National Space Society To Announce "Ground-Breaking" Wireless Space Solar Power Findings

[bananas]

"The IAA's three-year, ten-nation study, Green Energy from Space Solar Power, confirms the feasibility of using space solar power technology within the decade."

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/11/08/nss-to-announce-ground-breaking-wireless-space-solar-power-findings/

NSS to Announce “Ground-Breaking” Wireless Space Solar Power Findings
Posted by Doug Messier on November 8, 2011, at 5:10 am in News

NSS PR — Washington, D.C. — The National Space Society (NSS) will hold a press conference on November 14, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to announce the findings of a ground-breaking space solar power study conducted by the prestigious International Academy of Astronautics (IAA).

“With space solar power technology, energy can be collected from space and transmitted wirelessly anywhere in the world,” said Mark Hopkins, the leading Executive Officer of the National Space Society. “This technology could be the answer to our energy crisis. We look forward to sharing the results of the IAA’s study, and exploring the potential that space solar power has for creating thousands of green energy jobs,” he added.

This event is free and open to the public. Members of the press are encouraged to attend.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=35202

National Space Society To Announce Ground-Breaking Green Energy Solution

Source: National Space Society
Posted Thursday, November 10, 2011

<snip>

The IAA's three-year, ten-nation study, Green Energy from Space Solar Power, confirms the feasibility of using space solar power technology within the decade. John Mankins, a 25-year NASA veteran and expert on space solar power, led the study.

Mr. Hopkins added, "Our dependence on crude oil is simply unsustainable, and other energy sources can be costly and harmful to the environment. As a continuous source of energy, space solar power is a potential cost-effective and environmentally superior energy alternative."

<snip>

[newfie11]

1. This sounds great

Hope the oil/gas powers that be don't kill it.

[Sirveri]

2. within the decade, according to xkcd

[TheWraith]

29. Bingo. For all the noise, this isn't really very useful.

Current means of launching, as well as current solar cells, would make it insanely, prohibitively expensive to launch enough power to make a real difference. By the time we can launch solar cells in a cost effective way, and retrieve the power, we'll long since have better options such as ground based fusion plants.

Of course, that doesn't drum up interest in space, so the National Space Society doesn't care.

[garybeck]

3. I am skeptical.

i have no idea what technology they are using to move power through space. this sounds like a great idea but I have never seen any technology that can do this. There are some devices that can do this only with small amounts of power and over short distances. When we start looking at the amount of power we need as a society and the distances it needs to travel from "way up there" the scale is HUGE. If there truly is a technology that can move this amount of power, over this distance, with no wires, and do it efficiently, it would be such a groundbreaking discovery that more than a press conference would be warranted.

another issue is that getting that many solar panels up into space would cost so much, it would rival the money saved by putting them in space in the first place.

I checked both of those links. Neither mention anything about a new technology that can move large amounts of power through space. One has a reference to a company called PowerSat, which claims to be developing a space solar program. however over their entire website with FAQs and pictures, there is nothing discussing how they intend to move the power from space to earth. The website talks about solar panels a lot but says almost nothing about the transmission of power. In their white paper, they admit "but recent investigation indicates that with few exceptions, the
transmission capacity does not exist to support such a large single station." (see http://powersat.com/white-papers/PSU-1-Physical.pdf)

I'd love to believe there's been a new discovery that could enable this. Hopefully the press conference will get some coverage and we can hear what they have to say. But I'll believe it when I see it.

[bananas]

5. NSS has a lot of information on their website

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm

[garybeck]

17. according to their site, the world record for transmitting power is

34,000 watts of power, transmitted 1.5 km, at 82% efficiency.

I believe that they did this. However, that's not enough. Consider:

1) The solar panels will be much further than 1.5 km away from where the power is needed. That means there will be significantly more power loss (lower efficiency).

2) The added cost to move all this power and get the solar panels up into space, again will offset most or all of the savings.


Do the math: Right now in a sunny area like Arizona, there is about 6 hours of peak sun per day. If you put the panels in orbit, you can get 24 hours of peak sun per day. That is 4 times more. Who knows what the efficiency of moving the power 10 or 100 times longer than what they accomplished in their experiment. Let's say hypothetically that it becomes 60% efficient instead of 82. Well you just lost 40% of the extra amount you got by putting the solar panels up in space, which makes it roughly double what you can get in Arizona on land. And you haven't even begun to account for the added cost. First, the light weight thin film solar panels they describe cost more than traditional solar cells. Then you have to pay to put them up in space which is very costly, and you have to pay for all that hardware to transmit the power. And remember, we're looking at the world record of 34,000 watts and we need a LOT More power than that.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do this. I'm saying I"m skeptical that the economics and the math is there. I will check out the report.

Consider this: Increased scale of production alone could bring ground solar technology to half its current price. That would be much easier than putting solar panels in space and moving the power through space, and it would have just about the same effect.

[bananas]

24. We can go over the details after the new report comes out.

It sounds like it will be very comprehensive.

[LongTomH]

25. A friend of mine did the numbers on space solar vs ground solar

The individual in question is John Strickland, member of the Board of Directors of NSS. The latest version of John's paper: Space Solar vs Base Load Ground Solar and Wind Power is on the Online Journal of Space Communication site.

John based his calculations on the fact that ground-based solar energy is highly dependent on:

1. Season - which determines solar angles and hours of available insolation,
   
2. latitude - which also affects solar angle,
   
3. average cloud cover at specific locations.

The output of a photvoltaic cell varies with the angle at which sunlight strikes it. A cell will produce its full output when the solar angle is at 90 degrees; output falls off as solar angles increase. This means you'll get considerably reduced output in early morning and late afternoon, also a reduced output in winter. Add those together and you may have as little as 4 hours equivalent of full power from your solar array in winter, even though the sun is over the horizon 8 hours or more.

And of course, it will vary with latitude: Boston will have much less available sunlight than Arizona or Texas, and that's before we add in variability in cloud cover.

So, as you can see: A factor of 4 in average solar energy doesn't mean that much. As for the question of average cloud cover, I remember winters here in KC when we didn't see the sun for a couple of weeks at a time.

By the way, I haven't been active in the National Space Society for years, maybe it's time to renew my membership.

[garybeck]

26. you are basically correct.... but

As I stated clearly in my math, I was using Arizona as an example for the solar data. The year-round average of 6 peak sun hours per day is an average. It goes up to 7 in the summer and down to 5 or so in the winter. This data *includes* compensation for the angle of the sun. It is for a fixed array pointing south and the tilt angle = to latitude. If you use a tracker, you'll get even more output.

An important point is that EVERYTHING that gets you more power, whether it's a tracker on the ground or putting the modules up in space has a COST associated with it. I haven't seen the numbers but I would imagine the cost of putting large amounts of solar panels in space, and transmitting the power through air/space, that these costs would be huge.

I was just showing an example and I did admittedly use a sunny spot to compare. I'll have to take a look at the study when it comes out.

[LongTomH]

27. May I respectfully suggest you read John Strickland's paper?

nft

[bananas]

28. Here's a link to the press conference and report

I recommend listening to the press conference,
they go into some things which aren't in the report,
there aren't a lot of visuals so you can just listen to it while you're doing other things.
Posted in the video forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x635189

[TheWraith]

30. Ground based solar is the wrong comparison.

Ground based solar is, even on it's own, very very low on the cost/benefit totem. Compare space-based solar against hydro, nuclear, and wind. You'll find that those three quickly outpace SBSP in terms of return for expense. Even if you assume SBSP is possible, which hasn't been demonstrated yet.

[txlibdem]

32. It may be low by some measure but

==================================================
... the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times.

Clearly there is enough solar energy available to fulfill all the human race’s energy requirements now, and for all practical purposes, forever. The key is developing technologies that efficiently convert solar power into usable energy in a cost-effective manner.

http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/how-much-solar-energy-hits-earth.html
==================================================

[bananas]

6. You took the sentence out of context

Here's the full paragraph of the sentence you quoted:
"Historically, Solar Power Satellites (SPS) analysis has assumed a 5,000 Megawatt station1. This is
a very large generation capacity, but recent investigation indicates that with few exceptions, the
transmission capacity does not exist to support such a large single station. Larger traditionally-fueled
power plants deliver power in the 2,000-3,000 MW range. This analysis assumes a 2,500 MW station,
consistent with current ground-based transmission capability."

This paragraph is talking about the high-voltage transmission wires which carry electricity from the receiver to the customers, not wireless transmission from space to the receiving rectenna.

All they're saying is that if you build a 5,000 MW rectenna, you'll probably have to build a new transmission line to carry the electricity to customers, but if you build a 2,500 MW rectenna, you can probably build it near an existing transmission line.

[bananas]

7. Long-distance wireless power transmission isn't new

Canada flew an airplane using wireless power transmission back in the 1980's:

"SHARP could fly in circles two kilometers in diameter at an altitude of about 13 miles (21 kilometers).
Most importantly, the aircraft could fly for months at a time."

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/everyday-tech/wireless-power3.htm

How Wireless Power Works

<snip>



In the 1980s, Canada's Communications Research Centre created a small airplane that could run off power beamed from the Earth. The unmanned plane, called the Stationary High Altitude Relay Platform (SHARP), was designed as a communications relay. Rather flying from point to point, the SHARP could fly in circles two kilometers in diameter at an altitude of about 13 miles (21 kilometers). Most importantly, the aircraft could fly for months at a time.

The secret to the SHARP's long flight time was a large, ground-based microwave transmitter. The SHARP's circular flight path kept it in range of this transmitter. A large, disc-shaped rectifying antenna, or rectenna, just behind the plane's wings changed the microwave energy from the transmitter into direct-current (DC) electricity. Because of the microwaves' interaction with the rectenna, the SHARP had a constant power supply as long as it was in range of a functioning microwave array.

<snip>

[truedelphi]

8. NASA has been talking about this for over fifteen years.

About building space stations that would be equipped with solar panels, and then beaming the energy back to earth.

It's getting to be my bedtime, but I did have some links for the NASA technology to do this right on my HD. I'll put the links up later.

[garybeck]

18. the most power they have ever moved is

34,000 watts a distance of 1.5 km and the efficiency was 82%

they have a long way to go if they want to supply all the power to the world with solar panels in space.

[truedelphi]

23. JFK during his presidency -

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

Whether we can do what NASA envisions this time around or not, I don't know. The Powers that Be want to cut NASA's funding, in part on account of the fact that if the nation gives NASA the funding they need, they will accomplish what they want to. And the last thing the Elite want is a manner of limitless energy coming to the planet.

Anyway, in the old days, before the most important thing on Congress' mind was satisfying some miserably insane Republicans, we were a can-do nation. In fact, just three years ago, we elected a "Yes we can" sort of guy.

The spirit of America exists, if we make sure it does.

[kristopher]

12. Why would you deliberately misrepresent the study.

There are words for that type of behavior, but "skeptical" isn't one of them.

[bananas]

13. I think he misunderstood

The headline is about wireless power transmission,
the pdf he read mentioned transmission,
so he thought the pdf meant wireless transmission.

garybeck is one of the good guys,
very pro-solar and anti-nuclear,
check out his website: www.solarbus.org

[kristopher]

16. I stand corrected.

Thank you for the information.

[garybeck]

19. I didn't misrepresent the study.

I've been working in the solar industry for over 20 years. If I had to list all the press releases of "promising" technologies I've seen come and go, I could bore you for hours.

I'm not saying the technology is impossible. I'm saying I'm skeptical that it is economically and mathematically viable, compared to ground mounted solar panels.

what could make solar really take off and cost half what it does now (and less than utility power), is a significant increase in scale of production.

it sounds cool to put solar panels in space,and perhaps we'll do it some day. But we don't need to. We just need to give the industry a jumpstart with more incentives, and stop fossil fuel subsidies, and it will become the cheapest form of energy.

[txlibdem]

31. It won't be a single huge power station in orbit

There will be many, many 1 or 2 GigaWatt space solar power plants.

One thing that I think is interesting is that the video (given in a link in one of the replies by the author of this OP) is that the speaker claimed that a solar PV panel in space would get 7 times the exposure to sunlight than one on Earth. I had always thought that the insolation in orbit was 1.366 kW per square meter versus 1 kW on Earth per square meter. That was an interesting comment, IMO.

[MilesColtrane]

4. It would take a lot of money to get this up and running.

I'd like to see their cost analysis of this.

Not sure the political will is there for governments to pay for this in this new Age of Austerity™.

If it happens, it will be in Europe or China first.

[bananas]

9. That's been the hold-up - launch costs.

Launch costs have come down, and solar cell efficiency has improved reducing the weight which has to be lifted to orbit.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. See SpaceX’s “Falcon Heavy”

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

Falcon Heavy Overview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtoADdSry6g">Click here to view the Falcon Heavy press conference.

Falcon Heavy, the world’s most powerful rocket, represents SpaceX’s entry into the heavy lift launch vehicle category. With the ability to carry satellites or interplanetary spacecraft weighing over 53 metric tons (117,000 lb) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Falcon Heavy can lift nearly twice the payload of the next closest vehicle, the US Space Shuttle, and more than twice the payload of the Delta IV Heavy.

