVER be economically viable. Why anyone would think this is "a great idea" eludes me.

[unlucky]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

Indeed. You need a good margin of "excess" material productivity to support specialization and R&D. If we run out of cheap energy too soon, or too abruptly, we won't have the productivity margin required to innovate our way out of the hole. We only get cheap fossile fuels once; after the low-hanging fruit has all been harvested, we could be trapped by the economics of existing hand-to-mouth.

You're right, but it's also true that societies managed to support a certain level of specialization and innovation even before the age of fossil fuels, albeit at a lower level of total population. If we fail to innovate our way out in time, a lower level of population may be the natural result. It's also possible of course to imagine a huge future population of subsistence farmers, barely eking out a living for their families and with no time at all for innovation.

[ASH]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

if we survive the current century, and do not abandon technological progress

Indeed. You need a good margin of "excess" material productivity to support specialization and R&D. If we run out of cheap energy too soon, or too abruptly, we won't have the productivity margin required to innovate our way out of the hole. We only get cheap fossile fuels once; after the low-hanging fruit has all been harvested, we could be trapped by the economics of existing hand-to-mouth.

[unlucky]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

David Criswell at least addresses the lift problem in his lunar power proposal. He points out that for satellite based systems to be cost effective, the cost of lifting material into orbit would have to be reduced by a factor of 10,000 from today's costs. He suggests that the lunar model is superior because many of the required components could be manufactured on the moon from readily available materials.

It's a great idea, but first we have to develop the required expertise and experience in moon-based construction and manufacturing! Shouldn't take more than a few hundred years, at today's pace.

The power of these ideas though, is that they show that in the long-term future humanity may have many more options to solve the problems we struggle with today. Prospects for the rest of this millenium may be very bright -- if we survive the current century, and do not abandon technological progress.

[SamAdams]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

The idea of putting a solar energy station on the moon or putting such a station onto a satellite in geo-synchronis (sp?) orbit around Earth would be a boondoggle. This type of stupid proposal makes me think that funding for NASA should be greatly reduced, along with a reduction in funding for the U.S. Dept of Energy, not to mention reductions in funding for the EPA and the U.S. Defence Department.

Common-sense dictates the best solutions to the energy crisis would be to do more of what works best: hydro-electric power, nuclear power, coal, oil, and natural gas.

Anyone who has ever run a business knows the importance of doing what is absolutely certain to work, and not going off onto tangents and into dreamland.

America does not have the luxury now of experimentation with mirrors in outer space. America has to solve the energy problem decisively, in short-order. And that means funding what is known to work best.

Delays in drilling/extracting fossil fuels should be eliminated by Executive Order from the President. Delays in building nuclear power plants should be eliminated by Executive Order. And new hydro-electric dams should be constructed, again without delay, through Executive Order from the President.

[Sic,] "Click, click, click", just like under Stalin in WWII. And that is what it may take to win this new war against radical Islam: America to again become energy independent and prosperous.

I don't disagree with disbanding NASA but the video was on a private company planning to invest in the effort, so I'm not sure how that idea relates. You mean NASA should be disbanded for studying the concept? Obviously the company might seek public funding at some point in the future. How about disbanding Congress? That will get rid of a lot of wasted $$.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

The idea of putting a solar energy station on the moon or putting such a station onto a satellite in geo-synchronis (sp?) orbit around Earth would be a boondoggle. This type of stupid proposal makes me think that funding for NASA should be greatly reduced, along with a reduction in funding for the U.S. Dept of Energy, not to mention reductions in funding for the EPA and the U.S. Defence Department.

Common-sense dictates the best solutions to the energy crisis would be to do more of what works best: hydro-electric power, nuclear power, coal, oil, and natural gas.

Anyone who has ever run a business knows the importance of doing what is absolutely certain to work, and not going off onto tangents and into dreamland.

America does not have the luxury now of experimentation with mirrors in outer space. America has to solve the energy problem decisively, in short-order. And that means funding what is known to work best.

Delays in drilling/extracting fossil fuels should be eliminated by Executive Order from the President. Delays in building nuclear power plants should be eliminated by Executive Order. And new hydro-electric dams should be constructed, again without delay, through Executive Order from the President.

[Sic,] "Click, click, click", just like under Stalin in WWII. And that is what it may take to win this new war against radical Islam: America to again become energy independent and prosperous.

[peakishmael]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

Satellites in geostationary orbits have a pretty big problem, they run out of fuel and become useless. The moon has quite a tug on those things way out there and it's necessary to keep moving them back to where they'll do some good. A communication sat only needs to point to the nadir position which is relatively easy in geosynchronous orbit, but keeping a solar system aligned with the sun could add to the fuel problem. They all run out of fuel sooner or later and have to be replaced.

I think this is a "pie in the sky" dream.

You're on the right track, but the maintenance problem is far worse than that. It's not just station-keeping fuel... and it's not just the solar cells/panels degrading. The worst parts would be the beaming system, as well as all of the "normal" spacecraft subsystems: command and data handling, communications, power, thermal management, and worst of all: mechanical systems. Electronics do not last forever, particularly in space. But mechanical systems are especially unreliable. And this beast is going to have some heavy duty mechanical systems, if it has to keep several square kilometers of collectors pointed at the sun, while keeping several square kilometers of beaming apparatus pointed accurately at the ground, while making an orbit of Earth once per day (keeping up with Earth's rotation).

To go back to my other point about launch costs: the Wikipedia article estimates (very optimistically, in my opinion) that launching 4GW of capacity could cost between $11 billion and $320 billion. That's just the launch costs for the solar collectors alone! For comparison, I note that my local electrical utility (PEPCO) recently sold 5GW of generating capacity, for less than $3 billion.

Forget about SSP, except as a boondoggle. It'll still get some U.S. Senator to insert an earmark from time to time. :mad:

[dcarrigg]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

Any time a researcher tells you a thing is about ten years out, he's lying. The translation is " I don't know how is this will ever be solved, but ten years from now I'll be long gone."

[we_are_toast]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

While it is true that satellites are designed to require no maintenance, it does not follow that it is practically possible to build an orbital solar power station that requires no maintenance.

Satellites in geostationary orbits have a pretty big problem, they run out of fuel and become useless. The moon has quite a tug on those things way out there and it's necessary to keep moving them back to where they'll do some good. A communication sat only needs to point to the nadir position which is relatively easy in geosynchronous orbit, but keeping a solar system aligned with the sun could add to the fuel problem. They all run out of fuel sooner or later and have to be replaced.

I think this is a "pie in the sky" dream.

[c1ue]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

I don't see it being a problem. The G20 are likely all capable of some anti-satellite strike. The US certainly is. This system would be a big, slow lumbering target, and not much of a threat for a surprise attack. To move it from it's permanent location to strike Bejing or Moscow would take a day or two - this thing would be acres of structurally fragile panels not ammenable to sudden acceleration. While the individual sub-systems and devices are dual-use, the entire system as a whole would be a pretty poor weapon system.

That the satellites can be destroyed, is without a doubt.

But that doesn't help in a first strike situation.

Secondly how would it be possible without independent monitoring to know whether any given satellite is 'safe'?

The movement you speak of would only apply to a geosynchronous satellite; for obvious reasons there would have to be at least a chain of said satellites in order to provide a reasonably continuous power stream.

The objectives also don't necessarily have to involve hundreds or thousands of targets - the ability to 'service' one or two specific ones, or even up to a dozen, would likely offer some significant military value.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

"Low cost launchers" are a pipe dream, perpetually a decade or two away.
m

Any time a researcher tells you a thing is about ten years out, he's lying. The translation is " I don't know how is this will ever be solved, but ten years from now I'll be long gone."

[peakishmael]

Re: Boondoggle or future of energy? Space Based Solar Power TED talk

Good 20 minute talk on Space Based Solar Power by the second private firm (Space Energy Inc.) to appear in the press the last few months (in addition to Solaren who announced a power purchase agreement with PG&E). Crazy enough to work?

Work? Sure. But these systems will never be built, if for no other reason than cost.

Using current launch vehicles, the cost of taking a kilogram of payload to orbit is approximately $50-100K. "Low cost launchers" are a pipe dream, perpetually a decade or two away. Even a dramatic reduction in launch costs (say, by a factor of ten) would still mean that the cost of launching a solar collector will far exceed the cost of the collector. Then add the cost of building and launching the beaming components. Then multiply by 2-10 times for robotic assembly in space, because this huge system will need multiple launches. The harsh space environment will degrade the system faster than a ground-based equivalent, and the cost of maintenance will be ridiculous.

What would be gained by such a system, as opposed to just putting collectors on the ground? Theoretically, a factor of 2 in energy generation, since it could be in perpetual daylight. But discount that by the transmission loss in beaming, and you will be lucky to get 1.5 times the energy of the same collectors on the ground. All for 1000+ times the cost. Such a bargain!

So, why would anyone dream of such a thing? The answer may be that many of the backers of space solar power are military. The industry incentive ($) is obvious, but that's not the point. Some folks in DoD would like to be able to beam power to battlefield locations. But even with huge budgets, and no need for commercial viability, DoD has not been able to justify the expense involved, even for a relatively small system.