[HN Gopher] UK government considers space-based solar power for ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       UK government considers space-based solar power for 24/7 Solar
       Generation
        
       Author : timthorn
       Score  : 19 points
       Date   : 2021-04-02 19:20 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (energygain.co.uk)
 (TXT) w3m dump (energygain.co.uk)
        
       | rl3 wrote:
       | It's funny to see SimCity 2000 coming true. Hopefully not the
       | disaster part, though.
       | 
       | https://simcity.fandom.com/wiki/Microwave_Power_Plant
       | 
       | https://simcity.fandom.com/wiki/Microwave_(disaster)
       | 
       | https://www.deviantart.com/canona2200/art/SIMCITY-2000-Micro...
        
       | bserge wrote:
       | Giant solar arrays coupled with space elevators (anyone watch
       | Gundam 00?), please make it true, I'll pay my 3.50 for it.
       | 
       | Funny how I find this on the front page when I made a similar
       | comment a few minutes ago.
        
       | timthorn wrote:
       | I heard a talk from the Space Applications Catapult about this a
       | few months back. It isn't online any more, but some I noted some
       | stats at the time. The station would be 1km wide and 4-5000
       | tonnes in geostationary orbit, producing >2GW. It would beam
       | power down via microwave to a receiving station 3-5km in
       | diameter, so power density would be sufficiently low to not be a
       | danger - "aircraft flying through it would not burst into flames"
       | 
       | Projected cost was about equal to HS2 (about $100bn) for the
       | pilot station but with much reduced costs for subsequent
       | deployments.
        
         | antisthenes wrote:
         | > Projected cost was about equal to HS2 (about $100bn) for the
         | pilot station but with much reduced costs for subsequent
         | deployments.
         | 
         | How does this compare to regular land-based Solar and/or
         | offshore wind farms?
        
       | marshray wrote:
       | This is a joke right?
       | 
       | Why in the world would anyone consider putting solar panels in
       | space when there are still terrestrial rooftops without them?
       | 
       | > "The UK is growing its status as a global player in space...
       | 
       | Post-Brexit UK can't even launch a satellite.
        
         | pjc50 wrote:
         | _Pre-Brexit_ UK couldn 't even launch a satellite on its own;
         | Blue Streak was cancelled and the only successful launch was
         | after the cancellation.
         | 
         | UK satellite building on the other hand is a very productive
         | industry.
        
       | nickparker wrote:
       | https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/09/20/no-really-spac...
        
         | Sanzig wrote:
         | Indeed, space based solar power is always one of those ideas
         | that sounds great until you sit down for fifteen minutes with a
         | pencil and a piece of paper.
         | 
         | The antenna aperture size for effective wireless power
         | transmission in any band with a reasonable atmospheric window
         | needs to be utterly massive. And you can't escape the aperture
         | requirement with a phased-array, either, since you lose a bunch
         | of power to grating lobes (see the "thinned-array curse").
        
       | LatteLazy wrote:
       | Be careful taking anything UK Gov says seriously. They'll launch
       | the satellites for this by climbing magic-bean stalks I
       | imagine...
        
       | tectonic wrote:
       | The US is looking into this too:
       | https://www.geekwire.com/2020/space-force-will-test-solar-po...
       | 
       | But I'm always pretty skeptical of space-based solar power
       | proposals. First, the receiving array has to be really large or
       | the energy density of the beam will be dangerous to birds /
       | planes, etc. Second, utility is limited because we already have a
       | huge fusion reactor in the sky beaming energy to us which we
       | simply need to build receivers for.
        
         | dave4420 wrote:
         | To be fair, this avoids the problem of night (at the cost of
         | the equinox becoming a problem) (and to some extent the weather
         | as well? I forget).
         | 
         | I wouldn't bank on it, but I'm glad it's being explored.
        
         | jacques_chester wrote:
         | > _Second, utility is limited because we already have a huge
         | fusion reactor in the sky beaming energy to us which we simply
         | need to build receivers for._
         | 
         | Said fusion reactor's transmissions are blocked by the earth's
         | bulk for half the day on average, including peak demand hours.
         | The rest of the time it can be partially absorbed by cloud
         | cover, greatly increasing the necessity of spare capacity over
         | extremely wide areas.
         | 
         | Space-based solar doesn't have these issues. It has unfiltered
         | sunlight 24 hours per day.
        
         | bserge wrote:
         | Wouldn't need an energy beam if it could be routed through
         | cables on a space elevator, which is another thing proposed by
         | many people to make space exploration easier.
        
           | dave4420 wrote:
           | Last time I checked, any sort of cable or elevator to space
           | was impractical, given the strength and density requirements.
           | Has that changed?
           | 
           | Also, a cable would have to attach to the Earth at the
           | equator, which is some distance from the UK.
        
             | Sanzig wrote:
             | It has not. Humanity is still a few materials science
             | breakthroughs and a Nobel in physics or two away from a
             | space elevator tether that can operate on Earth. Many have
             | suggested carbon nanotubes, but nobody knows if you can
             | actually practically manufacture a tether out of them.
        
           | Shivetya wrote:
           | I really doubt that by the time technology lets us build a
           | space elevator that we would actually find it worthwhile to
           | build it, at least here on Earth.
           | 
           | Instead those resources and technology development would be
           | better used in creating the manufacturing processes needed to
           | operate in space by mining the moon and capturing asteroids.
           | 
           | You don't need a whole lot of manufacturing lifted into space
           | before you can make it self sustaining and growing of its own
           | work.
        
         | scsilver wrote:
         | Id rather put public cloud up there, crunching numbers and
         | putting off heat into space.
        
           | rotexo wrote:
           | Aside from launch costs, isn't heat management one of the
           | hardest parts about schemes like that? I'm obviously not an
           | aerospace engineer, but I thought the vacuum breaks most heat
           | dissipation schemes
        
       | rococode wrote:
       | Sounds like a good exploratory step towards reaching the tech
       | capabilities we need to build Dyson spheres (or similar
       | megastructures harvesting energy in space) someday in the far
       | future. I doubt the tech we have now is enough to make anything
       | particularly useful or efficient, but we've gotta start learning
       | somewhere!
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
        
       | binbag wrote:
       | It's a nice idea until the beam loses its target for a moment and
       | wipes out Western Europe.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-04-02 23:02 UTC)