I found the comments in this piece more interesting than the article itself. Power from space may or may not make economic sense, and there are valid arguments against it, but the opposition to it displayed here is typical, and ignorant, and one of the reasons that proponents persist. From what I can see, what was being proposed was simply to revive the small-scale test using power from the ISS that was cancelled this year. But instead, we get things like this:
Why does the proposer think that it would be more efficient to beam energy from the international space station when sun beams are directly bombarding the surface of the earth already? He needs to be able to explain the physics and the economics and he apparently failed. The money needs to go to proposals that can realize fruition in 10-20 years, not some pie in the sky experiments that makes no economic sense.
…The experimental packages carried by Apollo astronauts took years to develop at great expense to meet NASA’s high standards of light weight, reliability and safety in the harsh conditions of space. You don’t just hand NASA a laser and solar cell you bought off the shelf and assembled into a crude prototype and tell them to aim it at a village in Africa during the 5 minutes a day that ISS might be overhead, assuming it’s not cloudy, assuming the villagers all wear safety laser goggles not to go blind, and so forth.
The benefits of beaming from space (though not the ISS) have been explained many times, and yet people persist in asking such foolish questions.
And then we have this:
there is NO way that any non-telecom based orbital outerspace project will be PRIVATE- COMMERCIALLY viable and self sustaining (creating a net economic surplus sufficient enough to pay down the costs of financing the project over time) until the cost of putting payload in orbit comes below 1000$ a pound. This isn’t even a discussion. Do your homework.
First off, there are already non-telecom-based projects that are viable and self sustaining (e.g., remote sensing) at current launch costs. But beyond that, the implication here is that $1000/lb is some sort of unachievable holy grail, but it’s pretty clear to anyone who understands the economics and technology that if one were in the business of launching powersats into orbit, the sheer economies of scale would drive it far below that. Not that this means that it will be economically viable, of course, but any argument against SPS that involves current high launch costs is fundamentally flawed. Then, along those lines, we get this:
Last time I looked into it, even if launch costs are assumed to be $0 space-based solar power isn’t economical.
Again, that would depend entirely on the assumptions in the analysis. And then we get this from someone claiming to be a physics professor:
Energy from space has been discussed since the 1970’s. It is a thoroughly crazy idea. The cost of putting anything (Solar cells in this case) in space is “astronomical”. The resulting microwave beam at the ground would exceed radiation standards over the wide area needed to collect it, and a buffer zone outside. If the beam ever went astray, large numbers of people would be exposed to forbidden levels of microwaves, without their knowing (until later, too late to do anything about it) they were being irradiated.
“…astronomical…” Sigh…
And the beam can’t “go astray.” This professor of physics is apparently unfamiliar with the concept of phased arrays. And who knows what a “forbidden” level is?
The saddest thing, though, is the degree to which NASA has screwed up public perceptions about this kind of thing, as demonstrated by this comment:
As cool as it would be to get solar stations up in space, NASA can barely focus itself enough to get us to the Moon, a feat we accomplished forty years ago. What chance do we even have of this working at all, regardless of the technological barriers?
Note the twin assumptions, commonly held: that NASA would do it, and that NASA can’t do it any more.
The only significant problem to getting space solar power up and profitable is the public reluctance to accept any new technology (that does not instantly make something easier). Power could be sent to the ground but would involve microwaves – and the provider would have to prove (at enormous expense) that it was safe under all conditions. As a guy with a BS in Physics I feel that I am relatively current on the actual effects on the human body – but the bigger effect is the fear (engendered by decades of news outlets!) of any change. Just look at the attempt to get a safe storage area for radioactive waste!
It is sort of amazing that people actually adopted mobile phones – before seeing a 30 year study that proved that the “radiation” by your head was safe! But phones are instantly useful, so people do not require a study.
In addition to the ignorant responses to power satellites (and harder to deal with) are the people who just don’t want a solution to the energy and carbon problems.
The blog article and comments are here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5485
After a few days another blog commented on the discussion it engendered:
“If you take a few minutes to read this blog, and again the comments, you find the dissonance on full display. On the one hand you have a person saying that there may be an energy answer after fossil fuels. On the other hand you have lots of people not only saying it is not possible, but directly arguing that a human die-back is more desirable than cheap energy.”
I don’t entirely agree with Charles Phillips. Public acceptance is a big factor, but there are a lot of technical and economic issues. I think I have one solution and a rough proforma statement to go with it. But it needs a lot more work. I would prefer to have at least two ways to accomplish each of the steps.
Keith Henson
Any discussion about economics of SPS research & tests misses the point completely.
ITER is not about economics.
On the other hand you have lots of people not only saying it is not possible, but directly arguing that a human die-back is more desirable than cheap energy.
I sometimes wonder why the people who believe the world would be so better off with fewer people don’t set the example by killing themselves. Of course, the answer is because they want us to die off to create their supposed utopia. After you.
Actually, there are two ways to reduce anthropogenic stress on the environment. One is to greatly reduce the total human population. The other is not as much discussed. It is for the majority of humanity to leave.
Whether to do this by emigration or by natural wastage is another matter.
“I sometimes wonder why the people who believe the world would be so better off with fewer people don’t set the example by killing themselves. Of course, the answer is because they want us to die off to create their supposed utopia. After you.”
Ahh…..but they are the enlightened and get to survive.
Or at least that is what they THINK. Push comes to shove and it us or them, then I have a good feeling Us can take care of Them.
I don’t know what it is about SPS that people who haven’t so much as set aside a half hour to look into the specifics of the proposal still feel well-qualified to explain to everybody how stupid the idea is.
Rather than wonder if perhaps someone might have proposed a solution to a problem they throw out, they just assume they’re the only one around smart enough to have seen the problem.
I don’t think most people commenting on energy issues know much about energy-related technologies or have any interest in learning. Talking about energy is a sociable thing to do (or a way of showing off); it has very little to do with serious discussion of policy choices.