Bright idea or sci-fi?—Experts meet to discuss feasibility of harvesting solar power in space…

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/692716

Bright idea or sci-fi?

Experts meet to discuss feasibility of harvesting solar power in space, beaming it back to Earth

Sep 09, 2009 04:30 AM
Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter

It sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel. Solar power plants orbiting the planet, each the size of 700 Canadian football fields, beaming clean energy down to Earth 24 hours a day so we can run our factories, charge our gadgets and keep our home appliances humming.

But for the scientists and engineers attending the International Symposium on Solar Energy from Space, a three-day conference this week in Toronto, there's nothing fictional about it. In their view, building massive space-based solar power systems represents, over the long term, one of the most effective ways of tackling the double menace of global warming and peak oil.

"Space-based solar power is a tremendously exciting prospect," said Liberal MP Marc Garneau, the first Canadian in space, speaking yesterday at the Ontario Science Centre about the potential for Canadian involvement in the project. "This country has all the fundamentals to play a leading role."

The Japanese are already leading the charge. Earlier this month, it was reported that Japan's government, working with a consortium of 16 companies, had committed to a $24 billion project to have a 1,000-megawatt solar station in space within three decades. This would generate enough electricity to power 300,000 homes, though getting the equipment into space would likely require more than 1,000 rocket launches.

…

[texastoast]

1. I wondered about that a long time ago

Wow. And here they are talking about it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. They're way beyond talking about it

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30198977/

PG&E makes deal for space solar power
Utility to buy orbit-generated electricity from Solaren in 2016, at no risk

By Alan Boyle
Science editor
msnbc.com
updated 10:41 p.m. ET April 13, 2009

Alan Boyle

California's biggest energy utility announced a deal Monday to purchase 200 megawatts of electricity from a startup company that plans to beam the power down to Earth from outer space, beginning in 2016.

San Francisco-based Pacific Gas & Electric said it was seeking approval from state regulators for an agreement to purchase power over a 15-year period from Solaren Corp., an 8-year-old company based in Manhattan Beach, Calif. The agreement was first reported in a posting to Next100, a Weblog produced by PG&E.

Solaren would generate the power using solar panels in Earth orbit and convert it to radio-frequency transmissions that would be beamed down to a receiving station in Fresno, PG&E said. From there, the energy would be converted into electricity and fed into PG&E's power grid.

PG&E is pledging to buy the power at an agreed-upon rate, comparable to the rate specified in other agreements for renewable-energy purchases, company spokesman Jonathan Marshall said. Neither PG&E nor Solaren would say what that rate was, due to the proprietary nature of the agreement. However, Marshall emphasized that PG&E would make no up-front investment in Solaren's venture.

…

[booley]

2. The idea's been around for a while

The trick is first making solar panels cheap enough and light enough.

And the second is getting them up there.

But this idea has been around since at least the 70s.

[izquierdista]

3. Hope the beam don't miss!

Talk about instant immolation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. No, It would not be "instant immolation."

You could walk straight through it without harm.

…

"The power flux density in the middle of the (receiving) field would be perfectly safe for any life," said Carroll.

"In Canada, on a winter's day, one of the big problems would be that birds would probably hover over the field to get warm."

…

[Psephos]

5. Beam more energy down to Earth from space?

Because the Earth isn't warming fast enough already?

Unbelievable.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Global Warming is generally assumed to be caused by a buildup of greenhouse gases; not energy use

This energy would not produce greenhouse gases.

[Psephos]

9. I don't think you get it

The Sun warms the Earth. Greenhouse gases do not warm the Earth. GGs retard the Earth's cooling by slowing the leakage of heat away from it. GGs do not act like a fire that warms you on a cold day (i.e., the Sun). They act like an overcoat that keeps your body heat from escaping.

A space-based power station will gather up energy from space and beam it to Earth. Because a major fraction of the energy captured and beamed down would not have otherwise made it to the Earth's surface, the power station is acting like an additional, miniature sun.

Even worse, because the beaming technique involves transmission losses, or "leaks," on the way down, the station must send considerably more energy than the collecting station can capture, making the process thermally inefficient. That lost energy escapes unused into the atmosphere as heat.

Increasing the amount of energy that comes down to the planet's surface - to be more precise, increasing the net energy content of the ocean/atmosphere complex - means that greenhouse gases will keep more of that additional energy from leaking away into space.

In other words, Earth gets warmer.

The effect may be small for one power station but selling this as an anti-GW power source is the laugh of the day.

We can save discussion of what launching a thousand or more large cargo rockets to build the station would do to the atmosphere for another thread.

[joshcryer]

13. You're talking very long term; this won't get built anyway, it's just a novel post.

Waste heat accumulation is a long term problem, but the sun is getting hotter, too, so as a species capable of manipulating its environment, geoengineering is a necessary requirement long term.

Global warming is happening now and is a much bigger issue. I don't see this "beem energy from space" idea being able to help it.

In the short term.

[bananas]

15. That's not how global warming works

"The Sun warms the Earth. Greenhouse gases do not warm the Earth. GGs retard the Earth's cooling by slowing the leakage of heat away from it. GGs do not act like a fire that warms you on a cold day (i.e., the Sun). They act like an overcoat that keeps your body heat from escaping."

That's correct, but global warming is caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gasses. Burning fossil fuels increases the levels of greenhouse gasses; using your analogy, it's like putting a parka on top of your overcoat.

"A space-based power station will gather up energy from space and beam it to Earth. Because a major fraction of the energy captured and beamed down would not have otherwise made it to the Earth's surface, the power station is acting like an additional, miniature sun."

The energy would replace the energy we currently get from fossil fuels, about 1/10,000 of the energy that the earth receives directly from the sun. This isn't what causes global warming.

You can learn more by reading these two articles on Greenhouse gasses and Earth's energy budget:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

[Psephos]

22. It sounds like a semantic misunderstanding - we seem to be on the same page

(I appreciate, btw, your civil tone in this discussion.) :)


As previously noted, greenhouse gases do not directly warm the Earth, they slow the rate at which it radiates its heat into space. The effect is a rise in the thermal equilibrium point, but the gases themselves do no heating (i.e., do not introduce additional energy into the system). Instead, they prevent the leakage and loss of whatever energy the system already contains.

...but global warming is caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gasses.

Such a statement alone is too narrow to be useful. Planetary warming can be caused by a lot of things in addition to greenhouse gases, most importantly in the short run including a rise in solar output. The mild cooling trend of the past half-dozen years is now thought to be a consequence of the extraordinarily quiet sunspot cycle we've experienced, and subsequent dip in total solar output of about 0.01-0.02 percent. Best estimates are that the coming uptick in the normal cycle will be lower amplitude than normal.

Decadal and larger-timescale oscillations in thermal currents in the ocean basins are also profound influences.

Astronomic cycles also figure prominently. Precession in the axis of Earth's rotation, gravitational perturbations in Earth's orbit from other planets, position of the Solar System relative to the Galactic plane, extrasolar interferences with the Solar wind, etc.

Surface albedo, and more importantly, cloud density, have the ability to shift us to Hothouse Earth or Snowball Earth. Cloud formation depends on a variety of influences, especially including levels of aerosols that can act as nuclei around which water vapor will condense. Sulfur dioxide and micro-particulates are two prominent villains, and both can arise from natural as well as human sources.

Methane is far more potent a GG than CO2, and greenhouse effects due to rises in its concentration are more important. Human terra-forming and agriculture are changing atmospheric methane levels. (I will leave discussion of potential catastrophic releases of methane ices and hydrates from the ocean depths for another thread.)

CO2, because of its dynamic and highly complex recycling through ocean dissolution, organic carbon burial, and uptake by growing plants, cannot be treated as a static independent variable without considering feedback loops. Unfortunately, these loops remain beyond all but the crudest mathematical descriptions.

I've barely begun here. Suffice to say that global warming (or more accurately, Earth's thermal homeostasis) is a chaotic, multivariate system of dynamic, recursive feedback loops, "strange attractors," and unseen teleconnections. It can't be mathematically described using linear equations, and its equilibrium state cannot be ascertained from initial conditions.

These properties attain to any chaotic, multivariate system of dynamic, recursive feedback loops. For example, the economy. Billions of dollars were spent on ultra-highspeed computers, millions of lines of modeling code, convocations of the greatest economic scientists and quantitative modelers...and none of the models predicted the meltdown of the financial core witnessed last year.

The economy is almost infinitely less complex than the ocean/atmosphere complex, the geology and geography of Earth, the planetary motions, the moody Sun, water chemistry, the influence of the biosphere, and all the other things that factor into climate trends.

