Space solar power potential highlighted in report

A report into the feasibility of space-based power rigs that would beam solar power down to earth in the form of microwaves has been published, with its findings being along the lines of "yes, it'll happen, but only when the money's there." The Pentagon is itching to get its hands on the technology, which would include mirrors several miles wide focusing sunlight onto solar cells, highlighting the potential for beaming energy to remote regions of the world (read: wherever they're fighting.) The problem is more of an economic one, with the technology behind the project apparently being feasible since the 70s: only now that oil prices have tripled, and the technology has become greatly more efficient, is an actual space installation seeming realistic. In fact, we could see early efforts for the giant mirrors as soon as 2012: any bets that they'll double as death rays?

[brett.chandler @ Oct 14th 2007 10:51PM]

I like this idea, but I can just imagine the potential health concerns. What would be he long-term effects of living in that "cone" of microwave coverage?

[Slvrgun @ Oct 15th 2007 1:02AM]

I can imagine birds just flying through the microwaves and falling from the sky onto the grill you're getting ready to fire up on those pleasant Saturday afternoons. MMmmm good eating.

[Twitchy @ Oct 15th 2007 6:57AM]

Actually I wonder if they'll explode like Seagulls who 'stray' into the beam of military fire-control radar?

[DarkAardvark @ Oct 14th 2007 10:51PM]

i wonder if i can get in the guiness book of world records for "first space-based death ray made" or something... hmm...

[BigD @ Oct 15th 2007 1:24AM]

Maybe not a weapon, in the traditional sense, but I could totally see them frying some trade embargoed/sanctioned nation's crops with additional "energy".

[rTwelve @ Oct 14th 2007 11:04PM]

Wasn't this in SimCity 2000?

[rwfu666 @ Oct 14th 2007 11:09PM]

Wasn't this in James Bond?

=P

[tf @ Oct 14th 2007 11:13PM]

wasn't this on engadget?

[John @ Oct 15th 2007 12:39AM]

KANEDA!!!!

TETSUO!!!!

KANEDA!!!!

TETSUO!!!!

(SOL fires...)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

KANEDA!!!!!!!

TETSUO!!!!!!!

[Kevin @ Oct 15th 2007 10:18AM]

LOL Akira...

[HotFootMcCook @ Oct 14th 2007 11:17PM]

Nifty!

[Josh @ Oct 14th 2007 11:17PM]

Gigantic space death rays... just what Col. Jack O'Neil always wanted.

Too bad they canceled SG-1





Of course the pentagon will use it as a weapon - isn't that what our governments purpose is these days?

[m @ Oct 14th 2007 11:35PM]

Among all the futuristic new power generation technologies available, I hope the robot overlords settle on this instead of, say, consuming our organic matter.

[Arnie @ Oct 14th 2007 11:51PM]

Well then we would have to darken the skies and then they would use us like batteries(cue Matrix theme music)

[Ron Smith @ Oct 14th 2007 11:31PM]

The amount of energy that reaches the ground is hardly "death ray" worthy. from the article:

The microwaves would be directed down to antenna arrays on Earth, as a beam of radiation about one-sixth as intense as noon sunlight. The antennas would convert the radiation back into electricity for distribution via conventional grids.

hardly even a sunburn.

[dj-kenpo @ Oct 15th 2007 12:21AM]

why can't they just convert that 'noon radiation'. unless they're different.

in which case the comparison is bull.

[Brad @ Oct 15th 2007 5:17AM]

Because these are microwaves, not visible sunlight. Microwaves carry more energy than the visible light spectrum. Most other electromagnetic radiation is blocked by our atmosphere. I wonder if is a net-positive as far as power consumption yet? It takes a lot of fuel to ship mirrors into space...

[dj-kenpo @ Oct 15th 2007 7:55AM]

brad, please see the above comment. I get that they carry more energy, that was my point.

[Murray Foster @ Oct 14th 2007 11:54PM]

This is such a load of crap. If instead we invested in deep geothermal development this country could be energy self sufficient in less than 50 years. Go to www.mit.edu and search geothermal. The second search result is a 300 plus page study that shows a less than $1BN investment over 15 years would yield enough Geothermal power to replace 10% of US electricity requirements. The current administration has cut all funding (a paltry $27M) from the current budget. If the US had funded this technology instead of nukes we would be energy self sufficient by now.

[Wwhat @ Oct 15th 2007 12:54AM]

Massive local cooling of the crust right under your feet, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

[siriusfox @ Oct 15th 2007 1:07AM]

Why are you so worried about being self sufficient. And why geothermal? Nuclear is a far more practical source of energy, with the technology already in place. It is the cleanest, cheapest form of energy around.

[Jesse S @ Oct 15th 2007 1:23AM]

Fox, don't recommend nuclear power. Idiots still think it's unsafe.

