From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Me GrimNasty
I don’t know whether Grant Shapps ever took out a subscription to Look and Learn when he was young, but circumstantial evidence would suggest that he might well have done. It was in the long-defunct children’s magazine, I have a vague recollection, that I first read about the idea of beaming solar-generated power down from space. Shapps is now so taken with the idea that he has just approved a £4.3 million grant to UK universities to help develop it. A quarter of Britain’s energy, he claims, could one day be obtained in this way.
I don’t begrudge the technologists their public money. It is a perfectly proper role of government to fund the development of science and promising technologies which might otherwise struggle to obtain private funding in their early years. And who knows, maybe it will one day turn out to be a practical means of generating energy. Up in space, of course, it is always sunny – and the sunlight is much stronger, having not had to travel through the Earth’s atmosphere.
But a quarter of the UK’s energy, and in time to help Britain reach its 2050 net zero target? Dream on. There is a reason that the exploitation of solar energy from space has remained a pipe dream for the past 50 years. It is fantastically difficult. First, you have to design solar panels which are light enough to launch into space and will continue to generate massive amounts of power without maintenance for many years – not just generating enough electricity to power a few instruments for a few months, as a solar panel on a space probe flung into outer space might do. But the far bigger issue is, how do you then transmit the power down to Earth so that it can be used? The Californian Institute of Technology says it has succeeded in beaming a small amount of energy wirelessly from a satellite to Earth. But there is a long, long way to go between that and commercial operation.
Shapps’ enthusiasm can be quite endearing. “People thought it was impossible to land a man on the Moon, or impossible to split the atom. You follow the science and the impossible becomes possible,” he said in backing the UK’s effort for harnessing solar energy from space. What he didn’t do, of course, was to list the many miracle technologies which have remained pies in the sky. Everyone remembers President Kennedy’s promise in 1961 to put a man on the Moon by the end of that decade.
Few recall Nasa’s promise to put a man on Mars by 1980. Nor have the promised tourist jaunts to the Moon yet materialised. What is possible and what makes commercial sense are two very different things. No-one yet knows what the price of solar power generated in space will be – if it ever comes to fruition. Nor, incidentally, do we yet have the nuclear fusion-generated power which the head of the US nuclear energy industry told us in 1954 would be ‘too cheap to meter’ by his grandchildren’s day. In fact, we still don’t have a single functioning nuclear fusion power station.
I’m no Luddite. Let’s have a go at all this stuff. Trouble is, though, that the government has committed Britain to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions in 27 years’ time on the presumption that multiple as-yet unproven technologies will miraculously arrive in time. There is a fine line between optimism and Panglossian foolishness, and Grant Shapps, I fear, is on the wrong side of it.
Parliament has decided – and the school houses are all agreed – that the peasantry must do as it is told…. Net zero choice on that.
It probably sounded more convincing in 1660
Thankfully, ultimately, it will be the masses who decide
By then, they will literally be powerless to do anything (except sleep and eat bugs).
1660? Do they still chop royals’ necks?
Yes, net zero really stands for net zero choice.
Our council used to be a mix of Greens, Covert Greens (aka Independents) and Lib Dems. They got in the time before this on the strength of a terrible Conservative Westminster government.
This time they are no longer in power. Imagine how bad you have to be to lose BACK to the Conservatives currently?
They were, and remain obsessed by #NetZero. To the exclusion of all else, including sanity. And the rate paying public. Who did notice. Their Citizens’ Climate Assembly was a rigged farce.
So I find it rather sweet anyone thinks their votes one way or other made, make or will make any difference now. The spirit of Mrs. Johnson lives on…
cleaner-air-in-hereford-thanks-to-three-moss-filters
I don’t think so.
All Net Zero plans are idiotic, but some are more idiotic than others.
Don’t place yourself between the transmitter and receiver of the giant microwave beam.
From the papers I have read, the energy density of these beams are quite low. It’s like sunlight, you need square miles of receiving antennas to be able to receive a usable amount of energy,
Depends on the beam width. Imagine 100 square metres cross sectional beam area transmitting say 10 gigawatts. that’s a power density of .1 gigawatts per square metre. Definitely dangerous! If the receiving antenna arrays are as large as you say, they will be as, or more, environmentally damaging than current solar arrays.
