White House petition proposes space solar power as national energy and space goal
March 10, 2013
A NASA SPS-ALPHA space-solar-power design concept (artist’s impression). It would capture power from the Sun and send it to Earth. (Credit: NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) )
A petition to the White House to task the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to examine space solar power (SSP) as a new energy and space goal for the U.S. has been posted on the White House WE the PEOPLE website, with a goal of 100,000 signatures by April 3, 2013.
The petition, initiated by SSP pioneer John C. Mankins, reads:
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Task the Office of Science and Technology Policy to examine Space Solar Power as a new energy & space goal for the US.
New concepts make it possible for solar energy to be harvested in space and delivered 24/7 to markets in the U.S. & globally. Space solar power (SSP) could supply vast new energy while addressing climate concerns.
SSP is now being pursued by other nations (e.g., China, Japan), and energy determines preeminence in space as on Earth.
But SSP falls between the charters of U.S. technology and space agencies (DOE, DOD, NASA), so it’s “no one’s job.” These agencies have existing responsibilities and stakeholders; they are not looking for new goals.
Only the White House (OSTP) working with Congress can change the policy gridlock in the U.S. and develop a plan to lead international R&D in this game-changing energy/space endeavor.
If you agree the U.S. should lead R&D on SSP, please support this petition.
“Harvesting solar power in space and delivering clean, inexhaustible energy to humanity has been a vision for more than 40 years,” Mankins, who is currently CTO of asteroid mining company Deep Space Industries, explained to KurzweilAI. “Now, new technologies and new concepts exist that can transform this vision into a reality.
“Within a decade, perhaps less, the first solar power satellite made from mass-produced modules could be in operation, transforming everything we do in space and the future of energy on Earth. Space solar power is both technically feasible, and could be economically viable — but only if we act to make it so.”
NASA, international studies support SSP
Mankins headed two NASA studies of SSP. During 2011 — 2012, NASA’s Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program supported a preliminary Phase 1 project to investigate a transformational new approach to the concept of SSP called the SPS-ALPHA, to deliver energy to Earth.
SPS-ALPHA would typically be based in a geostationary Earth orbit (GEO), where it would intercept sunlight using a collection of individually pointed thin-film mirrors, convert that sunlight into a coherent microwave beam and transmit the power to markets on Earth or in space.
And in 1995–1997, NASA conducted its Fresh Look study, a preliminary reexamination of the technologies, systems concepts and terrestrial markets that might be involved in future SSP systems.
A three-year, ten-nation study of space solar power in 2009–2011 by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), co-chaired by Mankins, found that SSP appears to be “technically feasible within 10–20 years using technologies existing now in the laboratory, and 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.”
Comments (32)
by Maury Markowitz
This remains the dumbest idea ever.
You take sunlight, turn it into electricity, turn that back into light, shine that onto the planet, convert it back into electricity, and then convert it again into grid power.
When you read it that way it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, does it?
It gets worse when you run the numbers – it becomes very clear that the concept cannot possibly ever work. Any baseline model illustrates that an SPS would deliver LESS power to the grid than leaving the same panel on the ground, and thereby removing the $10,000 per pound shipping rates:
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/the-maury-equation/
The entire SPS concept is, and always has been, a way for space geeks to excite themselves. Everyone else sees it for the dumb idea it is. Who is “everyone else”? Well one name that the SPS proponents constantly drop is Elon Musk, The Saviour of Launch Costs. What’s he say about it?
“Stab that bloody thing in the heart!”
http://www.popularmechanics.com/how-to/blog/elon-musk-on-spacex-tesla-and-why-space-solar-power-must-die-13386162
by Vid Beldavs
Elon Musk clearly doesn’t have a clue about space based solar power. He should read more and say stupid things less. There were ideas in the 1970s by Kraft Ehricke to have mirrors in space to focus energy on parts of the Earth that can benefit from more sunlight. SBSP concentrates, solar energy, converts this to electricity and then transmits microwave energy in frequencies minimally attenuated by the atmosphere to a rectenna on the surface of the Earth where the microwave energy is rectified to alternating current for grid power. While there are situations where even $10,000 / kg launch costs would still result in economically justifiable power delivery. The average power of sunlight is 9X that on the surface, plus the sun shines 24/7/365. Terrestrial solar is a vitally needed option, however, it is not a good solution for baseload power. Baseload power will continue to be needed for industrial use, even if all the homes have solar roofs. Given the appropriate scale of investment – comparable to investment required for other largescale energy options, SBSP can be forecast to be competitive with coal. Read some of the hundreds of studies on this topic at http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/.
by Maury Markowitz
“Elon Musk clearly doesn’t have a clue about space based solar power”
Riiiight, the guy that builds and flies rockets don’t understand a space related topic. Let’s see…
“SBSP concentrates, solar energy, converts this to electricity and then transmits microwave energy in frequencies minimally attenuated by the atmosphere to a rectenna on the surface of the Earth where the microwave energy is rectified to alternating current for grid power”
So then, exactly what Mr. Musk said. I’m glad you clarified this!
