[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Solar Power from Space:A Better Strategy for America and the World? Suppose I told you that we could build an energy source that: unlike oil, does not generate profits used to support Al Qaeda and dictatorial regimes. unlike nuclear, does not provide cover for rogue nations to hide development of nuclear weapons. unlike terrestrial solar and wind, is available 24/7 in huge quantities. unlike oil, gas, ethanol and does not emit greenhouse gasses, warming our planet and causing severe problems. unlike nuclear, does not provide tremendous opportunities for terrorists. unlike coal and nuclear, does not require ripping up the Earth. unlike oil, does not lead us to send hundreds of thousands of our finest men and women to war and spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on a military presence in the Persian Gulf. The basic idea: build huge satellites in Earth orbit to gather sunlight, convert it to electricity, and beam the energy to Earth using microwaves. We know we can do it, most satellites are powered by solar energy today and microwave beaming of energy has been demonstrated with very high efficiency. We're talking about SSP - solar satellite power. SSP is environmentally friendly in the extreme. The microwave beams will heat the atmosphere slightly and the frequency must be chosen to avoid cooking birds, but SSP has no emissions of any kind, and that's not all. Even terrestrial solar and wind require mining all their materials on Earth, not so SSP. The satellites can be built from lunar materials so only the materials for the receiving antennas (rectennas) need be mined on Earth. SSP is probably the most environmentally benign possible large-scale energy source for Earth, there is far more than enough for everyone, and the sun's energy will last for billions of years. While help is always nice, the U.S. can build and operate SSP alone, and SSP is nearly useless to terrorists. The satellites themselves are too far away to attack, the rectennas are simple, solid metal structures, and there is no radioactive or explosive fuel of any kind. Access to SSP energy cannot be cut by foreign governments, so America will have no need to maintain an expensive military presence in oil-rich regions. The basic idea: build huge satellites in Earth orbit to gather sunlight, convert it to electricity, and beam the energy to Earth using microwaves. We know we can do it, most satellites are powered by solar energy today and microwave beaming of energy has been demonstrated with very high efficiency. We're talking about SSP - solar satellite power. SSP is environmentally friendly in the extreme. The microwave beams will heat the atmosphere slightly and the frequency must be chosen to avoid cooking birds, but SSP has no emissions of any kind, and that's not all. Even terrestrial solar and wind require mining all their materials on Earth, not so SSP. The satellites can be built from lunar materials so only the materials for the receiving antennas (rectennas) need be mined on Earth. SSP is probably the most environmentally benign possible large-scale energy source for Earth, there is far more than enough for everyone, and the sun's energy will last for billions of years. While help is always nice, the U.S. can build and operate SSP alone, and SSP is nearly useless to terrorists. The satellites themselves are too far away to attack, the rectennas are simple, solid metal structures, and there is no radioactive or explosive fuel of any kind. Access to SSP energy cannot be cut by foreign governments, so America will have no need to maintain an expensive military presence in oil-rich regions. The catch is cost. Compared to ground based energy, SSP requires enormous up-front expense, although after development of a largely-automated system to build solar power satellites from lunar materials SSP should be quite inexpensive. To get there, however, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in R&D and infrastructure development - just what America is good at. And you know something, we're spending that kind of money, not to mention blood, on America's Persian Gulf military presence today, and gas went over $3/gallon anyway. In addition, we may end up spending even more to deal with global warming, at least in the worst-case scenarios. Expensive as it is, SSP may be the best bargain we've ever had. What should we do? Besides having NASA do interesting and inspiring things, direct and fund NASA to do something vital: end U.S. dependence on foreign oil by developing SSP. Redirect the lunar base to do the mining, and develop the launch vehicles, inter-orbit transfer, and space manufacturing capacity to end oil's energy dominance completely and forever. It will be expensive, but it's a better, cheaper, safer strategy than military control of oil in far flung lands. Oh, by the way, SSP will develop lunar mining, launch vehicles, and large satellite construction - most of what we need to build space settlements! Al Globus serves on the National Space Society Board of Directors and is a senior research associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
#4. To: Ada (#0)
(Edited)
I'm not too sure that I'm crazy about the idea of several terraWatts of RF radiation raining down on my head continuously. A practical solution would be to change the uniform building codes to require X number of Watts worth of solar panels to be included in any new building construction, based on square footage of floor area, tied to the electric grid using grid-tie inverters. Most residences could be almost totally self-sufficient, even selling back any excess power. We'll probably get this miracle "power from space" about the same time we're driving around in our flying cars that they said we would have by the turn of the century.
I'm not sure how much power solar panels can produce. I'm also not too happy about lead batteries. What I would like to see first is some building functions (like perhaps half of the elevator bank) run by solar power. I live in NYC on an island in the middle of the East River which is actually an estuary with tremendous tides and currents. An experimental tidal powered generator is being built which will be connected to the local supermarket. If it works, the grid will only be needed for two hours a day (slack water). Tide power makes sense for NYC which is mostly archiepeligo but I don't know if enough power could be generated to make a difference.
There are no replies to Comment # 7. End Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||