Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Renewables in their current form are a nonsense solution to the world’s energy needs. However, there is a combination of technologies which could make solar power a significant, reliable contributor to the World’s energy needs. But I doubt any green will rush to embrace it.
How do we make solar power reliable? The problems which make solar power unreliable are mainly related to weather – clouds, rain, snow, winter, poor air quality, anything which interrupts the flow of light reaching the collector.
The solution is to put the solar panels beyond the reach of all these problems – by putting them into orbit. Launching solar panels into orbit might sound far fetched, but it is being seriously considered by a number of national space programmes.
Space-based solar power (SBSP) is the concept of collecting solar power in space (using an “SPS”, that is, a “solar-power satellite” or a “satellite power system”) for use on Earth. It has been in research since the early 1970s.
SBSP would differ from current solar collection methods in that the means used to collect energy would reside on an orbiting satellite instead of on Earth’s surface. Some projected benefits of such a system are a higher collection rate and a longer collection period due to the lack of a diffusing atmosphere and night time in space.
Part of the solar energy (55–60%) is lost on its way through the atmosphere by the effects of reflection and absorption. Space-based solar power systems convert sunlight to microwaves outside the atmosphere, avoiding these losses, and the downtime (and cosine losses, for fixed flat-plate collectors) due to the Earth’s rotation.
Besides the cost of implementing such a system, SBSP also introduces several new hurdles, primarily the problem of transmitting energy from orbit to Earth’s surface for use. Since wires extending from Earth’s surface to an orbiting satellite are neither practical nor feasible with current technology, SBSP designs generally include the use of some manner of wireless power transmission. The collecting satellite would convert solar energy into electrical energy on board, powering a microwave transmitter or laser emitter, and focus its beam toward a collector (rectenna) on Earth’s surface. Radiation and micrometeoroid damage could also become concerns for SBSP.
SBSP is considered a form of sustainable or green energy, renewable energy, and is occasionally considered among climate engineering proposals. It is attractive to those seeking large-scale solutions to anthropogenic climate change or fossil fuel depletion (such as peak oil).
SBSP is being actively pursued by the Japan and China. In 2008 Japan passed its Basic Space Law which established Space Solar Power as a national goal and JAXA has a roadmap to commercial SBSP. In 2015 the China Academy for Space Technology (CAST) briefed their roadmap at the International Space Development Conference (ISDC) where they showcased their road map to a 1 GW commercial system in 2050 and unveiled a video and description of their design. A proposal for the United States to lead in Space Solar Power has recently received high level attention after it won the D3 (Diplomacy, Development, Defense) competition sponsored by the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and USAID Director. As of May 21, 2015, there was an on Change.org and a second active petition at Whitehouse website.
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
The obstacle to space based solar power is obviously the launch cost. If you are paying thousands of dollars per kilogram for payload delivered into Earth orbit, launching thousands of tons of solar collector equipment is a sure route to a very expensive solar space station.
So how do we bring down the launch cost? There are a number of technologies on the drawing board, but lets stick with known technology, preferably a technology which has already been tested to some extent.
There is one cheap space launch technology which stands out – simple design, high thrust, high impulse, based on well understood engineering principles, capable of economically launching thousands, even millions of tons into any orbit you want, using a single stage launch vehicle. The only problem is the fallout.
Project Orion was a study of a spacecraft intended to be directly propelled by a series of explosions of atomic bombs behind the craft (nuclear pulse propulsion). Early versions of this vehicle were proposed to take off from the ground with significant associated nuclear fallout; later versions were presented for use only in space.
The idea of rocket propulsion by combustion of explosive substance was first proposed by Russian explosives expert Nikolai Kibalchich in 1881, and in 1891 similar ideas were developed independently by German engineer Hermann Ganswindt. General proposals of nuclear propulsion were first made by Stanislaw Ulam in 1946, and preliminary calculations were made by F. Reines and Ulam in a Los Alamos memorandum dated 1947. The actual project, initiated in 1958, was led by Ted Taylor at General Atomics and physicist Freeman Dyson, who at Taylor’s request took a year away from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton to work on the project.
The Orion concept offered high thrust and high specific impulse, or propellant efficiency, at the same time. The unprecedented extreme power requirements for doing so would be met by nuclear explosions, of such power relative to the vehicle’s mass as to be survived only by using external detonations without attempting to contain them in internal structures. As a qualitative comparison, traditional chemical rockets—such as the Saturn V that took the Apollo program to the Moon—produce high thrust with low specific impulse, whereas electric ion engines produce a small amount of thrust very efficiently. Orion would have offered performance greater than the most advanced conventional or nuclear rocket engines then under consideration. Supporters of Project Orion felt that it had potential for cheap interplanetary travel, but it lost political approval over concerns with fallout from its propulsion.
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
I doubt greens are going to rush to embrace a renewables solution which involves the release of atmospheric nuclear fallout, even if that fallout could be constrained to safe levels. But if the future viability of the planet was really at stake, and if nuclear power was unacceptable for whatever reason, solar power satellites could realistically and reliably deliver the energy our civilisation needs, with minimal carbon emissions, other than whatever was emitted during the construction of the components.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps I can get a huge grant to research my anti-gravity machine now. I got a terrific idea from a Marvel Comic. Should work with a few billions thrown at it.
Ivor, if you get that grant for n anti-gravity machine, I’d like to apply for the job of ‘Sr. Engineer in Charge of Pondering.’ Just set me up with a desk over in the corner and I’ll ponder how to create an anti-gravity machine.
TIA,
H.R.
P.S. Admittedly, it can often be difficult to tell whether I am pondering or napping, but I can assure you that I will be pondering.
Why are they wasting effort on moonbeams when the obvious answers already exist here on Earth; coal, hydro, nuclear.
Silence, whippersnapper! We are thinking Great Thoughts here!
Like, if seven thousand maids with seven thousand mops swept the beaches for half a year, do we suppose that they could sweep them clear? And what about all the shoes, ships and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings, and why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings?
Ah man, easy peasy.
just go to the sun, scoop up a few tamker loads of whatever its made of and fetch it home.
Jobs a goodun.
hey, maybe while we’re up there, way up in the sky, we can find a baby black hole. Maybe they’re black but I’m sure they’re not hard to find. And they’re fantastic, you get mc squared power efficiency just by shovelling any old junk into them. (Maybe not junk climate science,its such total junk even a black hole couldn’t swallow it)
Ah yes, got it now. We collect some of that carbonoxide puffing out of power station chimbleys, (doesn’t take a lot I understand) and put it in a tank where all the ‘waste heat’ from the same power station cooling towers can ‘shine’ on it. Just run a few pipes round the top of the tower might do.
Then as we all know and fully understand, greenhouse gas theory says the carbonoxide will absorb the longwave radiation that the waste heat is emmiting and get really hot. How hot? Well, it can set the world on fire seemingly, so thats pretty hot by my book. Then all this hotness will make more steram for the power station that will amke more waste heat that will make more hot carbonoxide and so on. Only problem now is stopping the power staion getting too hot innit?
Look at aaaaaaall them silly power stations everywhere, why don’t they do that?
So, when I’m not having a silly rant, is it inconceivable that the heat (LWIR) leaving the surface of earth can be considered as ‘waste heat’ and as such cannot do any more work – that is – make anything else warmer………….
Peta:
“Ah man, easy peasy.
just go to the sun, scoop up a few tamker loads of whatever its made of and fetch it home.
Jobs a goodun.”
Just be sure to land at night, otherwise it’s too hot on the sun.
…There is a Way to make Renewables Viable…
No there isn’t!
This plan has 2 huge flaws. The first is that getting the power safely to the ground is beyond state of the art. The second is that supplying and servicing the collectors is AT the state of the art.
It also seems to be the case that Mr Worrall has not heard of the Sabre/Skylon package, which would be the obvious way to shift large volumes into orbit. Orion is right out! See http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html
The power beam concept has been tested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power#Microwave_power_transmission
Sabre/Skylon can transport 15 tonnes into orbit. Orion is many orders of magnitude more capable.
…Sabre/Skylon can transport 15 tonnes into orbit. Orion is many orders of magnitude more capable….
The Skylon concept is not, like Orion a one-off or small number, like the shuttles. It is a fleet, and is designed to be built like an airliner.
Total airline freight capacity for the world is currently of the order of 100m tonnes annually. Let’s see an Orion plan to beat that.
…The power beam concept has been tested….
I didn’t say you can’t transmit power. I said you can’t do it safely. And you can’t.