While they do that, I will enjoy my hard-ware natural-uranium chemical-recycling pebble-bed reactor plant, in my dreams...

[benhc911 @ Oct 15th 2007 2:14AM]

Sorry to be the big environmentalist, however, I feel that I should remark that although safe, and "zero emission" nuclear is hardly an energy source that I would support. The main reason being the immense volume of emissions released during the production, and shipment, of the concrete involved in the cooling towers, and the secondary being the greenhouse gas effect of the water vapour released from the coolant towers.. The man power, money, and carbon dioxide required, wasted and produced, create an unpleasant situation at best. Could not this money be spent on something else that doesnt produce greenhouse gases during use, but *also* produces minimal amounts during production? How about something that doesnt produce waste product? Or release heated water into waterways, altering river and lake eco-systems.

More on topic, I'm not sure if I would like to see this happen either, the pollution involved in the launch would likely be astronomical, and the payback length for the combined economic and environmental impact could be extreme. The counter argument could of course be that any positive economic or environmental action is great, but, you must consider where we can best spend our money. There are other projects that would no doubt have a faster payback in both regards, and a more positive impact on our socio-enviro-economical standing, and there is only so much money to go around.

The very least we can do, is instate LFG flaring, even if we don't harness the energy (trapping, and igniting the methane gas produced by landfills through piping systems, as methane is 20 times worse as a greenhouse gas then the carbon dioxide that would be produced.

It isnt feasible to rely on the technologies of the future, or magical instant conversions to electric cars. We cant take the hippy view, because economics *will* win out, at least in the short term. BUT we can't ignore the undeniable evidence, and we can not survive with our current lifestyles, we need to focus on the cheapest options, or the ones with the quickest payback, because that is the only way that the government will support it. However, I am rambling, and I could no doubt go forever, preaching my opinions which matter so little, and are no doubt far from original, so I digress and merely remark as to my extreme hopes that humanity will learn to change our ways.

[Mal F4cti0n @ Oct 15th 2007 11:24AM]

Well that would be great if our military fought its wars at home. The military is interested for remote power, when they are off fighting. Local geothermal energy at home wouldn't help them much, now would it?

[Ryan @ Oct 14th 2007 11:57PM]

An interesting thing about developing this technology now is that if and when space elevators become feasible, it should theoretically be possible to tether one of these solar collecters onto it and route the power down through cabling to permanent stations on the ground, rather than beaming it down and losing more energy in the conversion process. However this is just an idea, and it might not make economic sense (yet).

[Wwhat @ Oct 15th 2007 12:56AM]

So far even linking a small tether in space failed abysmally.

[hacp @ Oct 15th 2007 1:16AM]

you've been watching to much Gundam 00

[charonzen @ Oct 15th 2007 2:52AM]

Hey! And if we combine this with another Engadget post, that tether will come into our home, to power our phones, and then we can hack it to get energy!

No? Sorry, I'm tired...

[JQuilty @ Oct 15th 2007 3:07AM]

hacp: 00? I'm surprised no one has mentioned Gundam X yet, since this is how the satellite cannon is powered.

[Casey @ Oct 15th 2007 12:20AM]

I remember reading about this, many years ago, in Scientific American. That article suggested using the solar cells from the many low orbiting communications sats that where going to be launched for cell phone communications. It also implied the ground stations for those birds were already using solar power from space.

I think it was this issue:
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=F5B4D895-8666-4511-823A-8C8E1B2FEF4


But I'm not 100%

[Robots, Take Over, Please @ Oct 15th 2007 12:17AM]

I hope they can build a demonstration power station.

When studies were held on the colonization of space back in the 1970s, engineers determined that the practice of beaming solar power down to Earth would be profitable enough to fund the construction of a space habitat. As more space habitats were built, they could pay for themselves by building new solar power satellites.

However, the greatly underestimated launch costs for the space shuttle, (which would have been used in the construction of the satellites and habitats), practically erased the hope of space colonization by the year 2000.

Now, we are beginning to discuss the feasibility of a space elevator. Theoretically, this would lower the cost of a "launch" by a huge factor. So, if a space elevator is built, perhaps we will be able to construct solar power satellites, and eventually, space habitats.

[anonymous @ Oct 15th 2007 10:49AM]

hmmmmm How long would it take to get from the earth to the moon on a space elevator?

[dj-kenpo @ Oct 15th 2007 12:24AM]

just curious, I wonder what the energy usage is in regaurds to shuttle fuel to launch it up there?

[Ryan @ Oct 15th 2007 1:19AM]

I honestly remember hearing on some science program that the energy needed to launch the shuttle could power a large city for 2 weeks. Might want to double check that exact figure, but it is a monstrous amount of energy.

[dj-kenpo @ Oct 15th 2007 7:57AM]

well, then I hope this solar cell can power a large city all on it's own then as well. otherwise...