G’Day karlomonte,
“Don’t place yourself between the transmitter and receiver of the giant microwave beam.”
You might read “The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space.” Your local library might have a copy, or should be able to get a copy for you. It deals with space colonies manufacturing solar to microwave power stations. The US had the technology in the 1970’s, but not the money or the will.
After the 1980 election funding for the studies was stopped. Senator William Proxmire, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee responsible for NASA’s budget and an aggressive critic of government failure. His response was: “It’s the best argument yet for chopping NASA’s funding to the bone …. I say not a penny for this nutty fantasy”. He successfully eliminated spending on space colonization research from the budget.
I think that this scheme would work best if they install it “where the sun don’t shine”
Of course the UK and other world governments would first have to remove their heads from that location in order to make room for the scheme …..
I agree, Shytot, install it “where the sun don’t shine”. I’m happy to see we both think Canada needs help.
Isn’t a huge space satellite microwave laser a weapon? If it drifts off the receiver target, it could fry a whole lot of GB.
Energy densities are not high enough to be that dangerous.
That means it is probably not worth doing.
Replacing the French interconnector’s current contribution of 3.59GW isn’t a big objective.
Using a receiver area of 1 hectare, about two NFL pitches, means that energy is arriving at 359,000 W/m^2.
Sounds intense to me.
Let’s let Yoko Ono and Erin Brockovich decide as the senior scientists and arbitrators.
What if we run a cable from space with an European type plug at the end? That might do it
If the satellite was geosynchronous, and the plug was at the equator, it could theoretically work. The cable would need to be really strong…
First build a beanstalk, then attach an array of solar panels to the top. That’d work.
There’s a really old Michael Crichton novel that deals with this concept. Before he was even using his own name on novels. Most of it involved traveling up and down the cable on some sort of scooter wearing a magic spacesuit, but the concept has been around a long, long time.
One thing to consider is the physics of such a cable and the forces involved at either end as the cable is subject to atmospheric pressures and simply the forces of traveling in sync with the earth’s rotation.
I think the wireless approach is a better one, but, as always, what is the cost of creating anything at a scale to be worth using? I agree with the author – good to fund some research, but irresponsible to count on at any fixed point in the future.
Right on. I believe the grant is not for launching mirrors, but for finding a way to get the power down without a cable.
“…People thought it was impossible to land a man on the Moon, or impossible to split the atom. You follow the science and the impossible becomes possible…”
Statisticians might call this comment an example of “Texas Sharpshooting”.
Fire at a barn wall and then draw the target around it.
I’d suggest Schapp peruse copies of 1950’s Popular Science and use those predicted future developments as a basis for his optimism.
Of course Tesla opined that wireless transmission of power would be possible. Too bad no one attempted to develop that technology since that time. /sarc
“Texas Sharpshooting”.
Fire at a barn wall and then draw the target around it.
Brilliant analogy.
“…People thought it was impossible to land a man on the Moon, or impossible to split the atom. You follow the science and the impossible becomes possible…”
In both of those cases, failure would not have negatively impacted society as a whole. That is the significant difference. Our future was not dependent on their success. If these ideas fail and we give up what currently works, what are the consequences.
Betting our future on technologies that do not currently exist is a horrible bet.
I believe that was the original meaning of the Precautionary Principle before the 1st Rio Climate Conference turned it upside down.
The sad part is people will believe this possible and use it as another reason we should stop using FF. It’s amazing how many people believe now that we can run the world on solar and wind generated energy thinking there are batteries capable of storing that much energy for no wind/sun periods.
Yes nailed it..
It’s building a false feeling of confidence about the future, among ill-educated, gullible & naive people, thereby enabling the contemporary screws to be tightened even further
Fear not, in 5 billion years time, the Suns coming right to us, no need for fancy gadgets to harvest it
Ah no – they have a plan to avoid that. They’re going to use technology developed in about a million years time, then something happens, and the problem is solved, simples! sarc
‘And technology is improving all the time’ is yet another phrase used by these unicorn believers when challenged.
‘It is a perfectly proper role of government to fund the development of science and promising technologies which might otherwise struggle to obtain private funding in their early years.‘
Actually, it isn’t. Which is why we’re currently suffering the ill economic, social and health effects of government-funded science. Your results may differ, but in the US, north of 90% of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional.