“While there are situations where even $10,000 / kg launch costs would still result in economically justifiable power delivery”
I’d LOVE to see them.
“The average power of sunlight is 9X”
No it’s not. AM1.5 is 1000W/m2, AM0 is 1350, so it’s about 1.3 times, not 9.
You’re supporting SBSP and you don’t even know the most basic numbers?
“plus the sun shines 24/7/365″
And here on Earth it’s half that. However, the SBSP loses half its power on the way down. So in the end the delivery to the grid is the same. Yet I save myself $10,000 a pound by not launching it into space.
If you really think you can justify the numbers, please provide fully referenced selections for the inputs and then run the calculations here:
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/the-maury-equation/
by Vid Beldavs
Your calculations were done in the 2007 http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm and also by John Mankins – http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/SPS_Alpha_2012_Mankins.pdf.
The incidence of sunlight per m2 varies across the globe depending on distance north or south as well as weather conditions. In winter days are very short making solar energy less attractive the further north or south people live. Few people live where solar energy is optimal. SBPS would collect solar energy optimally and beam the energy in a wavelength that imposes little loss on the delivered energy focussed and aimed to the point on the Earth where the rectenna is located. The ESA feasibility study of SBPS chose the Sahara desert because they assumed large – scale terrestrial solar would be located there in their studies to provide electricity to Europe. However, it may be more advantageous to beam the energy closer to population centers. Upwards of 80% efficiency is expected – but has still to be demonstrated since no prototype powersats have been deployed in orbit.
Elon Musk’s point quoted in Popular Mechanics appears comparable to Steve Jobs’s prejudice against Flash and other software – an unexamined prejudice. Flash continues to meet needs of millions of users just as SBPS will meet the needs of millions of consumers in the future. As launch costs drop and space industrialization progresses to make effective use of lunar and asteroid resources SBPS delivered costs of energy will be competitive with coal and hydro. Launch costs are key to rapid deployment. We can be thankful for Elon Musk for his remarkable efforts to reduce launch costs and thereby to usher in the space industrial revolution.
by Maury Markowitz
If you really think you can justify the numbers, please provide fully referenced selections for the inputs and then run the calculations here:
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/the-maury-equation/
by Vid Beldavs
SBSP first needs to be demonstrated by building a proof-of-concept prototype. I believe unknown unknowns may creep in that show the concept may be more difficult to implement than the multiple studies indicate. However, the upside is that SBSP can be demonstrated to work and to deliver reliable power to the Earth. Given such a demonstration the next logical steps would be to cut construction costs. To build massive objects in space the materials for construction need to be sourced from where they are economical, and there are plenty of them, given the proper level of upfront investment. Constructing the additional generating capacity needed by 2050 is a $100 + trillion proposition. If by 2020 we can show that SBPS can reliably deliver electrical power to where it is needed on Earth how many trillions of dollars would be needed to establish mining operations on the Moon to source the needed silicon, aluminum, iron and other materials needed to construct the powerplants? Given the industrial capacity on the Moon to mine and produce component parts for powersats the incremental cost of building 1,000 additional powersats would be essentially nominal. Material can be launched from the surface of the Moon by mass drivers that derive their power from powersats. I see the future as space industrialization and not as attempting industrial activities in space from the Earth. However, Mankins has numbers that show that at a range of launch costs SBPS built from terrestrial resources would be economically justifiable. I would advocate for thinking strategically, focus on industrializing the Moon to make all else feasible. If we can throw down 3 trillion for a war that brought the US no benefits in Iraq investing 3 trillion over the next decade to industrially develop the Moon would be much less outlandish – I think it would be downright practical compared to more war. Rockets for peace and put the weapons makers to work so they no longer think about war.
by Maury Markowitz
So, then, I take it you’re not going to try to justify your position using actual math. You’ve had a week and I’ve provided all the formulas, and yet you still respond with off-topic comments about moon mining and other rhetoric.
According to your bio you work a science and engineering firm, so this repeated side-stepping of displaying any math seems very telling. When you’re ready to justify your claims with more than hand-waving, I’ll be all ears, but in the meantime…
by Vid Beldavs
When Ford produces a prototype of a car where the required investment to bring that car to market may exceed a billion dollars no one judges the feasibility of the project based on the cost of the prototype. Rather, the feasibility calculations are based on production in the fully developed production facilities. While some uses of space-based solar power can be justified even with components launched from Earth, full commercial viability needs to consider the logical sources of materials to build large facilities in space. With current launch capabilities launch costs are very high. Estimated launch costs from the Moon using mass-drivers or other propulsion are very low, pennies per kilogram. While the capabilities to process lunar materials will require massive investment, once those investments have been made the incremental costs will be very low. How long will it take to develop industrial facilities on the Moon that can support SBSP? Given that such a goal were supported to the same degree that the last war in Iraq was supported with upwards of a trillion dollars of investment it is thinkable that within a decade lunar regolith could begin to be processed and within 20-30 years it would be possible to construct most of a large PV array in geosynchronous orbit from lunar materials. Just like with a Ford automobile, the factory that produces one can produce thousands and the unit costs for each additional powerplant would drop dramatically. Under some scenarios SBSP can delivery kWh at costs competitive with hydro. The key is to achieve sufficient scale in the industrial processes to manufacture from lunar and asteroidal materials.
by Maury Markowitz
More hand waving.
by Vid Beldavs
Doing meaningless calculations does not advance understanding of the topic. The strategic goal of the US should be to establish industrial capabilities on the Moon on a priority basis because with that many problems facing the US and the world could be effectively solved. Eisenhower realized the benefits of a coast to coast interstate highway system because as a young officer he led or participated in a convoy that took upwards of six weeks to cross the US. Now, with the interstate highway system Walmart, McDonalds and other pillars of the US economy became thinkable. Industrial development of the Moon would have a greater global impact than the interstate highway system has had. The cost of constructing the interstate highway system was about $500 billion in current dollars. I suspect that development of industrial infrastructure on the Moon may cost more,but the payback to the US would also be greater. This payback would include cheap electrical energy for the Earth that could help stabilize several volatile regions where the US military presence that is required has cost us trillions of dollars in the past decades.
by Dr. Goulu
such plants “would typically be based in a geostationary Earth orbit (GEO)”. There is only one GEO, it lays above the equator, and AFAIK equator does not cross the USA. So basically the proposal is to occupy a limited resource (GEO is already pretty much crowded by satellites) which basically “belongs” to other countries …
by Vid Beldavs
The idea is that the power from the powersat can be aimed to points on the Earth where the electricity is needed and not necessarily to the Equator. If the powersat can generate gigawatts of power 24/7 this would generate substantial revenue. Given that the powersats are fabricated by robotics from lunar and asteroid resources launch costs will no longer be a factor. Such systems could generate hundreds of billions of dollars per annum at current typical costs of electrical power. Space industrialization will make this, and much more possible.
by Roland
Why stick to centralized energy supply systems for (home) energy? Compared to space solar power it is a completely trivial task to cover every dwelling on this planet with solar cells and have an independent energy supply for everyone. Of course this will not be the way to go for businesses because every company I ever worked for uses electricity ,and energy in general, like nothing else around.
One thing I never see addressed about the whole solarpower in space thing is the cost of terrestrial infrastructure. 1 km high voltage line will set you back around one million euro’s to give an example. The receiving antenna’s cover several square kilometers. Ground is sold per square meter in metropolitan areas.
by Editor
Most SSP studies show an advantage for providing energy in remote areas.
by Maury Markowitz
I find that difficult to believe. Instead of shipping solar panels to the remote area, I ship the solar panels into GEO and a rectenna to the remote area. One immediately concludes there are only losses in that equation.
by Vid Beldavs
The ESA feasibility study of SBPS – http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/POW/ACT-RPT-NRG-2209-SPS_concluded_and_ongoing_activities_reduced_size.pdf- assumed location of the rectenna in the Sahara desert from where high voltage transmission lines would carry power from colocated large-scale terrestrial solar power plants to Europe. Distributed power with smart grids is very important for multiple reasons, however, there are industrial processes that require huge amounts of power. A hybrid system incorporating baseload power from SBPS with distributed power may be more cost effective and reliable than distributed power alone. What do we need power for? Multiple forecasts show a shortfall in supply based on distributed power options alone. What will provide the baseload power? SBPS looks a viable option worth studying.SBPS may fail due to currently unknown reasons. To find out the option needs to be pursued at least as seriously as fusion, which has received many billions in research funding.
by j
This might also provide a great energy weapon system, since we could concievably point the energy it sends down to earth onto any location we would like to target. Could it yield enough energy to effectively kill the people our government would like to eliminate?
by Bri
It could but it would be very inefficient.
by Editor
Published designs I’ve seen are incapable of providing a concentrated beam that would cause biological damage.
by Vid Beldavs
If the energy is beamed as microwaves at a frequency to have minimal damage no problem, but if you use a 10GW powerplant to power a high energy laser weapon damage could be considerable.
by josdorpjossie
I really don’t understand why anyone would favor this dangerous technology while there is more than plenty of sunlight falling onto the earths surface.
by Spacerocks1
By what measure do you consider SSP dangerous? I assume you are referring to the beam that transmits power from the collector to the ground? In most of the designs of which I have read, the beam is so diffuse that it would not harm a bird flying through it. This technology has been studied by many people and groups for decades. It certainly requires as much careful thought and development as any new technology. The issues have always been: can it be done in a cost effective way and is it the best use of our time and resources. This is what the study would determine.
by Bri
There is vastly more sunlight energy in space. Covering every surface with collectors on earth will work for a short time. We’ll use that up fast.
by humanitarian
Cost effective, is it is the question we must answer as some pointed out. The other thing is there must a global space agency governing the various interests of diverse nations. We also need to ask if all the resources (technologies) on Earth for it’s inhabitants are exhausted before looking up to the sky.
by Vid Beldavs
While California will have more than a million solar roofs by 2018 and terrestrial solar continues to advance and multiple options are emerging for energy storage including super capacitors the space solar potential needs to be seriously examined not only by the White House, but also by the G20. The G20 goal in 2013, while Russia presides over the body, is to develop a global growth strategy that creates jobs in the US, Europe, China, India and elsewhere. Russia is the only country that has suffered serious damage from impact by objects from space in modern times, so it can be expected that Russia may call for a global planetary defense initiative after the recent Chelyabinsk impact. However, if the problem is approached at the proper scale SBSP and an infrastructure for space industrial become important, which gets back to jobs. With significant cuts to defense looming “rockets for peace” initiatives can be launched that simultaneously address climate change and the need to deliver large amounts of electricity in remote underdeveloped regions of the world where electrical supply is totally inadequate. SBSP has been shown to be a viable approach to deliver electrical power to remote areas. Given such a capability SBSP could also be used to deliver electrical power to a country like Japan which may be faced with the need to decomission 50 nuclear power plants. SBSP could also be used to provide power to peacekeeping operations in areas without an electrical infrastructure and significant potential to disrupt delivery of fuel for vehicles and aircraft. SBSP and terrestrial solar are also not either or choices. ESA in its 2003-2005 feasibility study of SBSP saw a hybrid approach with large-scale terrestrial solar in the Sahara colocated with rectennas to receive power from powersats in orbit. It is not at all clear that asteroid mining is required for feasible SBSP systems. This problem should be addressed in an open source fashion involving teams around the globe. Surprising solutions are likely to emerge.
by Minhaj Arifin, Author How Desis Became the Greatest Nation on Earth
This is amazing! please sign this!
by Bri
Not readable with current tech. Too costly for little returns. Better as a very small scale experiment for space industry. It is more cost effective in relation to space activities..
by Bri
Readable is supposed to be practical. I sometimes hate spell check.
by Gorden Russell
It will only be practicable sometime after robots are mining asteroids and can build them on-site in orbit from materials taken from asteroids and the moon. But that’s going to be sometime well after the year 2020. By then solar cells will be so cheap and efficient on Earth that they won’t be needed in orbit.
Before it is economical to build solar power stations in orbit, everybody in the suburbs will have solar arrays that turn water into hydrogen and oxygen to power their cars and generators or fuel cells.
With all the research being done now on hydrides, people will be able to store hydrogen made in the summer to heat their homes in the winter.
by Bri
I agree Gordon. It would be wise to explore the concept with micro satellites, in a modular design. Water could be shot up by rail gun and converted to much needed fuel.
by Renzo Canepari
” Me too, ” because in the meantime, there is ocean wave technology, earthbound solar, and wind, that are here now, and only need the money to be scaled up.
by tedhowardnz
Hi Gordon,
While I agree that space based solar will only be viable with space based robotic production, I disagree on the general utility of the concept.
There are at least two very powerful reasons for advancing space based power production.
The first is as a means of mediating the effects of large scale volcanism on earth. If a big volcano blows, the ash released into the atmosphere will block sunlight, and thence photosynthesis. The only effective counter strategy for this is to have large scale energy and food production in orbit, in case it is needed. Once we get past the myth of market value, this is actually very easy to achieve with fully automated robotic systems.
The second compelling reason is to lessen the impact of human engineering on the ecosystems of earth. The more of our engineering we can do off planet, the less impact we have on the non-human ecosystem here on earth.
Again, this is easy to do once we have fully automated robotic production and maintenance; and have moved beyond markets and market valuation (aka money).
The moon can be a very useful source of mass. Without atmosphere, it is relatively easy to use rail guns to accelerate matter into appropriate earth orbits (again under robotic control). [I first proposed this suite of solutions in 1981, and have since found I was not the first to do so - many others came up with the same ideas independently. http://www.solnx.org is one website I created many years ago.]