A limitless power source for the indefinite future
November 11, 2011 by Amara D. Angelica
Space solar power satellite, artist's impression (credit: SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc./Spaceworks Commercial)
On Monday, the National Space Society (NSS) will present findings from an eye-opening new report by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA). You’re hearing about this here first. (Full disclosure: I’m a member of the NSS board of directors.)
Some background: By 2030–40, the projected annual electrical energy consumption will be a staggering 220 trillion kiloWatt hours, double the consumption in 2010 — and four times more by 2090–2100, according to the International Energy Agency and U.S. Department of Energy.
“Economic concerns have diverted attention from energy policy and limited the means of intervention,” the International Energy Agency reports in its 2011 World Energy Outlook. “Post-Fukushima, nuclear is facing uncertainty. MENA [Middle East and North Africa] turmoil raised questions about the region’s investment plans. Some key trends are pointing in worrying directions: CO2 emissions rebounded to a record high, energy efficiency of the global economy worsened for the 2nd straight year, and spending on oil imports is near record highs.”
Global energy demand increases in mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent) by one-third from 2010 to 2035, with China & India accounting for 50% of the growth (credit: International Energy Agency)
The space solar power solution
In 2002, Dr. Martin Hoffert, Professor Emeritus of Physics, New York University, proposed a radical solution to what appears to be a serious coming energy shortfall (Science, 2002): space solar power (SSP) — collect energy from space and transmit it wirelessly anywhere in the world.
The basic concept, invented in the late 60s by Dr. Peter Glaser of Arthur D. Little: a large platform, positioned in space in a high Earth orbit continuously collects and converts solar energy into electricity. This power is then used to drive a wireless power transmission system that transmits the solar energy to receivers on Earth. Because of its immunity to nighttime, to weather or to the changing seasons, the SPS concept. has the potential to achieve much greater energy efficiency than ground based solar power systems.
There are significant advantages to SSP compared to ground solar power, according to an NSS statement: solar energy in space is seven times greater per unit area than on the ground, and the collection of solar space energy is not disrupted by nightfall and inclement weather, avoiding the need for expensive energy storage. And it’s especially valuable for isolated areas of the world (parts of Africa and India, for example.)
SSP technically feasible in 10–20 years
However, so far, the SSP concept has lacked the needed in-depth technology, market, and economic assessment. (I’ve personally been skeptical.) But on Monday Nov. 14 at a press conference (open to the public) at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the National Space Society will announce the findings of an impressive three-year, ten-nation study of space solar power by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), co-chaired by John Mankins, a 25-year NASA veteran who headed NASA’s study of space solar power in the 90s, and Prof. Nobuyuki Kaya, Vice Dean of the Graduate School of Engineering, Kobe University.
Its findings include:
- Space solar power appears to be technically feasible within 10–20 years using technologies existing now in the laboratory;
- It appears to be economically viable in the next 1–3 decades under several different scenarios for future energy markets, including potential government actions to mediate environment/climate change issues;
- Low-cost Earth-to-orbit transportation systems appear to be technically feasible during the coming 20–30 years using technologies existing in the laboratory now;
- Flight experiments are needed, and policy-related and regulatory issues must be resolved.
Occupy space
“The report gets across one very basic message: in the eyes of the leading experts on aerospace technology worldwide: harvesting solar power in space and transmitting it to earth is no longer science fiction,” says author Howard Bloom in a companion announcement by the Space Development Steering Committee. “It is sound, current-technology-based science fact. And it is a green energy option we can’t ignore.
“SSP produces no greenhouse gases. It offers a way out of the trap of climate change. It is supremely sustainable. It can make us a net energy exporter, a position the United States enjoyed until 1951. And, as a National Space Security Office report on space solar power points out, SSP is an energy source that can end our hemorrhage of cash to hostile oil nations and can save us from the trillion dollar budgets of energy wars. No wonder a recent report from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Institute concluded that ‘A successful effort,’ in space solar power ‘could provide unprecedented levels of clean and renewable energy.’”