Agree, science should never be politicised
Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
A man who left school with 5 ‘O’ Levels. For our overseas friends, this is the most basic school leaver qualification in the UK (now superseded by GCSE’s (General Certificate of Secondary Education)), and 5 of them is nothing to be proud of. Nor do they mention at what grade they were – A,B and C are passes – D, E and F are fails, but a certificate is still awarded.
His employment and business experience runs to selling photocopiers then setting up an online printing company.
What this man know about energy, far less energy security, defies logic.
Of course dealing with NetZero is easy. Figure out how to hand out taxpayers money as subsidies to renewables businesses that could not survive without them.
This, I’m afraid, is the standard of British politics.
“…Of course dealing with NetZero is easy. Figure out how to hand out taxpayers money as subsidies to renewables businesses that could not survive without them…”
It’s a little more complicated than that. You also need to figure out how to set yourself up to legally skim part of the largess.
I have been referring to him as “Shapps the idiot” for many years before this latest hare-brained scheme. I just now realise that I am doing a great disservice to idiots.
Great comment – Shapps did manage an HND in finance, which still makes him illiterate and incompetent in anything from a technical or Engineering perspective
He does like the glitzy presentations the wind & solar, ex used car salesmen show him just before he writes them a taxpayer funded cheque, subsidy or CfD contract
Anyone peddling battery cars, smart meters, heat pumps or renewables in the nut zero selection box, is a fool, or benefitting
C’s in Maths, Eng Lit, Eng Lang, B’s in Geography and CDT, he got a U (unclassified – not a pass) in combined science. He did go on to get a diploma in business and finance from Manchester Polytechnic.
Well dug up. I couldn’t find any further information than that I posted.
My electricians mate told me the other day that he has two degrees and a masters. He was made redundant and at 60 years old couldn’t get a job in his field.
Well as far as politicians are concerned that’s about the par for the course.
Their egos/ambitions are writing checks that their qualifications/abilities can’t cash.
Our future in the (unsafe) hands of these incompetents – what (more) could possibly go wrong!
** when I went to Manchester Polytechnic I needed some A levels as well as decent O levels to get on my course.
Trying to bring solar energy down from space would have many of the same issues that ground based solar has. Namely, cloudy skies – if it’s cloudy (as is often the case in the UK) it doesn’t matter how much energy is up there, if you can’t get it down here. Then you will have atmospheric conditions like fog, dust, haze, etc, that will attenuate the energy beam.
These issues are one of the main reasons that laser weapons on the battlefield are very limited in scope and use. For an energy beam to do its job (warfare or energy transmission) it has to have ideal atmospheric conditions.
Something like this would work fabulously to bring power to a future moon colony, as there is no weather and atmosphere to deal with. But here on earth you will have the same problems any other solar energy projects currently have.
The energy beam would be microwave not optical and go right through clouds and such, and be probably a kilometre wide or more so specks of dust wouldn’t be an issue.
Not that I’m saying solar power satellites are a good or even just a possible option – just putting in my toonie’s worth of knowledge.
Can you imagine moving the number of required solar cells to account for the inclination and precession of the earth.
Can’t the numpties do simple multiplication? So you’ve got some solar panels that are 25% efficient and abracadabra Nobel you’ve discovered the 100% efficient solar panel. 100% times zero is still zero at night stoopids.
Up in space there is no night or day – the solar power satellites over the night side would still be able to get lit by the Sun. In the rare case of being eclipsed by the Earth, the satellites also would act as power transmission satellites, receiving power from lit up satellites. They would also be able to pass power around wherever it’s needed over the globe.
A large, convex, inflated mylar reflector in space in synchronous ofbit could solve the UK;s problem with solar power. Every solar panel in the UK would be aimed at the reflector, not the sun.
As a bonus there would be no need for street lights and the growing season on the UK would be much longer. The UK would now be a tropical holiday delight.
Ha ha! And you all thought they had reached peak barking mad when they promised battery back up for grid scale electrical generation.
This is a whole new level of unexpected stupidity but don’t think they won’t come up with something even more bizarre that this.
I would like to remind Grant S, we only had one semi serious space launch system from here in the U.K. and it recently went bust following failure. The idea we would be able to launch the necessary to create 25% of our grid energy demand is so far along the wishful thinking road, even Dorothy and Toto didn’t go that far. They were just expecting to meet a wizard!…
They are getting pretty enthusiastic about reviving old power generation ideas. What have they done with pyramid power lately?
