Harvest the Sun — From Space

[Baack]

Harvest the Sun — From Space

By O. GLENN SMITH
Houston
AS we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative energy sources — coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based solar — are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge energy storage systems or harm the environment. There is, however, one potential future energy source that is environmentally friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost competitive with any renewable source: space solar power.
Science fiction? Actually, no — the technology already exists. A space solar power system would involve building large solar energy collectors in orbit around the Earth. These panels would collect far more energy than land-based units, which are hampered by weather, low angles of the sun in northern climes and, of course, the darkness of night.
Once collected, the solar energy would be safely beamed to Earth via wireless radio transmission, where it would be received by antennas near cities and other places where large amounts of power are used. The received energy would then be converted to electric power for distribution over the existing grid. Government scientists have projected that the cost of electric power generation from such a system could be as low as 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is within the range of what consumers pay now.
In terms of cost effectiveness, the two stumbling blocks for space solar power have been the expense of launching the collectors and the efficiency of their solar cells. Fortunately, the recent development of thinner, lighter and much higher efficiency solar cells promises to make sending them into space less expensive and return of energy much greater.
Much of the progress has come in the private sector. Companies like Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences, working in conjunction with NASA’s public-private Commercial Orbital Transportation Services initiative, have been developing the capacity for very low cost launchings to the International Space Station. This same technology could be adapted to sending up a solar power satellite system.
Still, because building the first operational space solar power system will be very costly, a practical first step would be to conduct a test using the International Space Station as a “construction shack” to house the astronauts and equipment. The station’s existing solar panels could be used for the demonstration project, and its robotic manipulator arms could assemble the large transmitting antenna. While the station’s location in orbit would permit only intermittent transmission of power back to Earth, a successful test would serve as what scientists call “proof of concept.”
Over the past 15 years, Americans have invested more than $100 billion, directly and indirectly, on the space station and supporting shuttle flights. With an energy crisis deepening, it’s time to begin to develop a huge return on that investment. (And for those who worry that science would lose out to economics, there’s no reason that work on space solar power couldn’t go hand in hand with work toward a manned mission to Mars, advanced propulsion systems and other priorities of the space station.)
In fact, in a time of some skepticism about the utility of our space program, NASA should realize that the American public would be inspired by our astronauts working in space to meet critical energy needs here on Earth.
O. Glenn Smith is a former manager of science and applications experiments for the International Space Station at NASA’s Johnson Space Center.

[Truckerjo]

I have seen some crazy ideal like building solar collectors on the moon then transferring that down to earth... Many cool ideal out there..

[brtecson]

"Once collected, the solar energy would be safely beamed to Earth via wireless radio transmission"

hahaaa, that's funny.

[Roadmedic]

Originally Posted by brtecson

"Once collected, the solar energy would be safely beamed to Earth via wireless radio transmission"

hahaaa, that's funny.

I guess you think this is not possible. Ever heard of lasers and microwave transmitters?

There is more on this at this link [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

Wireless energy transfer or wireless power transmission is the process that takes place in any system where electrical energy is transmitted from a power source to an electrical load, without interconnecting wires in an electrical grid. Wireless transmission is ideal in cases where instantaneous or continuous energy transfer is needed, but interconnecting wires are inconvenient, hazardous, or impossible.
Though the physics of both are related, this is distinct from wireless transmission for the purpose of transferring information (such as radio), where the percentage of the power that is received is only important if it becomes too low to successfully recover the signal. With wireless energy transfer, the efficiency is a more critical parameter and this creates important differences in these technologies.

[brtecson]

It's possible, but extremely inefficient.

[Roadmedic]

Originally Posted by brtecson

It's possible, but extremely inefficient.

Now, if they can only figure how to make it more efficient. It would make some sense to consider a way to move from fossil fuel.

[BobC]

This is a version of Tesla's idea of transmitting electrical power to users instead of overhead lines.

I don't see this working on any large scales.
Even in space, solar panels are still low efficiency devices.
Then, the microwave generator wil be very low efficiency as well.
Despite the fact that the generator can be powered from the sun as well, you still can't get more from less yet.
That would be perpetual motion.
Also, the beamwidth might be narrow but it will still bombard areas outside of the intended rcving area with hi power microwave/radar energy.
Not good for humans, animals & plant life.
There's also the scattering loss of energy thru the atmosphere.
Look what happens to sat tv when it gets cloudy or rains.

[brtecson]

...not to mention the amount of energy it would take to actually put the solar panels into space. I bet you couldn't gain any net energy out of the deal if you calculated the amount of energy it would take to put it into orbit -vs- the total amount of energy the solar panel would produce in its lifetime.

[Truckerjo]

Originally Posted by BobC

This is a version of Tesla's idea of transmitting electrical power to users instead of overhead lines.

I don't see this working on any large scales.
Even in space, solar panels are still low efficiency devices.
Then, the microwave generator wil be very low efficiency as well.
Despite the fact that the generator can be powered from the sun as well, you still can't get more from less yet.
That would be perpetual motion.
Also, the beamwidth might be narrow but it will still bombard areas outside of the intended rcving area with hi power microwave/radar energy.
Not good for humans, animals & plant life.
There's also the scattering loss of energy thru the atmosphere.
Look what happens to sat tv when it gets cloudy or rains.

Not really a "version" of Tesla ideals... Tesla ideal was everybody could generate thier own energy from the magnetics of the earth.. Telsa did do several experments in sending huge energy pulses threw the air and several cows were killed in the process..

The energy would not be beamed to household but several central collectors across the world and then distributed to the current power grid..

Far as the satellite TV comparison you could not compare the two together.. There is no comparison between the two when it comes to the power.. If Satellites were allowed to have a larger power distribution you would never loose signal... And it is not a Direct beam but as power collectors would be... Better explanation is your satellite theory would be like a radio station broadcasting to a local city, the solar collector ideal would be more like a beam directed to a collector, and unless your in line with that beam your not going to hear anything that is being said in that broadcast across the city...


far as the energy spent to send the material up to them moon ext would be greater then the lifetime of the energy sent back...

The material would not be sent up on a craft like the shuttle but less expensive to operate rockets...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Truckerjo

Not really a "version" of Tesla ideals... Tesla ideal was everybody could generate thier own energy from the magnetics of the earth.

One of his primary desires entailed plans for distributing electrical energy to the masses without using wires.
This was a long term project for him as it was one underlying goal for many of the later experiments.

If you don't agree to the term "version" I'll rephrase it to there "being a parallel" to Tesla's desire of transmitting electrical power by radio wave to operate a remote electrical device without using wires.

Originally Posted by Truckerjo

Telsa did do several experments in sending huge energy pulses threw the air and several cows were killed in the process.
The energy would not be beamed to household but several central collectors across the world and then distributed to the current power grid.

Still, the idea is to somehow transmit or distribute the energy without wires.
The basic tenet of Tesla's idea.

With what we think we know now, it's highly unlikey.
It's not that you can't beam energy collected from the Sun.
It is more like how much damage will you do trying to force it thru the atmoshphere at the power levels deemed necessary?

Magnetically, electrostatically, lightwave or by any radio wave, there will be damage to the ecosystem caused by the sheer power levels involved.

Originally Posted by Truckerjo

Far as the satellite TV comparison you could not compare the two together.. There is no comparison between the two when it comes to the power.. If Satellites were allowed to have a larger power distribution you would never loose signal.

My example of the sat tv signal was to illustrate the losses involved in passing anything other than magnetic fields thru the ionosphere/atmosphere from space.

Sure, with enough power you can "melt" or bludgeon your way thru anything.

Originally Posted by Truckerjo

And it is not a Direct beam but as power collectors would be... Better explanation is your satellite theory would be like a radio station broadcasting to a local city, the solar collector ideal would be more like a beam directed to a collector, and unless your in line with that beam your not going to hear anything that is being said in that broadcast across the city.

Again, I'm not seeing it happening.
You can't just collect sunlight, turn it into some exceptionally hi powered "beam" & send it to Earth collectors in such a narrow focus.

Let me explain my rationale.
To be economically viable requires sending megawatts of energy to Earth.

Doing this requires converting the Sun's energy into a form of another hi-pwr energy that can be aimed precisely enough to focus only on the target collector / receiver.

The logistics involved in just maintaining the precision aiming are enough to stop you right there.

Despite the aiming, what form of energy can you efficiently convert into that provides an ability to aim it that precisely?; That does not suffer losses/scattering in passing thru the atmosphere/ionosphere?; That a receiver on the ground can absorb & efficiently convert to another form of energy that can be used terrestrially?

I'll answer my own questions; microwave energy? Naw. Yes you can generate megawatts of microwave energy similar to the microwave energy used in hi pwr radar installations. This means solar panels capable of collecting both the power necessary to run the relatively low efficiency(aprox 50% or so), hi pwr, microwave generator plus having an excess available to overcome the losses in the path, the receiver & the conversion process of turning it into a form of energy useable on Earth.

You can't focus that much energy into a tightly held pattern over such a distance thru atmospheric & ionospheric layers. There will be scattering & it will eventually lead to heating of the various layers of atmosphere & ionoshere. Not to mention any living thing or electrically operated device passing in/near the radio path will suffer. The footprint on the ground will be considerably larger than you might envision. I think it can be measured in several thousands of feet across...at best.

How about light as in visible & non-visible laser? Naw.
Neither form of light is safe in that power density.
Look at what can be done with cutting lasers now & they don't push as much energy as you're trying to.
Besides, lasers are not terribly efficient yet either & I doubt there's a laser diode or tube capable of the power levels we're talking about.

Again, anything in the path dies & if it's in the infra red spectrum, it will cause extreme heating of whatever gases / land it hits.
Think of the amount of greenhouse gas you can create with this much infra red poking thru the sky?

I'm down to magnetics. Not likely. Can't aim it that precisely.

Even today no one really knows what the magnetics from even simple hi power transmission lines really does to plant, animal & human life yet.

Let's not forget that it will screw up anything on the planet that relies on the Earth's magnetic fields.

How about the amount of voltage it will induce in secondary conductors like water pipes, hi power transmission lines, porch railings etc.

Ok, my discertation is done. Are y'all asleep yet? Should be.