1. This wouldn't beam concentrated sunlight onto solar panels on the ground.
2. This would use a thing called a "rectenna", which are generally pretty reasonably efficient at converting microwave energy into dc current (but not so the other way around).
3. A big part of what makes this so appealing is that in orbit, you get around 8 times more sunlight per panel. So you can generate lots more power in a relatively small and light package.
4. We get hit with microwaves all the time. This wouldn't be any different. Since the antennas will have to be fair sized (we're talking kilometers), the actual energy density won't be real high.
The big problem is that to be worth it, you'd be putting something larger then most terrestrial projects into orbit, and that you're looking at - essentially - building something never before even attempted. There's also issues to do with (for example) debris and radiation degrading the panels. And of course, this would be the military target to beat all military targets; the cost alone makes it not only priceless but irreplaceable in a time of war, to speak nothing of the manufacturing involved.
While i like beamed solar a lot, i don't think it's ready for prime time just yet. I'd be very curious to see the final cost per kilowatt hour for the households serviced, and how it compares with (for example) tidal or geothermal power over the lifespan of the generator.
I also think we should focus (much much more then we have been) on *thermal* solar generation instead of the semi-conductor types. There's no need for rare or valuable materials, and there's plenty of desert to go around.
The Chromebooks are here, starting with Samsung's Series 5, a cute little number that promises instant-on access, 3G connectivity, and long enough battery life to web surf with the best of 'em.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
1. This wouldn't beam concentrated sunlight onto solar panels on the ground.
2. This would use a thing called a "rectenna", which are generally pretty reasonably efficient at converting microwave energy into dc current (but not so the other way around).
3. A big part of what makes this so appealing is that in orbit, you get around 8 times more sunlight per panel. So you can generate lots more power in a relatively small and light package.
4. We get hit with microwaves all the time. This wouldn't be any different. Since the antennas will have to be fair sized (we're talking kilometers), the actual energy density won't be real high.
The big problem is that to be worth it, you'd be putting something larger then most terrestrial projects into orbit, and that you're looking at - essentially - building something never before even attempted. There's also issues to do with (for example) debris and radiation degrading the panels. And of course, this would be the military target to beat all military targets; the cost alone makes it not only priceless but irreplaceable in a time of war, to speak nothing of the manufacturing involved.
While i like beamed solar a lot, i don't think it's ready for prime time just yet. I'd be very curious to see the final cost per kilowatt hour for the households serviced, and how it compares with (for example) tidal or geothermal power over the lifespan of the generator.
I also think we should focus (much much more then we have been) on *thermal* solar generation instead of the semi-conductor types. There's no need for rare or valuable materials, and there's plenty of desert to go around.