There were 2 James Bond movies that centered on beaming energy from space. “Diamonds Are Forever” and “Goldeneye”. If they can’t develop useful solar energy transport, maybe they can make a really cool weapon.
There was a third, “Die Another Day” had a similar plot to “Diamonds Are Forever”, basically a remake/update.
Clearly satellite-derived solar power would have to be sent down to Earth in an incredibly powerful beam of energy. What could go wrong?
What happens if the beam loses direction by a fraction of a degree and hits a nearby city? What happens to the intensely heated column of air through which the beam passes? What kind of weapon would this beam be?
Look at human history. My judgment is that this is a bad idea.
What would happen? Nothing.
A 1MW beam that covers one square kilometer would work out to an energy density of 0.01 Watts per centimeter square.
Depending on the altitude of the satellite, the beam could easily be wider.
The expense of these schemes is not just getting the satellite into orbit, it’s building the receiving antenna..
Don’t worry the Wundertechnologie will be coming online any day now
Yet
John Holdren of Obama Science Czar fame touted two energy sources that would be available by the 1990s in his 1972 Sierra Club Battlebook entitled “Power: A crisis in Energy” or maybe the title was “Energy: A crisis in power” — Fusion and Orbital solar with microwave beamed to Earth.
Need I elaborate?
I remember reading O’Neils plan for the solar power satellites back I think in the 80’s and I think I might still have the book somewhere. It required Apollo levels of investment, not for 10 years but maintained for about 3 decades – and it only was viable because they leveraged a moon base for the actual material for the panels. The only thing coming up from Earth was the equipment needed for the original moonbase with its linear accelerator train to space, and for the orbiting foundry and factory processing everything and making the panels.
The planned called for a shuttle-derived lifter remarkably like the useless guilt-pig Artemis rocket, so at least reality is better in that Starship will be available in a few years and be cheaper than O’Neill envisioned, and I think solar efficiency is basically at what was assumed, but our time’s robots and manufacturing tech might make things faster and cheaper than the original plan.
But ready for multiple GWs in place by 2050, at a meter price that people can afford – no way.
A solar collector large enough to supply a quarter of the UK’s total energy demand would have to be much larger than the International Space Station, which has required hundreds of launches of European, US, and Russian rockets to build and supply. How much fuel would need to be burned to launch the rockets to build such a huge solar collector in space?
Such a satellite would have to be in geosynchronous orbit, meaning that it would have to be over the Equator, at an altitude of about 35,800 km above the earth’s surface or about 42,100 km from the center of the earth. From the point of view of the satellite, the earth would subtend an angle of about 17.3 degrees, meaning that the satellite would be in the earth’s shadow for over an hour each day. If it was over the Greenwich Meridian, the beam would be interrupted for an hour right around midnight, so the British would have to burn the midnight oil in the absence of electricity.
Then there is the question of how to transmit the beam from space to somewhere in the UK. The beam would have to be well-focused so that it does not scatter to a much larger radius when transmitted through over 35,000 km of space. Also, since the UK is north of 50 degrees latitude, the incident beam would be less than 40 degrees above the southern horizon, with the possibility of scattering when passing through the atmosphere.
The beam would also have to consist of high-energy (high frequency, short wavelength) light to be able to penetrate clouds, which are frequent over the UK. Visible light can be scattered by clouds and the atmosphere, and some ultraviolet is filtered out by the ozone layer. This means that the beam would have to be in the far-ultraviolet to X-ray part of the spectrum. While people and airplane pilots could be warned to stay away from the beam, birds and wildlife that stray into the beam would be fried to death.
Then there is the question of how to convert the energy of the beam to electricity. What kind of materials would need to be used to withstand the intense radiation? Who could maintain the power station, and how would such personnel be protected from the radiation, and possible burns and genetic damage?
But I’m sure lots of university students would love to share 4.3 million “quid” to write a report to Grant Shapps that the whole idea is unfeasible.
And it would have to miss all the space junk
He’s claiming that because somethings that some people thought to be impossible turned out to be possible. Therefore everything that is currently thought to be impossible will someday turn out to be possible.