[drew @ Oct 15th 2007 12:39AM]

How wonderfully uninformed your article writer is - this execution of space-based solar collectors is a chapter from the planbook of space colonization and was never intended for weaponization. Gerard K. O'Neill covered this topic in his seminal volume on space colonization "Space Colonies : The High Frontier".

From this link:
http://www.trivia-library.com/b/modern-scientist-predictions-gerard-k-o-neill.htm

Quote:
For 1990--A space colony of 10,000 inhabitants would be complete and in orbit. Its cost would be paid for by the manufacture of satellite solar stations, which would beam energy back to earth over low-density microwave beams. The colony would be wheel-shaped or cylindrical (the big can in the sky). It would rotate to establish gravity (through centrifugal force), but the gravity would be low to allow man-powered flight as well as new kinds of sports and dances; people with heart conditions would live longer there, too. Inside the satellite would be green plants, trees, animals, and birds. Separate residential, agricultural, and industrial areas would be climate-controlled, and there would be no pollution and no insect pests. The people living in the colony would immediately start making another satellite, which in turn would spawn another, a process that could continue indefinitely.

Read a book people!!! ;)

[Wwhat @ Oct 15th 2007 1:07AM]

Never intended for weapons eh, and so the pentagon will not try it, because some scifi writer didn't intend it as weapon, sure sure.
It's damn obvious that if you can make a wide precisely directed microwave beam with some energy behind it you can make it narrow and directed 'elsewhere' almost just as easy, only issue being that it's relatively easy to shield yourself from it theoretically, that's were some inventiveness comes in.
Perhaps it could be used to overload radar installations of the enemy though (if said enemy wasn't a third word country for a change and had radar).
Or as a version of the in tv/movies much overdone EMP, hit say TV stations, or communication stations or satellite control centers and fry the electronics.

[drew @ Oct 15th 2007 2:46AM]

Technology can be applied to commerce, war, art, religion, what have you. And for the record, Gerard K. O'Neill was never a science fiction writer, he was a physicist and a space pioneer. Here's the wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill

[Wwhat @ Oct 15th 2007 1:49PM]

If you write such stuff you classify as a scifi writer to me, unless you are actually working on such a project.

[Marcelo @ Oct 15th 2007 1:21AM]

Fantastic Idea!!

http://www.spymac.com/details/?2266728

MarC

[Broken Haiku @ Oct 15th 2007 2:07AM]

Yay - I finally get a practical use for my tinfoil hat!

[dj-kenpo @ Oct 15th 2007 7:58AM]

doesn't tinfoil react badly in the microwave?

[David @ Oct 15th 2007 2:15AM]

When I was in an Energy Graduate Program, about a quarter of a century ago, in Seattle, Washington, the feds gave a certain aircraft manufacturing company located in Seattle, $25,000,000,00 to do a Feasibility Study on this very thing. Why not use the already available Passive Solar? Because you can't put it on the meter, and the fat Cats can't own it. It was a bad idea then and it's worse now!

[Jeff Lewis @ Oct 15th 2007 2:44AM]

The thing I've never read with respect to this kind of power generation is the environmental impact of a microwave beam powerful enough to convey the kind of wattage you'd need to deliver to make this kind of energy system cost effect to launch in the first place.

If it's done as a tight beam, it's going to be scary powerful - and if it'd done as a wide beam you're going to have some serious ineffiencies in the system (not to mention irradiating huge areas of unnaturally high levels of microwave radiation...)

[Andrew @ Oct 15th 2007 2:51AM]

Raising a practical issue, if these mirrors could be potentially miles wide, and in orbit (thus not protected by earth's atmosphere), surely theres a risk/problem of micrometeorite impacts on the mirrors. Whihch is generally bad for the mirrors. I'm not 100% on this one, just raising a point.

[Matthew Hilario @ Oct 15th 2007 2:59AM]

fly that thing over a cornfield and we can have a popcrop circle party!

[ed @ Oct 15th 2007 3:15AM]

Check out this US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and much more down to your local US City level...

http://www.eredux.com/states/

[vlivecch @ Oct 18th 2007 10:30PM]

I for one, welcome our energy flinging, solar powered, overloards

[Timothy @ Oct 15th 2007 10:15AM]

Just goes to show: Everything I need to know, I learned from Val Kilmer.

"Would you prepared if gravity reversed itself? The only thing I can't figure out is how to keep the change in my pockets. I've got it. Nudity."

Real Genius indeed. Plus, he was the first action hero to carry a Nokia 9000 Communicator. Perhaps he's Engadget's (um!) patron Saint?

[syed @ Oct 15th 2007 10:32AM]

As we are beaming down Microwaves to the Earth (waves which are similar to the ones in the ovens) My concern is "Will it not Heat up the Earth?", and contribute to global warming which we are trying to avoid ???
:-S