Incidentally, the tests simply indicate the inefficiencies involved:
…Although the amount of power sent, 20 watts, is barely enough to power a small compact fluorescent light bulb, and most of it was lost in transmission, the system was limited by the budget not the physics. If they had been able to afford more solar panels, more phased array transmitters and a better receivers (the one they had could only receive in the horizontal direction), Mankins claims they could do much better– possibly up to 64% efficiency….
Yeah, but Eric; just put the panels on your roof, man.
Please don’t give them any ideas. As Smokey the Bear says, “Keep Litter In It’s Place”.
“Solar” power eh ?
No problem: we already have solar power in storage … it’s called COAL.
Some people can’t see the wood for the trees.
Yew fool. Don’tcha know the cheapest fuel known to mankind to generate electricity is destroying us? What’s wrong with yew?
Well Eric, while I was reading through your article above and passing through various sentences. All to a building James Bond theme in the back of my mind…
Only there will not be any British agent para-sailing to the rescue or flying a microwave torched jumbo jet in circles.
Again, the governments plan to throw money at solutions with unsolved major issues without concern for hazards or costs.
Those piddling land based solar farms that can only fry birds and bats over a small grid area, now get a chance to fry birds and bats at any altitude they’re capable of flapping through.
Planes need to watch their wings too.
Then there is the problem of cutting an ionized channel of air to the ground. Lightning loves ionized atmosphere channels. Can a microwave receptor handle multiple lightning strikes?
Lars Silén is correct, that a power generation facility in orbit should be used in orbit. Smelting and refining ores then constructing larger space facilities would be far more efficient and would deliver far more value.
Show me the cable to transmit the gained energy reliable to planet earth. After that… stop, there is no after that…
Cable? What part of microwave beam don’t you understand. However if you insist on a cable, go look up “space elevator”.
Microwaves? OMG
As James MCRAE says:
Primitive, and unimaginative.
Such a tool is focused on a small area, such as to eliminate a single person. A head of state, a diplomat, a banker, anyone who is inconvenient. A single bit of attention from such a tool need last only a millisecond or so. Even cowering inside a building would offer no protection. Once such persons are eliminated, a more robust program of fundraising can be initiated. We do note the crude effectiveness of wide area beam deployment, even though it lacks a certain elegance. We also note that that a few demonstrations of the device are all that is required such that all negotiating partners will fall into line. We do grow weary of small minds thinking small thoughts. The world is much improved by eliminating such small minds, especially in the ruling classes. If the ruling class wishes to rule, it must know that it itself is ruled. It is the natural order of things.
The World Is Not Enough
Diamonds Are Forever
If this is truly a good way to use solar panels then it follows that we should be looking for other planets with large solar arrays. Not only will they be easier to spot but the arrays will indicate what phase of development their society is in.
The problem with solar (and with wind) is their energy density. Solar is 0.0000015 Joules per cubic meter, wind is about 7 Joules per cubic meter and gasoline is about 10 X 10^9 Joules per cubic meter. This is the real reason why, despite spending hundreds of billions on renewables, they supply a paltry 2.5% of the world’s energy needs. Energy is the ability to do work. You just can’t get around the facts.
Perhaps we should develop a power source driven by human stupidity.
That seems to be something of which we have an unlimited supply.
Thanks, Felflames. Now I finally understand the meaning of sustainability.
One orbital power producing entity.
A single point of failure.
One-stop shopping terror target for the planet.
The people who make power windows for your car now in charge of your children’s survival.
No single sovereign nation could afford it, all nations indebted to the one that operates it.
Anyone with the power to destroy something in space rules the world.
Only fools would generate gigawatt power in several weather-hardened enclosures.
Only fools would use simple technologies.
Only fools would use natural gas, coal and steam.
Only fools would go nuclear.
And only the most insane of them would use Thorium.
This futurist stuff used to be exciting, back when there were enough people making energy using reliable, time-tested methods that were certain to ensure our continued survival.
This futurist stuff became somewhat funny when we began to realize that a few college grads actually believed that the industrialized world could be sustained by intermittent energy. “When the power goes out we’ll just… go to bed.” Or single-entity energy (eg orbital solar) owned by a consortium that is produced by a consortium that is Your Friend. Or Holy Grail fusion.
