Solar farms in space could be renewable energy's next frontier

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/solar-farms-space-could-be-renewable-energy-s-next-frontier-ncna967451

Solar farms in space could be renewable energy's next frontier
China wants to put a solar power station in orbit by 2050 and is building a test facility to find the best way to send power to the ground.

March 9, 2019, 6:01 AM EST
By Denise Chow and Alyssa Newcomb

As the green energy revolution accelerates, solar farms have become a familiar sight across the nation and around the world. But China is taking solar power to a whole new level. The nation has announced plans to put a solar power station in orbit by 2050, a feat that would make it the first nation to harness the sun’s energy in space and beam it to Earth.

Since the sun always shines in space, space-based solar power is seen as a uniquely reliable source of renewable energy.

“You don’t have to deal with the day and night cycle, and you don’t have to deal with clouds or seasons, so you end up having eight to nine times more power available to you,” said Ali Hajimiri, a professor of electrical engineering at the California Institute of Technology and director of the university’s Space Solar Power Project.

Of course, developing the hardware needed to capture and transmit the solar power, and launching the system into space, will be difficult and costly. But China is moving forward: The nation is building a test facility in the southwestern city of Chongqing to determine the best way to transmit solar power from orbit to the ground, the China Daily reported.

…

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. China plans a solar power play in space that NASA abandoned decades ago

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/15/china-plans-a-solar-power-play-in-space-that-nasa-abandoned-long-ago.html
China plans a solar power play in space that NASA abandoned decades ago

• Science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov is credited with bringing the idea of space-based solar power projects to prominence in 1941.
• Space stations and satellites already use solar panel arrays for their power needs, but NASA abandoned the concept of stand-alone space solar after some study decades ago.
• The idea of building renewable-energy projects in space to beam the sun’s energy back to Earth is controversial but could fundamentally reshape the way every person and business on the planet receive electricity.

…

Hopkins said the current Chinese view is, “We want to be major dominant power in space solar power by 2050. This has the potential to really turn the geopolitics in our favor if we are a leader, so let’s look at it seriously.” Meanwhile, the U.S. says, “Are you kidding? Let’s worry about something else.”

…

[NNadir]

2. This is a great idea in a time of climate change. Change the solar flux by increasing area.

It is strictly how unbelievably dangerous people will be in order to capture sunlight for their stupid electric car fantasies.

In the best case, it will foreclose the use of orbital space by making it full of junk - already a problem, but sure to be bigger.

In the worst case, by increasing the absorption area of the solar flux and focusing it on the planet, it will further fry the atmosphere.

[progree]

3. How does that compare to planetary warming from releasing the energy from fossil fuels and uranium?

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2019, 04:21 PM - Edit history (6)

In the worst case, by increasing the absorption area of the solar flux and focusing it on the planet, it will further fry the atmosphere.

The satellites would convert the solar into microwaves and beam those to earth. Is it any more energy entering the planet than what is released when fossil fuel and uranium releases its energy to make electricity -- both which incidentally throw away 2/3 of the energy as waste heat in converting it to electricity?

And from what I understand, the energy released by fossil fuels and uranium in producing electricity is trivial compared to the heat energy trapped by greenhouse gas increases -- in other words the former is a nothing-burger in creating the global warming problem compared to the latter.

Also, how much of the sun's energy would reach the earth anyway? If the satellite is on the daylight side of earth, that energy would reach the earth anyway if the satellite wasn't there. I would assume that's its on the daylight side of earth most of the time... Not much solar to capture on the nighttime side, so I read. -- On edit, never mind this paragraph, because if these things are in geosynchronous orbit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power says 36,000 miles) -- 36,000 miles is about 4.5 earth's diameters, i.e. far far out from earth and so would be eclipsed by the earth's shadow only a small fraction of the time. And similarly, it would be capturing sunlight that would hit the earth anyway only a small fraction of the time. I was thinking they were in lower earth orbit).

From the article:

The swarming satellites would be covered with the photovoltaic panels needed to convert sunlight into electricity, which would be converted into microwaves and beamed wirelessly to ground-based receivers — giant wire nets measuring up to four miles across.

In the best case, it will foreclose the use of orbital space by making it full of junk - already a problem, but sure to be bigger.