“Without any doubt the components technology for space solar power as well as various system concepts have been developed and tested successfully,” says Dr. Neville I. Marzwell, NASA-JPL Advanced Concepts and Technology Innovation Manager (recently retired). “The next logical steps are the validation of power transmission from space to ground, and power storage at a continuously increasing level to validate the economical analysis and create financial, technical, social, environmental, and political support across the globe. The industrial countries of the world cannot and should not miss this opportunity to meet their energy demand safely while creating financial and job growth.”
“We run on energy like Rome ran on slavery,” says Hoffert.”But we’ve hit an economic, energy and environmental wall. Space-based solar power is a technologically ready path over the wall to sustainable high tech civilization on Earth; an ideologically cross-cutting approach encompassing the military-industrial complex and Occupy Wall Street.
“It can create real jobs, both near- and long-term in orbital light and power industries of the 21st century much as the NASA’s Apollo Program industrialized the South to produce high tech cars and aircraft today. And of course space-based solar power offers a unique challenge to the U.S. in the spirit of Steve Jobs and Silicon Valley: ‘Don’t tell us the sky’s the limit when our footprints are on the Moon.’”
Ref.: John C. Mankins, Editor, Space Solar Power: The First International Assessment of Space Solar Power: Opportunities, Issues and Potential Pathways Forward, International Academy of Astronautics, 2011
Without any doubt the components technology for space solar power as well as various system concepts have been developed and tested successfully. The next logical steps are the validation of power transmission from space to ground, and power storage at a continuously increasing level to validate the economical analysis and create financial, technical, social, environmental, and political support across the globe. The industrial countries of the world cannot and should not miss this opportunity to meet their energy demand safely while creating financial and job growth.
Dr. Neville I. Marzwell, NASA-JPL Advanced Concepts and Technology Innovation Manager (retired),
Comments (24)
by Nathan Nifong
redirecting more solar energy to earth that would not have otherwise hit earth will inevitably make it hotter. we need to put the things which consume the energy in space. (like datacenters)
by saberjim
The future lies in small eco-friendly units (fuel cells etc) that don’t require a massive transmission infrastructure.
by Khannea Suntzu
http://www.scoop.it/t/space-versus-oil
by larhigh
Regardless of the what the neigh sayers think, this will happen–probably China or another Asian country will be the first to use it in spite of all the gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects.
by IQ146
I can’t believe some scientists are so unconnected that they think that it’s a good idea to beam energy into Earth from satellites when the major problem we are facing is global warming and the resultant catastrophic climate change we are now starting increasingly to experience. As humanity tries to think of ways of reducing our energy needs, and creating the energy by sustainable methods, these fantasists think that adding billions of watts to Earth is a good idea as they ‘predict’ our energy consumption will continue to grow and grow, like we’re spoiled kids who can’t take our hands out of the cookie jar. Unbelievable. But if it’s hi-tech, it has to be a good thing, right?
by Khannea Suntzu
Actually, every solar watt we focus in to electricity (and that would not be heat, by definition) we wouldn’t have to INCREDIBLY INEFFICIENTLY generate by burning the combustible stuff in our Earth layers.
But just wait. Once the energy runs out, and the cars stop, and the food prices go up people will demand solutions NOW. And guess what, then we’ll start burning coal coal coal. Or mining hydrates. Or building more crappy outdated nuclear power plants. And then you’ll be gnashing your teeth we didn’t have a more sensible alternative.
by Amara D. Angelica
“efficient power transmission developments of Nikola Tesla, using Tesla coils, pulsed DC, and resonance he got more efficiency than the current wired grid”
I’m not aware of any peer-reviewed papers on this and any serious replication of his claimed results. From my investigation into the subject, Tesla wrote that anecdotal stuff as newspaper articles, and transmitting power through the Earth is highly inefficient, which is why the U.S. Navy abandoned Seafarer. I welcome any citations to the peer-reviewed science or engineering literature to counter that. Note that Tesla coils (which I have experimented with) generate nice indoor lightning, but have no known role in distributing power.
by harleyborgais
This is cost prohibitive, not to mention unnecessary.