It’s not funny anymore. Crap-solutions have overtaken tried-and-true solutions. The idiots are running things now.
Actually worked on one of these in my early career. My estimate was launch costs of at least 1 trillion dollars for a 1 GW plant. So even with 100 fold decrease in cost you are at 10 Billion. Plus equipment cost, plus issues with getting the power to the ground. We had some ideas for greatly reducing the mass, but the tech to do that has not yet been developed although they are making progress.
Don’t forget, though – a great deal of that cost is in the NRE. You obviously don’t stop at just one!
The idea of satellite-based solar power (SSP) in geo-stationary orbit has been around for decades. It was an important focus of research at the Space Studies Institute (founded by Gerard K. O’Neill, the visionary who proposed human colonies in space),
http://ssi.org
Because of the high cost of lifting materials from Earth, SSI has focused on space-based manufacturing, primarily on the Moon, using mass drivers to launch cargo from the Moon.
Similar technology (magnetic drivers) can be used to launch maglev vehicles from Earth, thus reducing the cost; see the StarTram Project:
http://www.startram.com
Given the high infrastructure cost and needed technological development (robotics, 3-D printing/manufacturing, magnetic propulsion, etc.) Solar Satellite Power is not likely to be cost-competitive with Earth’s vast ‘fossil’ fuel and radioactive-metal resources for some time to come. This assumes of course we can get rid of the neo-Luddite governments which stand in the way of cheap hydrocarbon and nuclear energy.
But we should not dismiss the idea of SSP out of hand; the principles are already understood. What is needed is more development of the underlying technology, especially mining and manufacturing on the moon (and on asteroids). The infrastructure developed will then become the foundation for human exploration of Mars and beyond, and beamed power will be an ancillary benefit.
/Mr Lynn
I looked at this a few years ago, using laser light to transport energy to the surface. My first step was to compare the space based solution to a terrestrial solution in Arizona or some similar sunny, arid place:
Energy delivered to the grid- 1365 W/m^2 in orbit gives 33 kWh/m^2/day energy available. Panel efficiency of 20%, DC to laser light of 60%, thermal derate of 10%, laser light to DC of 40%, DC to AC of 90%, thermal derate of 10%, gives total conversion efficiency for substation-ready power of 3.5%. This gives about 1.1 kWhr/m^2/day of electrical energy, where area refers to the orbiting solar panel.
A fixed panel mounted in Arizona will receive 6.5 kWhr/m^2/day averaged over the year, and almost 8 with a single-axis tracking mount. With 20% panel efficiency, DC to AC of 90%, thermal derate of 10%, a resulting efficiency of 16% gives an average daily output of about 1.05 kWhr/m^2/day for a fixed panel.
The efficiency improvement gained by mounting panels in space is thrown away in the transfer of that energy from orbit to Earth.
That’s when I gave up on the concept. There are also issues with cost.
That’s why you use microwave. You can get much higher conversion efficiencies (and no atmospheric blockage).
“That’s why you use microwave.”
100% wall-plug efficiency on the source and the receiver, zero propagation loss and 100% beam capture efficiency, and you are still at around 4.5 kWh/m^2/day in space.
You need to compete with 20% efficient solar panels on two-axis tracker mounts in Arizona, which can give you 1.5 kWh/m^2/day.
An impossible to achieve 3x improvement is not worth the huge expense (initial install and ongoing O&M) of putting the stuff in space.
And I thought that the solar roadways idea was the worse load of nonsense that I would ever hear of.
Can anybody think of a more stupid idea?
How about encasing solar panels in concrete and burying them underground?
Oh, I forgot, that idea is already in circulation…
http://dailysignal.com/2013/02/26/bankrupt-abound-solar-to-bury-unused-solar-panels/
I don’t see why we need this – solar power works perfectly well where you have a climate with many sunny days and where peak demand is from daytime aircon…
The only argument is about unfair subsidy (increasingly it doesn’t need any subsidy at all though).
Demand is always less overnight and even current battery storage helps out there.
Unless you couple tax subsidies with Zero Interest rates in a regional climate with crappy sunshine and the only level terrain is farmland. Oh, let’s say some place like Vermont, where the developers are raping the pristine ridges with wind farms and taking hundreds of of acres of prime farmland out of production with ugly solar for the foreseeable future because the State has a goal of 90% renewable energy by 2050. It needs a lot of subsidy in Vermont because it wouldn’t be economically feasible without it, yet they are jumping all over it. Bugger thy neighbor and all…
solar panels as installed on UK solar farms (when they aren’t in recycling centres or old airfields) don’t prevent grazing underneath and are on poorer quality pasture, not prime agricultural land (by planning law).
Or on roofs (Jaguar car plant) or airports (Belfast Airport – which doesn’t get any subsidy for its ‘private wire’ array).
shouldn’t be a problem in Vermont either -but in a sunny SW/desert state it definitely works…
‘The obstacle to space based solar power is obviously the launch cost.’
I disagree. The biggest obstacle, and destroyer of the concept, is heat. It’s near impossible to cool things in space.
This story made me think of Lex Luthor, Superman’s nemesis. It’s dim, I could be misremembering, but I recall a comic where Lex was able to redirect an energy beam from space and destroy cities.
While I was trying to find a link, I found this interesting site. Lex was an idealist and he was viewed as a hero by some. Because of his great wealth, and his belief that the ends justify the means, he ended up being very evil. This reminds me of some non-fictional folks. Thank goodness that The Donald doesn’t seem to be idealistic. 🙂
On a planet where the total power usage is 104,000 TW, give or take, 20% of which is electricity how many of these things will be needed? At 1GW and $10^9 each, seems a little impractical to me but then I’m not a space engineer.
Hi from Oz. Sorry to rain on your parade, guys, but anyone who has worked with radio transmitters and receivers (I was a radio ham 50 years ago, and had a 20 year career in aviation radio/electronics) knows that transmitting ‘power’ by radio is nonsense, because the physics says that the transmission losses are astronomically (no pun intended) high, even at distances of a few feet, let alone thousands of miles. Fuggedaboudit, it’s all utter hokum. Reality is a bitch!
I’d agree, unless you could make a microwave “laser”.
microwave laser = maser
invented before laser.
ideas still utter junk tho
Nikola Tesla successfully demonstrated broadcast power. Unfortunately, all his notes were lost in a fire.
There’s a big difference between transmitting a signal and transmitting power. First of all, it’s a very high-gain transmitting antenna. The beam is single-frequency, hitting the appropriate atmospheric window for minimal absorption and transmission loss. Finally, the rectenna receiving arrays are extremely efficient.
Jules Verne proposed it earlier. In his 1865 novel From the Earth to the Moon, the Baltimore Gun Club built a giant canon to propel an aluminum capsule with three passengers all the way to the moon.
One problem with microwave transmission from orbit is it requires a large antenna farm to turn the microwaves back into usable electricity. Fortunately, we happen to have a bunch of abandoned wind farms which would be suitable.
“Proposed” is too strong a word for Jules Verne’s goofy ideas. Figure out the g-force in that capsule. You first!
OTOH if this works we should definitely think about putting wind generators in space too.
Of course! Frigidairorators!
Ha!!!!
A problem with renewables is the government subsidy. Where does this money come from? Recently, the FED just prints the money, so it just materializes out of thin air. This way, cost does not enter into the equation.
As Robert Murphy points out, we can create as many green jobs as we need. All we need to do if put people on exercise bikes that drive a generator and have them pedal all day. However, what is the economic output of all this effort?
I am not generally in favor of the government subsidizing anything. However, IMHO we would be better off subsidizing nuclear fusion research. Even then, as Freeman Dyson has said, the government may end up backing the wrong horse.
The problem is that everybody has some idea which they think should be subsidized in their opinion.
We can all subsidize something, which in our opinion deserves a subsidy.
This system is called the free market. If you want to subsidize Apple computers then buy Apple products or shares. Other people who are not interested in Apple can subsidize something else. No problem.
The problem only arises when one group of powerful bureaucrats extort money from the populace and use it to subsidize the thing which needs a subsidy, in their opinion.
Printing money is creating money from thin air. However since the money is a claim to goods and services which are finite – it is effectively stealth taxation of holders of that currency. i.e. more extortion, but slightly less obvious.
You can print money. You can’t print the labor and resources which it represents. So the money loses purchasing power.
And so does the money held as savings. It’s just a sneaky way of devaluing everybody’s cash savings, without the general populace noticing that they are being effectively robbed.
The government IS the wrong horse! Wrong end anyway!