NSSO ponders harvesting solar energy via satellites

When you've already got colleagues dreaming up space sunshades, all of a sudden harvesting energy from outside of the Earth's atmosphere doesn't sound like such a stretch. Apparently, ambitious individuals at the Pentagon's National Security Space Office (NSSO) may "begin a study in the near future on the possibility of using satellites to collect solar energy for use on Earth." Notably, the plan actually seeks to not only provide an alternate source of fuel to the oil-dependent dwellers here on Mother Earth, but it would hopefully provide ample energy "to US troops in bases or on the battlefield." As impossible as it may sound, the present probably isn't a bad time to consider such an endeavor now that solar cells are becoming increasingly efficient, and since an actual deployment wouldn't even be in the cards until "around 20 years" from now, it's not like there's oodles of time to waste.

[Via Wired]

[TNP @ Apr 12th 2007 6:17AM]

National Security Space Office: why yes, it could be used as a weapon; we hadn't thought of that! No, honest!

[Passarinhuu @ Apr 12th 2007 7:27AM]

Yeah, right... The massification of solar energy has just started and they are thinking about harvesting energy from space. If only they used the money to develop higher eficiency cells at lower prices...
On the other hand, how would they 'transmit' the collected energy back to Earth and what would be the cost of it?

Completely uninteresting technology, imo

[Eric @ Apr 12th 2007 8:05AM]

I agree. This idea is always accompanied by the 'energy beam' idea, which is such an enormous stretch from feasible truth that it hurts. It falls into the same category as the space elevator.

[Andir3.0 @ Apr 12th 2007 8:21AM]

You can transmit energy via light. And technically, Radio is the transmission of energy over vast distances. It's not terribly efficient, but it works.

[Andir3.0 @ Apr 12th 2007 8:28AM]

How is using a beam of focused energy in the form of light or radio to transfer energy a myth? We do it every day. It's not the most efficient method, but you do transmit energy every time you submit a comment to Engadget. At one point in the transmission, your signal is turned into light and "beamed" across a transport to another location. Just because that energy is dispersed and the resultant wavelength and modulation is used doesn't mean it couldn't be captured. I'm not talking about pillars of plasma shooting from the skies, but a focused laser beam is a very good and potentially invisible method of transferring energy.

[Eric @ Apr 12th 2007 3:33PM]

Laser beam of energy. I have a few problems with that. First of all, the efficiency involved in generating high-powered lasers is, well, not striking. Secondly, we are talking serious energy transport here. But hey, I'll ignore efficiencies, fundamental focus problems and scale here. Suppose you use a laser, you have two options:
1) geostationary orbit for the laser. tricky. Aiming is a bitch at that distance. Prepare for some really serious apoligies ('sorry for vaporising your city')
2) low earth orbit for the laser. Helps with focussing. One problem though: your laser station zooms by at Mach 25. Aiming is again a little trickier. Prepare the apoligies again.
All in all: even CSI Miami is more credible.

[otto @ Apr 12th 2007 8:25AM]

The American Army is the world's premier consumer of energy, which costs it close to eleven billion dollars a year. That handicaps its flexibility: "On the battleground, 70% of the carried tonnage is fuel."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040407F.shtml

All that would be one way to spend $1.2 trillion. Here would be another: The war in Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html

Conflict in Iraq has killed more than 600,000 people since the US-led invasion in March 2003 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/274e150e-5945-11db-9eb1-0000779e2340.html

[Andir3.0 @ Apr 12th 2007 8:36AM]

Let us not get into the habit of thinking that the US Army is just over there killing people...

Contrary to popular (media) belief, the people of Iraq were suppressed by Saddam and although Bush may be retarded, the outcome of the "war" can be concluded with good benefits to the people of Iraq. The people inciting the riots and bringing conflict to Iraq are from across the borders. I'm sure Iraq would love to go back to a peaceful existence and setup a form of control in their own country. Unfortunately, certain other countries and groups decided that this was their opportunity to strike out at the US, so they send "troops" across the borders and attack the US military and Iraqi governmental forces.

[stitifier @ Apr 12th 2007 9:35AM]

Look mate, there are millions of people around the world who are being oppressed by their brutal and evil leaders, and millions more (Darfur, anyone?) who are being slaughtered on an unimaginable basis every single day. Do we invade their countries? Impose democracy? Disband all civil institutions on basis of political leanings? No. You know why? No, it's not because we're evil. It's because, get this, foreign policy is, and always will be, conducted on the notion of strategic interests. Of these, Iraq fulfilled none. "Liberating Iraqis" may be a feel-good kind of thing for neocons, but insofar as U.S. interests were advanced, the best you could ever hope for is a wash. And believe me, as over 60% of the country apparently agrees, it's far worse than that.