Existing technologies make this redundant:
Howard Johnsons Magnetic motor
Stanley Meyers Water fuel cell
Paul Pantones GEET carburetor
…plus the standard wind, solar, and water power technologies
Then there are the more efficient power transmission developments of Nikola Tesla which he discovered just after inventing the 3-Phase AC power system we use now. It was wireless too, using Tesla coils, pulsed DC, and resonance he got more efficiency than the current wired grid.
by sjatkins
There are two quite major things in the way that I doubt will be resolved in 10 years (95% against) or even 20 years (80% against) from where we are today. The first problem is lift costs. This project will take on the order of 10,000 metric tons when it costs about $7000 / kg to get to GEO today. That is prohibitively high and would been that even a fully functioning system would take a while just to pay off launch costs. Barring a fabulously cheap launch system or using an Orion to lift the material, the only other viable solution is mining near earth asteroids and/or the moon and processing and manufacturing in situ.
The other major blocker is that we have no means to assemble and maintain such large structures in GEO. We don’t have that many astronauts nor could that many be trained so quickly. Even if they could, astronauts do not work in GEO. It is much more hazardous and more difficult to support such missions. Nor do we have remotely sufficient space robotics for the task. Since it is GEO we don’t need autonomous robots for this. We could get by with tele-operated bots for many tasks. But we also don’t have those.
No I think 10 years to remedy either one of these problems, much less both, is very optimistic. Especially at a time of such economic turmoil.
by asimov1
not a snowballs chance in hell of coming to fruition , see laws of physics for details
the only way to transmit a directional beam is by laser , any kind of radio waves spread like ripples in a pond which means and just you mildly warm half the cosmos
the gigawatt laser option would tear a hole in the atmosphere like a never ending lightening strike , and no laser yet conceived come close to a death ray operating 24/7/365 for decades at a time without maintenance
nice idea guys , but its never going to work
by Editor
Re: “radio waves spread like ripples…” Isotropic (omindirectional) radiation (or close to it) is indeed emitted by omnidirectional antennas, but microwave engineers use highly directional antennas such as phased arrays and parabolic dishes operating at microwave frequencies (nominally 2.5 or 5GHZ for SSP), which can be focused into narrow beams, along with large receiving antennas on Earth. For more information on space solar power transmitter beam-dispersion issues, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/index.htm has a good collection of engineering data published by NASA and other sources.
Re: “laser option would tear a hole in the atmosphere”: Could you cite a reference?
by Khannea Suntzu
Actually the technology was tested and works. Sadly no cookie for you.
by kentlytle@comast.net
I’m pro space development, but have always wondered: Since all the extra energy this method provides will eventually be released into the biosphere as heat, what will the consequences be? How much energy can we use with no adverse effects?
by 7thRay
This is something that we could do in less time than mentioned in the article if we gave it the same effort that we would if we were going to war.
This is an idea that has been around in science fiction stories for awhile. In those stories, the power was beamed to earth via microwaves. If this is the technology of choice, it suggests a need to place the receiving towers far from human population. Which creates more issues: destroying wilderness to establish highly secure receiving stations; since they are remotely situated, a means of moving the power from the receiving station to populations is needed.
Who controls the satellites, the stations, all of it? Since we will eventually all become dependent on these systems, that’s a big question.
To close: I think that it is an appropriate evolutionary step for humanity. We are finally able to step off our home nest, gather and distribute the bountiful energy of our life-giving sun, and provide the energy needs for all of humanity, with less pollution and resource consumption than ever before. And with less materials than ever before; syntropy in action.
by IQ146
Yes but in the real world, not your sci-fi fantasy one, we are at the turning point where our ‘intelligence’ is being tested, do we continue to destroy the only world we will ever have, or let it all happen as we dream our sci-fi dreams of venturing out to colonise galaxies. It ain’t gonna happen, there’s a reason why so many technologies have developed astoundingly in the last forty years – think mobile phones, digital screens, computers, cameras – yet chemical rockets are still the only method of getting into orbit, and they were invented by the Chinese how many thousands of years ago? ALL we will achieve is orbitting satellites, the distances are too vast for any skin-encapsulated ego in a monkey brain to survive long enough to get anywhere else in space, that’s if the radiation didn’t fry us first. This is why so many people have no idea that the ecosystem is what sustains us, and we damage it at our peril.
by eugenedarin
This is good site to spend time on. I just stumbled upon your informative blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your very well written blog posts. I will be your frequent visitor, that’s for sure.
by melajara
“The next logical steps are the validation of power transmission from space to ground”. Indeed, it’s critical!
