New Company Looks to Produce Space Based Solar Power Within a Decade

[bananas]

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/02/18/new-company-looks-to-produce-space-based-solar-power-within-a-decade/

February 18th, 2009
New Company Looks to Produce Space Based Solar Power Within a Decade
Written by Nancy Atkinson

Is space-based solar power (SBSP) a technology whose time has come? The concept and even some of the hardware for harnessing energy from the sun with orbiting solar arrays has been around for some time. But the biggest challenge for making the concept a reality, says entrepreneur Peter Sage of Space Energy, Inc., is that SBSP has never been commercially viable. But that could be changing. Space Energy, Inc. has assembled an impressive team of scientists, engineers and business people, putting together what Sage calls "a rock-solid commercial platform" for their company. And given the current looming issues of growing energy needs and climate change, Space Energy, Inc. could be in the right place at the right time.

<snip>

The first phase of Space Energy, Inc.'s plan is to launch a small prototype satellite into low Earth orbit. "This will help validate the numbers we are speculating on at this point, but also validate several different aspects of what SBSP can do," said Sage. "From a successful demonstration, we are hoping to close power purchase agreements with one of several entities we are in discussions with at present. And on the strength of that we should be able to put the first commercial satellite in orbit."

With regards to the timetable, Sage was hesitant to commit to a schedule. "As timetables go, everything needs to be flexible, but we are looking to close the financing for the demonstrator during the first quarter of this year (2009). The demonstrator is a 24 to 36 month project and, from there, we will start the commercial build-out of the main satellite, which could take up to four years to be operational."

<snip>

What are the biggest hurdles to overcome in this project? "If you would have asked me that question a few months ago," Sage replied, "I would have said a combination of meeting the right people who could understand the vision and scope of what it is what we're doing, and raising the initial financing for the demonstrator. Those hurdles, at this point, really seem to be taken care of. The more we have our technical teams talk with investors, the more people understand that we're real and this isn't some sort of Star Trek giggle factor. Right now, with the level of due diligence that's been done not only on SBSP itself, but with ourselves as a commercially viable entity, we're on the forefront of many people's agenda in terms of how to move this forward. We see a straight path to making this a reality."

<snip>

For more information:
Space Energy, Inc.
Space Energy, Inc.'s interactive flash presentation
Video presentation on Space Based Solar Power by Mafic Studios

[skids]

1. For those that like to keep track of astroturfs...

The astroturfing on this boondoggle is really something to behold. Fire up "The Googles" and browse around.

In addition to the typical media slams, there's also this interesting sideplot of a detractor to the technology who comports himself in a fashion remiscent of some of the USENET troll hall of famers. I'm trying to decide if he's a plant.

DOD should get its grubby hands away from the renewable energy cookie jar.

[bananas]

3. Could you be more specific?

All I'm finding are a lot of websites linking to the article in the OP.

[drm604]

2. So this would beam energy down that otherwise would not have reached the surface as sunlight?

Wouldn't that contribute to the warming of the atmosphere, or am I wrong about that?

[bananas]

4. It would have less effect than nuclear energy

and maybe even less than ground-based solar collectors.

[drm604]

5. I understand that both of those would add extra heat to the environment

but would it be less than a space based system that is catching sunlight and beaming down energy 24 x 7?

[bananas]

10. Space-based solar generates less waste heat

From http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-bi.htm :

§ 5.12.3 Environmental Effects of SPSs on Earth

<snip>

Some people have expressed concern that the SPS beam and rectenna will heat up Earth since we are "importing" energy. The truth is the opposite. The beam and rectenna won't heat up Earth and in fact lead to a cooler Earth, for two reasons. First, when we burn oil or coal, we are "importing" heat to the environment by releasing heat stored in a chemical form. The SPS would produce less waste heat on Earth than other electricity generation techniques because the rectenna would be more than 80% efficient (20% waste heat and reflection), versus 30% for thermal power plants (70% waste heat) like coal and nuclear. Basically, when you burn fossil and nuclear fuels, you create heat. Conversion of this heat to electricity is typically 30% efficient from coal and nuclear sources, and getting more than that isn't feasible by the laws of thermodynamics. (The satellite is only about 20% efficient in converting sunlight to electricity, but the waste heat is in space, not on Earth's surface.) Earth power plants usually cause thermal pollution only locally, e.g., warming up lakes which they use for cooling. Notably, the SPS beam for the reference concept has a maximum intensity only 20% that of sunlight at its center.

Secondly, and far more significantly, since the SPS replaces fossil fuel consumption, it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions which are responsible for global warming.

<snip>

From http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm
in the full report (pdf) http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf :

<snip>

If solar is considered “green” energy, then SBSP could be considered the ultimate green energy.

<snip>

• Unlike terrestrial solar facilities, microwave receiving rectennas allow greater than 90% of ambient light to pass through, but absorb almost all of the beamed energy, generating less waste heat than terrestrial solar systems because of greater coupling efficiency. This means that the area underneath the rectenna can continue to be used for agricultural or pastoral purposes. To deliver any reasonably significant amount of base‐load power, ground solar would need to cover huge regions of land with solar cells, which are major sources of waste heat. As a result, these ground solar farms would produce significant environmental impacts to their regions. The simultaneous major increases to the regional temperature, plus the blockage of sunlight from the ground, will likely kill off local plants, animals and insects that might inhabit the ground below or around these ground solar farms. This means that that a SBSP rectenna has less impact on the albedo or reflectivity of the Earth than a terrestrial solar plant of equivalent generating capacity. Moreover, the energy provided could facilitate water purification and irrigation, prevent frosts, extend growing seasons (if a little of the energy were used locally) etc. In the plains of the U.S. (e.g., South Dakota, etc), in sub‐Saharan Africa, etc. etc. there are vast areas of arable land that could be both productive farm land and sites for SBSP rectennas.

• The final global effect is not obvious, but also important. While it may seem intuitively obvious that SBSP introduces heat into the biosphere by beaming more energy in, the net effect is quite the opposite. All energy put into the electrical grid will eventually be spent as heat, but the methods of generating electricity are of significant impact for determining which approach produces the least total global warming effect. Fossil fuel burning emits large amounts of waste heat and greenhouse gases, while terrestrial solar and wind power also emit significant amounts of waste heat via inefficient conversion. Likewise, SBSP also has solar conversion inefficiencies that produce waste heat, but the key difference is that the most of this waste heat creation occurs outside the biosphere to be radiated into space. The losses in the atmosphere are very small, on the order of a couple percent for the wavelengths considered. Because SBSP is not a greenhouse gas emitter (with the exception of initial manufacturing and launch fuel emissions), it does not contribute to the trapping action and retention of heat in the biosphere.

<snip>

[bananas]

6. Eath's energy budget

Wikipedia has nice article called "Earth's energy budget": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
There are 174 petawatts of energy coming in to the earth.
Wikipedia also has a good article about our energy use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
We use around 15 terawatts, about 1/10,000 of the energy coming in.
Whether that comes from fossil fuels or uranium ore from under the ground,
or from microwaves beamed down from space, it will be a negligible factor in global warming.

[skids]

7. No, our problem is getting rid of energy not taking it up.

The amount of energy the human race uses is a tiny ant compared to the amount the sun dumps on us. It's our inability to put that energy back into space that causes the problem.

So it would make the problem worse about as much as me taking a piss in the ocean would contribute to sea level rise.

[TheWraith]

8. This is, honestly, pointless.

Yes, in theory it works. The problem is that on a per-watt basis it's absurdly expensive simply because of the cost of launching something into space. To produce any really effective amount of power, a satellite would have to be fairly large, and even with flexible panels, you're talking about an installed cost comparable to or higher than pretty much anything ground-based.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. I trust you'll take care of warning the folks at Space Energy

http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Contact.asp

http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=338539&_Type=News-Releases&_Title=The-Big-Switch

February 08, 2009

The Big Switch

After trying and failing to secure a grant in the United States, Stanford University scientist Michael McGehee was losing hope of securing the funding he needed to continue his ground-breaking work in solar technology.

Then salvation came from an unlikely source. Around $25m is arriving over five years from Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah University of Science & Technology (KAUST), in return for McGehee developing cheap solar power cells that the Kingdom hopes to use to harness the bright rays of the desert sun.

It actually makes more sense to invest in such projects when there is great financial turmoil.

"Opportunities to get this kind of money are extremely rare," admits McGehee, an associate professor with an extensive background in solar technology. "We could not have built such a strong team with less funding, and could not have obtained that much funding from any other source."

…

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/545798-the-big-switch