Furthermore-- and as this post delves further and further away from solar energy-- ample evidence has been provided that the fighters in Iraq are not foreign, but rather Iraqi. The violence is sectarian, not terrorism-related, and is largely due to what happens whenever you remove the civil institutions and order that keeps society running smoothly.

You wonder why other countries thought it might be a good time to strike at the U.S.? Because, moron, it IS a good time to strike at the U.S. Because of Bush's benighted foreign policy decisions-- the consequences of which had been predicted for many, many years-- our military is stretched to the breaking point, Iran is left unchecked, our international standing and political capital have been completely eradicated, and any credibility we have left to pursue real threats has been severely denigrated. Accuse me all you want of bashing the U.S.-- I'm not, believe me, since all I'm doing is merely stating the truth. Unless, of course, you think the truth makes us weak.

[Andir3.0 @ Apr 12th 2007 8:39AM]

Sorry for the multi-posts. The shortsightedness of some people pisses me off and the US bashing that seems so common is even worse.

[Dustin @ Apr 12th 2007 8:44AM]

Well if your going to get energy from space all they have to do is hook a wire to the space station and something else and drag it through the atmosphere, earths magnetic charge will create electricity and there ya go energy, except it would have to be a really big wire

[otto @ Apr 12th 2007 11:00AM]

getting back on topic, if pentagon wants to maintain energy advantage, then investing in smarter energy might be smarter than investing a $trillion+ in O.peration I.raqi L.iberation..

[PhysicalEd @ Apr 12th 2007 10:38AM]

Here is a link discussing how the energy may be beamed via microwave:

http://www.freemars.org/history/sps.html

Here's a summary of the programs as of a couple of years ago (interestingly sharing the same article artwork):

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html

Now that the military is interested maybe we'll make some progress...

[Jim @ Apr 12th 2007 10:55AM]

Am I the only one that thinks this would wreck havoc on the environment by dramatically increasing global warming??

[cjameshuff @ Apr 12th 2007 11:47AM]

It'd have effectively zero effect on global warming. The area of the silhouette of the power satellite's arrays would be tiny in comparison to the silhouette of Earth itself. Even if it allowed massive increases in energy usage by humanity, the proportional increase in energy added to Earth's surface would be tiny. It would also reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuel plants.

Putting the collector arrays in orbit makes sense. The rectenna arrays used to collect the power on the ground would be open mesh, practically transparent to visible light, and could be erected over fields where crops are grown, placed close to the areas where the power is needed. No huge solar farms disrupting desert ecosystems and fewer big, long runs of power lines, in addition to more efficient use of the solar panels themselves (meaning lower environmental impact from their manufacture, since fewer of them are needed). A solar thermal approach would be even better in terms of environmental impact, though...you still need a lot of solar cell area, and they don't last forever, so they'd need to be replaced occasionally.

[John @ Apr 12th 2007 11:55AM]

If you tied the space station to a big wire (for electromagnetic engergy) you would probably wreck the thing... The Earth rotates faster then the space station orbits, tying it down would speed up the space stations orbit, probably pulling it apart?

[drummerjoe @ Apr 12th 2007 1:16PM]

This is soooo SimCity2000...

[Carl M @ Apr 12th 2007 2:26PM]

I wonder what's the cost of sending a solar array into space vs. just making a bigger one here on the ground?

How long would the space array have to operate to "break even" with the energy required to put it up into space?

[Racetrack-Owner @ Apr 13th 2007 6:45AM]

I wish they had spent more time discussing the power transmission aspect. Instead it was a rundown of the obvious reasons why collecting solar energy in space was better than collecting it on the ground. Great. Thanks for the primer. Tell us how you're going to accomplish the hard part.

Also, while I'm here: "all of a sudden" isn't English -- think about it, it's meaningless. Fortunately we have "suddenly" to convey your intended meaning, and it's at least 50% more gooder.

[Top Secret @ Apr 24th 2007 12:27AM]

So when can or where can I buy personal rectennas to collect microwaves being dumped on me for those movie satellites or those new radio stations? Might as well put that wasted energy to use (microwaves are everywhere). Wonder what kind of power you get per square foot from already beemed microwaves?

[HunterXI @ May 18th 2007 10:43PM]

Probably like 3 watts.

Remember: there is no magical fairy land 'fix' for global warming.

[Conda @ Sep 14th 2007 4:11PM]

collected solar energy and beamed down by microwaves...

mmm... now I have the urge to go play Sim City 2000