Besides, what about risks on faulty dispersion over the ground? Would you bet it and accept to live nearby one of the recollection point? Anyway, the system has to be self locked and automatically turned off when the beam is moving outside the allowed perimeter.
This is all very nice but I prefer nuclear power!
What?
Oh, sure, not fission but fusion! Why are the progress so slow? Confinement of the plasma sucks, I know but it’s like nobody is interested anymore at mastering nuclear fusion SOON enough (i.e. in circa 20 years).
by Khannea Suntzu
No bumpy.
1. chances someone or something on earth looting any solar cells or solar plants for copper or other rare Earth elements is quite a bit bigger than in space. Plus they’d suspend these things in geostationary orbits. Junk is rather relatively motionless at that orbit. Plants of this sort are far more vulnerable to wind, rain, lightning, corrosion, earthquake, bird poo, terrorism, bombing, vandalism, looting etc. etc. etc. on a planetary surface.
2. the deadlyness of resource depletion is exponentially bigger than solar platforms in space. Worse, IF these things were so deadly now there’s a good argument to have them in space before anyone else does, right? Quick, get one before North Korea or China gets one.
3. Invest xxxx$ in solar cells and you get a single gigawatt of electrical outpit. Next year you’d be competing against anyone else’s solar cells, flatscreen TV’s, inflating currencies and armies and you would pay more.
Over time more planetary solar only costs more and more and more. Maybe in half a century nano will make some difference, but we need those damn terawats NOW. Or in a few years. Now a solid investment in space won’t solve energy problems overnight and all these investments will cost a load of money as Uncle Giulio suggests. Probably more than we can afford at this stage. But the damn things will get cheaper as we order more of them. Solar investments on a planetary surface will only cost more and more as a function of time. Solar investments in space will cost next to nothing eventually. You can wholesale terawatts a dime a dozen a century from now.
Provided we don’t miss or opportunity and we screw it up getting stuck on this damn dirt ball.
by gillammi
Do we really predict an energy crisis?
Kurzweil previously forecast the opposite scenario of 100% solar energy abundance in 16 years given the 34 year trend of two year doubling times for solar cell production. http://bigthink.com/ideas/31635?page=all
Even if our energy needs double in that time, that is only two additional years before that need would be met too.
That is just the progress in solar. Considering all the other fields of energy development as well – don’t the trends strongly suggest energy over abundance rather than energy shortage?
by Khannea Suntzu
Gilliami, if you are right, great.
If you are wrong we are probably going to hell in a handbasket.
Wanna bet with your childrens lives?
by Giulio Prisco
Awesome article, and concept. I have often heard of SSP, but I had formed the impression that the benefits would not justify the costs. I hope future development will prove me wrong.
The proposal is of 2002, and similar concepts have been proposed since the 70s, but I guess the key difference is “space solar power appears to be technically feasible within 10–20 years using technologies existing now in the laboratory; It appears to be economically viable…”
@bumpy1: like all disruptive technologies (for example the Internet that we are using for these comments), this has its own dangers and can be used also for bad ends. But I think the potential benefits outweigh the potential dangers.
by bumpy1
Surely I’m not the only one to perceive the dangers inherent in such a system. In the wrong hands, it would be a more dangerous weapon than any nuclear or thermonuclear weapon, because it would be more precisely controllable, re-usable, and not subject to interception. It would be vulnerable to destruction through internal malfunction, belligerent attack, or collision with wandering celestial objects or manmade space junk. A much safer, if less efficient, system would be one based on widely distributed solar collectors on the Earth’s surface.
by Khannea Suntzu
Odd last time I discussed this concept it was boo-ed out of the room, and several libertarian fetishists there insisted “we have more than enough oil and energy sources to last us centuries”. Things sure change fast don’t they? Oh right that was last year.
Now even teh Kurzweil runs this story of SSPS. I am truly in a state of elated mirth’aciousness.
http://www.scoop.it/t/space-versus-oil
by Rochi
Sharp thnkniig! Thanks for the answer.