Yet no one using these models foresaw the outcome in the economy.

It's inappropriate to make the flat statement that greenhouse gases cause global warming for the same reason that linear mathematics are inappropriate to the job of describing the machinery.

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

The energy would replace the energy we currently get from fossil fuels, about 1/10,000 of the energy that the earth receives directly from the sun. This isn't what causes global warming.


First, the article says nothing about space-station energy replacing fossil fuels. That's your addition. It sounds reasonable, but consider that the world's largest CO2 emitter, China, is not going to be trying to limit its CO2 emissions (except for political window dressing), and will actually be increasing them steadily for the foreseeable future. (For example, China is currently building ~50 new large coal-fired power plants per year). Any fossil fuel "saved" by the space station will simply be consumed by a China, an India, or (name any of a hundred non-signatory countries) instead. Any "saved" fossil fuel will increase supply, which means it will lower price, which means it will increase demand. Which means it's going into the air.

More importantly, the way you worded your sentence, you seem to be saying that Earth receiving energy from the Sun doesn't cause global warming (remember, btw, space station power is simply re-directed solar energy). Instead, you seem to imply that GGs cause global warming. Again, Earth's temperature depends upon an equilibrium between incoming and outgoing heat.

Think of the Earth as an oven, with the door propped open slightly by a wooden spoon. Turn the oven on. With the coil glowing (Sun shining), the oven heats up, but some of the heat escapes through the crack in the door (Earth's natural heat radiation into space). At a certain point - the equilibrium temperature - the coil is glowing continuously, but the escaping heat balances the coil heat, and the oven equilibrates at, say, 400 degrees. Now shut the door (raise the level of GGs, and prevent the heat escape). The oven temperature rises, then equilibrates at, say, 500 degrees (because heat still escapes through the oven's insulation and surfaces).

Now cut the coil power in half (lower the Sun's output). The equilibrium temperature drops.

Now restore the power, and also turn the broiler coil on at full power (Increase the Sun's output). The equilibrium temperature rises.

Your statement that the energy the Earth receives from the Sun doesn't cause global warming is not true. If solar output is constant, then it has a neutral effect on the current equilibrium. But solar physicists have already shown that the Sun is fickle and full of surprises, and its only constant is its inconstancy.


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

I try to promote precision in discussions about AGW because without it, any hope we have of even the barest scientific understanding of how this ultracomplex system works will disappear.

I think we're of like mind, both on the overall global warming phenomenon, and on the need to rein in CO2 emissions. So really, what I wrote above is for the consideration of others.

Best to you.

[joshcryer]

23. Note that the sun has been warming the planet by about 1C every 1k years.

And it will continue to do so (even if we stop our emissions headlong). So we're in for, 100%, the necessity to geoengineer the planet in the long term.

[bananas]

40. We're in an interglacial period

If we have a necessity to geoengineer the planet a few thousand years from now, it will be to keep the planet warm. That's another reason we shouldn't burn all the fossil fuels now - we might want to save them for when the next glacial period hits several thousand years from now, increasing greenhouse gasses at that time might be a good idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period

[bananas]

39. Some clarifications

You wrote, "I think we're of like mind, both on the overall global warming phenomenon, and on the need to rein in CO2 emissions. So really, what I wrote above is for the consideration of others."
So now I have to clarify a few things for the consideration of others.

You wrote, "It's inappropriate to make the flat statement that greenhouse gases cause global warming for the same reason that linear mathematics are inappropriate to the job of describing the machinery."
Ok, I left out the "very likely" part:

Greenhouse gas

<snip>

Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33°C (59°F) colder than at present.

Human activities since the start of the industrial era around 1750 have increased the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The 2007 assessment report compiled by the IPCC observed that "changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, land cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the climate system", and concluded that "increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations is very likely to have caused most of the increases in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century".

<snip>

You wrote: "Your statement that the energy the Earth receives from the Sun doesn't cause global warming is not true."
I think you're referring to my statement: "The energy would replace the energy we currently get from fossil fuels, about 1/10,000 of the energy that the earth receives directly from the sun. This isn't what causes global warming."
By "this" I meant the energy we get from fossil fuels, not the energy the earth receives directly from the sun. We only generate about 15 terawatts from fossil fuels. The sun aims about 174 petawatts at the earth, the earth reflects about 30% of that and absorbs about 70%. The 15TW from fossil fuels is teeny tiny compared to 70% of 174PW, it's only about 1/10,000, or 0.01%, which is about 1/10 of solar variation over the 11 year sunspot cycle:

Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1% or about 1.3 W/m² peak-to-trough during the 11 year sunspot cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

[kristopher]

18. Your reasoning is correct...

in that importing heat would be an additional factor in warming. However this is the most relevant part of your thoughts: "The effect may be small for one power station..."

If it were to become much more mainline than anyone currently envisions, of course it would make sense to run the numbers looking at the trade-off between avoided GHG emissions and the amount of net heat added to the environment. Considering the low orbit that a facility like this would occupy, I'm not sure there would actually be much energy gathered and transmitted that wouldn't already be hitting the earth. Wouldn't it largely just be gathered earlier in the process, before entering the atmosphere?

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. A facility like this would be parked in geosynchronous orbit (not a low orbit.)

http://www.reuters.com/article/earth2Tech/idUS218528859420090617

PowerSat: Space Solar Flies Closer to Earth

Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:05pm EDT

Solar from space: It may sound like a bad sci-fi movie, but a growing number of companies think it could solve the world’s energy crisis. Among them is Everett, Wash.-based PowerSat Corp., which said today it’s filed a provisional patent for two technologies it claims could help make the transmission of solar power from space more cost-effective. CEO William Maness also told us that the 8-year-old company has received commitments for $3-$5 million in angel funding, which it’s using to develop wireless power demonstrations on Earth, and is currently in negotiations for a first venture round in the single-digit millions.

The PowerSat news comes after Manhattan Beach, Calif.-based Solaren, another space solar company, in April signed a deal to provide power to northern California utility PG&E. And Swiss startup Space Energy recently said it’s working to launch a prototype satellite into space in 2-3 years.

…

PowerSat’s Innovation

Now, PowerSat has come up with two technologies that it claims could shave off roughly $1 billion in launch and operation costs for a 2.5-megawatt power station. The first of these is called BrightStar. Instead of one large satellite, Brightstar uses a cluster of hundreds of small ones, which work together — similar to cloud computing — to transmit the power as a group.

The second technology, called Solar Power Orbital Transfer or SPOT, uses the same solar array needed for wireless power transmission to power the electronic thrusters that boost the satellites from what’s called “low Earth orbit,” which is 300-1,000 miles up, to “geosynchronous Earth orbit,” which is 22,236 miles up. Other satellites use a chemically fueled “space tug” to get to the geosynchronous level, and eliminating that power source reduces the weight of a satellite by 67 percent, dramatically decreasing launch costs, Maness said.

…

So, the energy it beams down would not normally have struck the atmosphere.

[kristopher]

30. That would make a significant difference in the ratio.

Thanks.

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. Yeah, it would, but it still doesn't concern me much

Especially if it replaces burning fossil fuels.

Ignoring the whole Greenhouse Gas issue for a moment, when a power plant burns coal, even in our best power plants, more than half of the heat generated is wasted. (Let's call it half, because it makes the calculation easy.)

So, if we beam a joule in from space, that adds a joule to the atmosphere. If we generate a joule's worth of electricity by burning coal, that adds 2 joules to the atmosphere.


Include the Greenhouse Gases and the advantage is clear.

[joshcryer]

32. Your joule from space is going to have some inefficiency, it can't be converted 100% either.

You'll have to beam two joules from space to have one joule of usable energy.

Worrying about this though is mostly a distraction, we have much more pressing issues (see: Arctic melt / sea level rise / acidic oceans / methane release, etc).

I personally don't see this facility working or happening any time soon (simply because space is one costly place to get to). I did propose that we send teleoperated robots to the moon though, to build stuff there; let college kids and whatnot build the industry remotely. If you did that then you could build an orbital energy station like this with ease (and no need for expensive human astronaut programs that go no where).

(Note: I am for manned spaceflight but I see the moon as a base of operations for remotely operated robotic exploration; send people further out! Sorry for the tangent!)

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. At what point will the joule from space be lost?

Clearly, the solar cells in space will be less than 100% efficient, but the loss will be in space.




However, as you say, there are bigger fish to fry.

[joshcryer]

34. Hmm, from that graphic it may be more like 1 joule lost for every 10.

Look at the graph, from RF transmission to reception.

But yeah we're basically in agreement here. :)

edit: on second thought I may be reading the graphic wrong (2% lost to atmosphere, of the 98% that get to Earth, another 10% lost, after that, another 10% lost to pump it to the grid, so maybe 1 in 5 joules is lost?)

[OKIsItJustMe]

35. More like 1 joule in 4 get's lost

I get an overall efficiency of 74%

(Whatever…)

[kristopher]

36. Your other post nailed it.

We have the terrestrial renewable technologies now; there is no need to go to space. The primary justification is summed up in a chart comparing the characteristics of different options. The justification for pursuing SBSP lies in the fallacy that ground level renewables cannot fulfill the need for "base load". I'm sure you know my perspective on that.

Other than that, the only advantage I see with SBSP is the generic one of pushing the boundaries of exploration. I support that, but I'd rather see focus maintained on solving the climate issue right now.

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. There are a couple of other advantages you haven't mentioned

First off, one of the great objections raised to “Earth-based” alternatives (such as wind and terrestrial solar) are their intermittency. Since there are no clouds in space, space-based solar power is almost constant. (Occasionally, a space based solar plant will fall into Earth's shadow for a short time, but in geosynchronous orbit, this won’t happen on a daily cycle, or for very long, about 75 minutes around midnight for a few days at the equinoxes.)

Next off, another great objection which is raised to “Earth-based” alternatives is the amount of land which must be dedicated to them. The area required for a rectenna would be quite large, but not as large as the area required for an “Earth-based” power farm.


That being said, this is a long-term project, and should not distract us from constructing wind and solar “farms.”

[kristopher]

38. The intermittency issue is part of the baseload discussion.

and the "space required" objection is simply not legitimate.

[NNadir]

7. Let's just talk science fiction after science fiction until climate change really starts.

Conveniently for all our Greenpeace bourgeois car culture brats, climate change becomes real only "by 2090" when conveniently anyone who might check on their spacey spaced fantasies will be, um, dead.

By 2090, we'll be perfectly well suited to live in the darkness the first time a large meteor creates a cloud of metal shards traveling at 500 m/s in the brand new rings of earth.

The A ring will be named for Amory, by the way, the guy who told us in 1976 that we'd have 18 exajoules of solar energy in the US by 2000.

Speaking of planet earth, on it, after decades and decades and decades of space based solar talk:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

Um, let's see, under spaced based solar, we see...um...we don't seem to see it. I guess they don't list forms of energy that produce zero.

[joshcryer]

14. 2090 eh? I'm betting 2014 IPCC AR5.

[NNadir]

21. You mean I have to wait only a little over 4 years to mock you incorrigibily

[TheWraith]

10. Unfortunately, this is a no-go.

The basic idea is actually pretty sound--above the atmosphere, solar energy is 5x more plentiful, meaning that solar panels provide a far greater amount of power than they ever would on the ground. That's why we use them on satellites and the ISS. However, building a large enough satellite to provide meaningful electrical power, then getting it launched, would end up being an order of magnitude more expensive than simpler Earth-based forms of clean energy.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Not necessarily

We had a discussion about this not too long ago.
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=193309&mesg_id=193565

In short, you're thinking about a huge monolithic space structure, but it doesn't have to be that. For example, a focusing mirror could be made using an inflatable membrane. How much gas would it take to inflate it in space?

[tinrobot]

20. So put giant mirrors in space to reflect more sunlight to earth?

As if the earth needs more help warming up.

We have plenty of energy on the surface of the planet already, let's try and use that first.

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. No, the reflectors concentrate light on a PV panel for conversion

Check out the patent referred to in http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=193309&mesg_id=193565">bananas’ post:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=YEcVAAAAEBAJ&dq=Solaren

Abstract

A space-based power system. The system maintains proper positioning and alignment of system components without using connecting structures. Power system elements are launched into orbit, and the free-floating power system elements are maintained in proper relative alignment, e.g., position, orientation and shape, using a control system. …

Then, check out this interview:
http://www.next100.com/2009/04/interview-with-solaren-ceo-gar.php

…

Q: What kind of experience does your team have?

A: Each Solaren team member each has 20 to 45 years experience in the aerospace industry, primarily with Hughes Aircraft Company and the US Air Force, and has successfully developed and managed many first-of-a-kind, innovative space projects.

…

Q: What gives you the confidence that you can design the system?

A: The SSP pilot plant system design will work hand and glove with an extensive Solaren engineering development program. Before the Solaren SSP plant is constructed, an engineering development program will be implemented to reduce the cost, schedule and engineering risk associated with the Solaren SSP pilot project. The engineering development program is a meticulous step-by-step process that will validate all SSP components, subsystems and systems. In addition to laboratory and ground tests, Solaren plans to test and evaluate critical SSP system deployments and functionality in space. The rigorous SSP pilot plant design will be created from the foundation of engineering data generated through the SSP development program's component, subsystem and system tests.

Q: What gives you confidence that you can launch this system into space?

A: The SSP pilot plant satellites are designed to use existing launch capabilities. No new space launch vehicle capabilities need to be developed to launch our satellites into space. The SSP pilot plant design for the power satellites and ground receive station will be built and validated and the power satellites prepared for shipment to the launch site during the construction phase. At the launch site, the power satellites are launched into space using existing launch vehicle capabilities and moved to their final orbital positions.

Q: Finally, what gives you the confidence that you can start generating power by 2016?

A: What gives us the confidence that we can start generating power in 2016 is the experience of Solaren's team and suppliers, and these five steps. First, our meticulous SSP engineering development program will reduce program risk. Second, our rigorous SSP Pilot plant design will ensure that we meet or exceed our SSP system performance requirements and that the design is buildable. Third, the construction of the SSP Pilot plant is built to exacting specifications, which are each verified and validated. Fourth, the SSP satellites undergo a final verification prior to launch, and use low risk, existing launch vehicle capabilities for delivery to space. Fifth, once in geosynchronous orbit, a series of SSP pilot plant system tests will validate the satellites and ground receive station functions and verify performance, safety and key parameters to ensure successful operations. When we complete these steps, we will then be ready to deliver power to PG&E in 2016.

…

[Nihil]

11. Great in sci-fi, dumb idea in real life ...

... but I'm sure that will be no barrier to it being raised time & time
again as a "strategy", as a "funding opportunity" and as yet another way
of putting off any real action about climate change until it is too late.

:grr:

[NickB79]

12. Not until we get that space elevator built first.

1,000 rocket launches for merely 1 GW of solar would be insanely expensive.

[PavePusher]

41. Mass production of launch capability...

will drop costs. Also spur technological improvements/new developments, and help bootstrap us into a permanent off-planet presence.

Did you know that the moon-landing program and subsequent space efforts have paid for themselves many times over in commercial spin-offs?

I expect the same would happen with this.

[Terry in Austin]

17. Feasibility

I think the discussion should go beyond just "can we do it?"

When we also hear "is it wise?" in a discussion like this, it'll be a sign that our species has passed its adolescent stage.

Meanwhile, we've got the ethic of Heroic Industrialism: if it can be done, it should be done.*


(*Disclaimer, fwiw: as a lifelong technology fan and practitioner, I loves me some gadgets! Just not the ones that end up scaring the cat, or making you tired, or needing to be dug out of your foot!)

[kristopher]

19. Published articles available from symposium website

http://www.spacecanada.org/index.php?page=published_article

Published Articles
Title Credits Link
To Boldly Go: The Urgent Need for a Revitalized Investment in Space Technology John Mankins
The Space Review
May 2009 View Article

Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
October 2007 View Article

Report of Workshop on Clean and Inexhaustible Space Solar Power at Unispace III Conference Nobuyuki Kaya, John Mankins, Bryan Erb, Didier Vassaux, Guy Pignolet, Dieter Kassing and Patrick Collins
May 2000 View Article

A Technical Overview of the “Suntower” Solar power Satellite Concept John Mankins
August 1999 View Article

A Fresh Look at Space Solar Power: New Architectures, Concepts and Technologies John C Mankins
IAF paper no IAF-97-R.2.03, 38th International Astronautical Congress. 1997 View Article

[Dogmudgeon]

24. Perhaps we are looking at this backwards

Why not move energy-demanding pursuits into space instead of beaming energy back to Earth?

:shrug:

--d!

[GliderGuider]

25. An estimated capital cost of $24/watt?

Before a pilot project has even been launched?

Uh huh.

[joshcryer]

27. Heheh, hey we agree pretty much completely here. ;)

:D

[GliderGuider]

28. .

:thumbsup: