Space-based solar farms power up
February 28, 2013
SPS-ALPHA (Solar Power Satellite via Arbitrarily Large Phased Array) is a novel, bio-mimetic approach to the challenge of space solar power. If successful, this project will make possible the construction of huge platforms from tens of thousands of small elements that can deliver remotely and affordably 10s to 1000s of megawatts using wireless power transmission to markets on Earth and missions in space. (Credit: Mark Elwood, SpaceWorks Enterprises, Inc.)
Space-based solar power (SBSP) has once again begun to attract attention with projects emerging in the US, Russia, China, India and Japan, among others. All are driven by increasing energy demands, soaring oil and gas prices, a desire to find clean alternatives to fossil fuels and by a burgeoning commercial space industry that promises to lower the cost of entry into space and spur on a host of new industries, says BBC Future.
Space-solar-power pioneer John Mankins, CTO of Deep Space Industries, is the man behind a project called SPS-Alpha, which aims to assemble a huge bell-shaped structure that will use mirrors to concentrate energy from the sun onto solar panels. The collected energy would then be beamed down to ground stations on Earth using microwaves, providing unlimited, clean energy and overnight reducing our reliance on polluting fossil fuels.
The snag? It is unproven technology and he estimates it will take at least $15–$20 billion. .
However, a 2011 report by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) found that SBSP could be commercially viable within 30 years, driven in part by the rise of private space companies.
Comments (25)
by Brent Sherwood
So much is involved in approving, planning, and executing any power utility project, that the focus should not be on the “$15-20B” cost. Rather, it should be on the extremely modest (e.g., $200M, affordable to billionaires who want to change the world) cost of a precursor, end-to-end, space-based DEMONSTRATION project. This would catapult the topic into instant legitimacy and force a genuine conversation about it.
by A4i
Down to Earth we have day and night cycle. At night no electricity is produced in the solar panels. Out there in space a day is 24 hours long. Also there is no atmospheric absorption and the whole solar radiation (of 1400Watt/m^2) can be collected. Another benefit is the luck of bad weather and dust. No need for constant cleaning and maintenance. Solar radiation is nearly constant all year. It only slightly varies, depending on how far from the Sun on the Earth ecliptic orbit we are.
by John
An article on page 84 of the 5th November 2012 issue of Aviation Week describes the progess being made in China on the development of a revolutionary propellentless type of propulsion. The significance of this news lies in the fact it means the chinese now understand how to launch satellites into geostationary orbit using 130 times less energy than is needed when using rocket propulsion. A difference that will radically improve the economics of SBSP, and the futures of space industries everywhere. China pioneered rocketry in about 300 BC, now it’s doing the same with its replacement. China has announced plans to have their first SBSP operating by 2020, long before any other nation.
by josdorpjossie
Isn’t it much easier, cheaper, safer to place these solar panels on the ground. If we only cover a tiny fraction of the eath surface with solar panels we can easily deliver the current (and future) energy demand. Do the math yourself, you’ll find out it’s true.
by spikosauropod
If we built enough of them–I mean really a lot–they could curb global warming. They would serve double duty.
by Bri
Cost wise the easiest way would be to fabricate all the components in space from lunar materials and possibly asteroid materials. Roping an asteroid ain’t gonna be easy. The first solar installations could beam energy to lunar processing centers. It’s easier to build that near earth. The regolith processing could then build ones on the moon. Once power is generated there future ones could be brought back to earth. The first few near earth ones I’d send the materials up by rail gun. Most of those components should be able to be hardened to withstand the G forces. Most of the work I would do robotically. They could be remotely controlled from earth if it’s in earths orbit. For lunar activities the robots would have to be semi autonomous or remotely controlled from lunar positions till robots get smart enough. The near earth solar could be started tomorrow. There are plenty of designs available. Again I’d start small with a scalable design. That way the costs are minimal and there could be rapid payback. Even small micro satellites that turned the small amounts of electricity into fuel from water would be useful. Tossing up those little guys would be that expensive and almost immediately they could have payback. Systems could be put in place that would ferry the materials from low earth orbit into higher orbits.. Small and inexpensive is the way to go. Not the big grandiose projects. The focal point energy conversion area first. Add mirrors individually till it’s power production hits it’s design maximum. Send up another. Toss up some frozen water in sealed containers. Process it into fuel. Now you don’t have to be lugging around all your fuel. Shuttle materials to the moon for processing centers. Toss stuff up from the moon by rail gun again. The electricity to fire them can be beamed from the solar energy converters in earth orbit and eventually from solar converters on the moon.
by your name
No. If we use the energy we collect then it’s still dispersed on earth. If we build a lot it will probably accelerate global warming.
by Leonard Schneider
Well. It’s got to be geosynchronous to be able to get the beam down here and therefore it won’t receive sunlight during night. Who wants to spend $20 billions for something working half of the time?
by Astrojensen
The geosynchronous orbit is 36000 kilometers from earth, thus earth blocks a rather small percentage of the sky in the direction of the sun, about 13° acros as seen from the vantage point of the solar power satellite, when the satellite is in opposition. It will only be without direct sunlight for an hour or so. Two satellites in orbit and you’ve got energy 100% of the time.
by Bri
Not to mention it can be relayed in space rather easily.
by hakan1997
Let us hope that this facility can’t be hacked. Then we will all be cooked chickens.
by Bri
It would take a rather large beam with a very high power density. Do I hear James Bond music playing?
by DrDubious
How about we stop subsidizing the “Too Big To Fail” banks for $80 billion a year and use that money to build three or four of these things? Even if it doesn’t work we’re no worse off.
by David
Would adding this amount of energy to the earth’s biosphere that would othrwise (I assume) not strike the earth contribute to global warming?
by Bruce Wright
My guess is not appreciably – if it did, things like nuclear energy and fossil fuels would be significant contributions to global warming simply because of the heat produced rather than from any greenhouse gases. The amount of energy that we actually use is a tiny fraction of what arrives here.
by Dennis
The additional energy would, but it would be more than offset by fewer greenhouse gasses emitted by the fossil fuel that would not have to be burned to generate the equivalent amount of energy. Over time as the greenhouse gasses are consumed by plants and/or degraded, it should begin to reverse the warming as more of the infrared that is now reflected back by those gasses will radiate to space.
by Rob B
Commercially viable within 30 years? That’s disappointing.
by eldras
yep, but being pioneered by men. A.I. is surely coming
by Bri
That time line is from linear thinkers. It will probably happen much sooner.
by Uri
will it cause cancel ?
by Rob B
are you planning on ingesting the components?
by Uri
im saying the eletro heat shooting back to earth. just like Circuit Breaker Box will cause you cancel if you staying near for too long.
by Bri
From the NASA proposal they say you could walk across the receiving dish with no I’ll effect. You can’t do that with any of the large telecommunication dishes. The beam will be tightly focused on the receiver and it will probably be a restricted area.
by bob
From 36000km, I’m pretty sure the restricted area will be about the size of… NORTH AMERICA. Get your tin hats and have your kids now…
by Editor
Different design