That I do worry a lot about.

Later Edit: By the way, I'm not a fan or proponent of solar satellites, seems way way expensive, even if the solar panels were free.

stupid electric car fantasies.

Not sure what this has to do with any of this. I can live without an electric car just fine. I can't live without electricity (or more accurately it would be a much more difficult and shorter life). We need electricity for a lot of things other than stupid electric cars (so instead we can have stupid 15-20% efficient gasoline IC cars instead -- gasoline being a dangerous fossil fuel with its own set of environmental and human rights abuses. And the other 80-85% of course is mostly waste heat).

[NNadir]

4. The thermal output of power plants is trivial compared to the solar flux.

This "satellite based microwave" scheme is as old as the hills. It's been under discussion since the early 1970's and was often evoked in this country as a selling point for NASA funding.

None of it will stand up to an LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) calculation, if only for consideration of the launch requirements. I note that perchlorate contamination is just one factor connected with many launch vehicles, or there's fun stuff like hydrazines.

The "electric car" evocation was pure sarcasm. The magical thinking about a solar nirvana is often coupled to magical thinking about electric cars.

It occurs to me that people are willing to endure any amount of destruction to the environment to make their solar scheme work, but none of it has worked, none of it is working, and none of it will work. To the extent it's practiced it is rapidly becoming yet another environmental disaster, ignored, but a disaster just the same; adding to the burden of electronic waste.

It's a matter of scale.

I have calculated that if a human being lived at twice the continuous average power consumption, 5000 watts, vs 2500 watts, in one's lifetime, one would need, should one live to be 100 years old, about 200 grams of plutonium over their entire lifetime. (157 GJ per person per year.) A nuclear reactor can be constructed that is designed to last well more than half a century. Hell, some built in the 1950's did just that.

At high thermal efficiency, using far more advanced technology that was available in the 1950's, a single reactor can produce all the energy for millions of people lasting over their lifetimes.

Spaceships? Have we demonstrated this on the same kind of scale as say, 1950's nuclear reactors?

What do you suppose would be the mass of rockets and spacecraft required for this science fiction scheme?

You say you need electricity. If we are to eliminate poverty, we all do, everywhere on this planet. Me too. Suppose an asteroid comes by, smashes one of these grand solar microwaves for the planet to pieces, assuming we don't destroy everything just trying to get them up there, and the scattered debris becomes projectiles aimed at all the others, establishing a chain reaction of destruction. Who gets to leave the lights on? Me? You? Someone in Nigeria? Paraguay?

We are already concerned about orbital debris, just for weather, communications and scientific satellites. Now we want to put it up there on a vastly larger industrial scale because uninformed airheads are concerned about so called "nuclear waste?"

This tired crap, repeated year after year, decade after decade was garbage in 1970 and it remains garbage in 2019. In 1970, at least, we could have been excused for not knowing better, but not now. There is no excuse for this kind of thinking in modern times in my view.

All the fucking Band-Aids in the world, all the magical thinking, all the endless dreams without any consideration of the environmental cost has not made solar energy or any of the other absurd so called "renewable energy" schemes work. They soak trillions upon trillions of dollars on a planet where two billion people lack anything even approaching, remotely, a toilet bowl, and we still don't get it.

This mornings weekly average carbon dioxide concentration was over 412 ppm.

Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

Week beginning on March 10, 2019: 412.16 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 409.02 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 388.71 ppm
Last updated: March 17, 2019

In 1970, this figure was around 325.6 ppm.

You have the figures for world energy production before you. Are things getting better or worse while we wait?

By what logic do we all sit around and wait for magical spaceships to save us because so called "renewable energy" is the "New Frontier."

Do we not give a shit about the future, except inasmuch as we can watch reruns of "2001, A Space Odyssey" with our Netflix subscription?

We really need to stop daydreaming and get practical. There are practical solutions. They are here, they've been tested, and they are well known. It would take a tremendous investment and effort, to be sure, and a surrender of tired notions, but if we care, we might still save what is left to be saved.

[progree]

5. I know you got my point. Nice deflection anyway. Let's try it again

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2019, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Change the solar flux by increasing area. ... In the worst case, by increasing the absorption area of the solar flux and focusing it on the planet, it will further fry the atmosphere.

Further fry the atmosphere. Sheesh.

We either produce electricity by the solar satellite scheme or by some other way:

If by solar satellite, the satellite captures solar energy and sends say a GWH to earth as microwave energy over the course of some period of time.

Or we produce the electricity by some other way, say conventional land-based nuclear where to produce the GWH of electricity, we convert some amount of uranium into a GWH of electricity and 2 GWH of waste heat.

Which sounds to you like it might heat up the planet most? (Although both would result in trivial heating even if all the world's electricity was produced by either of these ways. Far far far far less than the amount of heat trapped by the excess greenhouse gas problem that we have)

As I said before, I'm not a fan of solar satellites -- almost certainly too expensive, and the space junk problem. And as you say, in order to make a real difference, we'd have to have a gazillion launches and the percolates fuel and all that.

What I was objecting to is trying to make this out to be some extra source of planetary heating without considering that the alternatives to producing the electricity heats up the planet at least as much.

Edited to add:

None of it will stand up to an LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) calculation, if only for consideration of the launch requirements

When I first read it, I thought you were talking about cost. But if you mean GHG -- who knows, it may well be that producing the rockets and the fuel and burning the fuel in the atmosphere may tip it to make the solar satellite option more earth-heating than the nuclear option (although today's commercial nuclear power plants do have a small GHG component mostly in the electricity to enrich the fuel). But the amount of extra solar energy sent to earth in the satellite scheme is trivial, and less than the amount of heat released in fission.

[NNadir]

6. Just think about the change in wavelength and you'll have my objection, clarified.

The essence of climate change involves the absorption profiles connected to wavelength. Think about it.

They plan to "beam electricity down" in the microwave region.

You may think the rest of my remarks a "deflection," but they aren't.. The whole scheme is in "angels dancing on the head of a pin" regions.

It's useless, and it's silly.

[progree]

7. Not clear to me, and I had a couple of electromagnetic waves and applications courses

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2019, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Just think about the change in wavelength and you'll have my objection, clarified.

The essence of climate change involves the absorption profiles connected to wavelength. Think about it.

They plan to "beam electricity down" in the microwave region.

Some is lost in the atmosphere (thus heating it up). I have no idea how much. Do you? I think it's far less than the 2/3 that thermal power plants waste heating up the oceans and atmosphere.

But I'll add that I wonder about the effect that electromagnetic radiation we're living with now on humans / plant / animals, and what increasing that by beaming a significant portion of the earth's electricity usage as microwaves will add to that.

The whole scheme is in "angels dancing on the head of a pin" regions.

It's useless, and it's silly.

I've made clear in two posts now that I think it sucks too. Make this number 3.

I only originally replied to your #2 only because your chief objection was "Change the solar flux by increasing area ... by increasing the absorption area of the solar flux and focusing it on the planet, it will further fry the atmosphere."

and I thought that was the silliest primary objection I could imagine to the scheme, something I was very surprised to read from you, and that you apparently didn't take a moment to think about how we're producing most of our electricity now -- wasting almost 2 GWH (which goes to our waters and our atmosphere) through releasing the energy of nuclear or fossil fuel for each GWH of electricity produced.

Your other objection in number 2 was the space junk problem which I totally and strongly agree with.

And your added objections in number 4 about all the launches and cost of those and GHG in the production of rockets and rocket fuel and burning it, I agree with too.

Maybe your time would be better explaining things to the "What Would It Take To Go 100% Solar?" gang https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017535536

and particularly https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017535536#post10 :

100% may sound out of reach, and it probably is. What about 10%?...or 50% over the next 5 years? These things are obtainable. As the price goes lower, the potential is greater.

-------------------------------------------------------------

You may think the rest of my remarks a "deflection," but they aren't..

On the deflection, I was referring to the title of your number 4, "The thermal output of power plants is trivial compared to the solar flux."

Of course it is. What does that have to do with the price or rice? What does that have to do with comparing the extra solar energy sent to earth by the satellite scheme vs. the energy released by burning fossil fuels and fissioning uranium? And as I've said in 2 posts, and lets make it the third now, yes, these energies are far less than what is being trapped by GHG increases.