Liftoff of Falcon Heavy. http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=59">Click to play animation.
With over 3.8 million pounds of thrust at liftoff, Falcon Heavy will be the most capable rocket flying. By comparison, the liftoff thrust of the Falcon Heavy equals fifteen Boeing 747 aircraft at full power.

SAVING THE USA $1B ANNUALLY

If allowed to compete, SpaceX can help the Department of Defense save at least one billion dollars annually in space launch services, while providing a truly independent family of vehicles to help assure access to space.

…

Falcon Heavy with more than twice the payload but less than one third the cost of a Delta IV Heavy, will provide much needed relief to government and commercial budgets. This year, even as the Department of Defense budget was cut, the EELV launch program, which includes the Delta IV, still saw a thirty percent increase.

…

http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=2

[garybeck]

21. that's not what I gather

with all due respect,

solar cell efficiency has improved, but mainly with crystalline panels, which are the heavier type.

the link in the OP states that the thinfilm panels would be used for this, which are less efficient, and bigger, but lighter. I would think size also (and not just weight) come into play for launch costs.

another thing is, the space society has a video on their site that says the record for transmitting power is 34000 watts and 1.5 km. that is a far cry from what needs to be done for a project like this.

If that is the world record, someone is going to have to improve the transmission technology before any of this can happen.

[MemeSmith]

10. Madness

At a time when many fear that too much energy is being retained by the Earth and not released to space, the idea of capturing more energy from space is touted as our salvation.

Epic fail.

[bananas]

11. No - the problem is CO2 causing sunlight to be trapped

The energy we generate in power plants is only 1/10,000 of the sunlight reaching earth.
Burning fossil fuels generates the CO2 which traps the sunlight.
The amount of energy we generate is insignificant to global warming,
and is insignificant to the amount of sunlight energy falling on the earth.
We just have to do generate energy in ways that don't release CO2,
because CO2 traps sunlight.

[bananas]

15. The earth gets more energy from the sun in one year than we'll ever produce from fossil and nuclear

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

The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.<13>

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

The estimates of remaining non-renewable worldwide energy resources vary, with the remaining fossil fuels totaling an estimated 0.4 YJ (1 YJ = 10^24J) and the available nuclear fuel such as uranium exceeding 2.5 YJ. Fossil fuels range from 0.6 to 3 YJ if estimates of reserves of methane clathrates are accurate and become technically extractable. The total energy flux from the sun is 3.8 YJ/yr, dwarfing all non-renewable resources.

[garybeck]

20. Every ten minutes

enough solar energy reaches the earth to power the whole planet for a year.


here's another for ya....

a 90 mile square surface (90 x 90) in an sunny place like arizona would create all the electricity our entire country uses, using current solar technology.

[txlibdem]

22. Space Solar Power has to be one of the "legs of the table" for our renewable energy

At the Earth's surface we receive 1 kilowatt of energy because the atmosphere blocks a lot of it. A Space Solar Power Station would receive the full amount 1.366 kilowatts (per square meter), more than 30% MORE. So if there is a line loss of 15% you still come out ahead.

And NASA has been doing research into cheaper methods of launching hardware into space which will bring the cost of putting a kilogram of stuff into space down, ultimately down to 5% of what it is today. This technology is the Magnetic Levitation Launch System. The rocket-heads at NASA are focusing on rebuilding rockets like we had in the 1960s. Hooray. But the MagLev technology is here now and is proven to reduce costs while rockets are proven to keep costs high and complexity (and danger) high as well.

IEEE wrote a paper describing two different methods (login required):
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4526501

Physorg wrote about it in 2007:
http://www.physorg.com/news91272157.html

NASA is looking into it and I hope they will decide to use MagLev Launching for any and all parts that it can:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24756.0;attach=288934
... this link redirects to a PDF

/edit to add: corrected insolation amount from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation

[tinrobot]

33. We haven't even scratched the surface of terrestial power...

We have entire cities filled with rooftops and parking lots that contain zero solar panels. Fill those up first. If we need more power, then dedicate some land for more panels or solar thermal. If that's still not enough, then consider space based power.

No need to be launching more crap into orbit at great expense when we can do it for a lot cheaper right here on the surface.

[Nihil]

34. Yeah but your solution requires activity not "studies" and "plans".

What's the point of a solution that can be implemented today
(if given a bit of willpower) when you can merrily encourage
Business As Usual with a (literal) pie-in-the-sky project
that will always be ten or more years down the road?

:argh: