Solar Panels in Space 'Could Provide 80% of Europe's Renewable Energy By 2050' (theguardian.com) 94
Solar panels in space could cut Europe's terrestrial renewable energy needs by 80% by 2050, a study has found. The Guardian: Using a detailed computer model of the continent's future power grid, the researchers found that a system of space-based panels designed by Nasa could reduce the cost of the whole European power system by as much as 15%. It could also cut battery use by more than two-thirds.
The study, led by researchers at King's College London, is the first to assess the possible impact of space solar energy on Europe. The space-based solar power (SBSP) panels that yielded the positive results uses a heliostat design. The design, which the system imitates, uses mirror-like reflectors to collect sunlight in orbit. The sunlight is then transmitted to stations on Earth and converted to electricity before it is delivered to an energy grid. The computer model of the continent's power grid spans 33 countries, and simulates electricity demand, generation and storage to identify the lowest-cost option to meet Europe's electricity needs.
The study, led by researchers at King's College London, is the first to assess the possible impact of space solar energy on Europe. The space-based solar power (SBSP) panels that yielded the positive results uses a heliostat design. The design, which the system imitates, uses mirror-like reflectors to collect sunlight in orbit. The sunlight is then transmitted to stations on Earth and converted to electricity before it is delivered to an energy grid. The computer model of the continent's power grid spans 33 countries, and simulates electricity demand, generation and storage to identify the lowest-cost option to meet Europe's electricity needs.
It's all fun and games until ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
He should sell Death Ray as a Service (DRaaS) to the highest bidder. That's far more scalable than blackmail because you'll never run out of customers wanting to fire the death ray.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this sounds more like a weapon than an energy source.
Failure, not Hacking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The wonderful thing is... (Score:2)
... that for decades now we have rather smart schemes to keep the beam aligned that are so dead simple they don't need computers. You can do that with simple electronics and a pilot "beam" going upwards from your target. So that's kinda the part of the whole idea that works best.
It's still a fairly bonkers idea, as you can just place solar panels on the surface of the planet... and you can more than overcompensate the atmospheric losses by just putting on more cells... and storage... for a fraction of the p
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember this story, but I must have read it in the late 70s when I read "I, Robot". From the outline on Wikipedia, it seems Asimov was way ahead (as usual, along with Heinlein and Clarke) of his time with his exploration of AI safety issues. Now I know what a couple other comments in this thread are referencing, thanks for the citation!
Re: (Score:2)
Well I think many people greatly underestimate how cheap launch capabilities can get. The Falcon Heavy claims to just go a bit below $2k per kilogram. A typical ~400 Wp solar panel is something like 20 kg, and those often cost below $100. So you'd pay $40k to get up a $100 solar panel.... at overly optimistic prices.
In the meantime the real price of batteries is sinking by the month.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you getting PV panels for 25 cents/watt??
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funny? Seems kind of obvious for insight...
There is no master but the master (Score:2)
.... and QT1 is his prophet.
I hope some people read it too.
Why the conversion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not create the electricity in space then beam it down via microwaves? Or is this even worse when it comes to converting sunlight to energy?
Re:Why the conversion? (Score:4, Insightful)
uses mirror-like reflectors to collect sunlight in orbit. The sunlight is then transmitted to stations on Earth Why not create the electricity in space then beam it down via microwaves? Or is this even worse when it comes to converting sunlight to energy?
Would you rather risk cooking things with concentrated sunlight, or microwaves? Seems like a six of one, half dozen of the other situation to me. There's gonna be some area that's not safe for being around, and you better hope alignment doesn't get screwed with or that area is going to be pointing at a populated area.
Re: (Score:2)
The old proposals for microwaves had very large wide beams so the microwaves were not at all dangerous concentrations. The problem is that the receiving antennas were far larger than an equivalent solar panel farm.
Re: (Score:2)
The old proposals for microwaves had very large wide beams so the microwaves were not at all dangerous concentrations. The problem is that the receiving antennas were far larger than an equivalent solar panel farm.
If you spread the beam out sufficiently to keep it from being harmful: A) You're taking up a ton of space on the ground, and B) What's the point of collecting in space?
I can't see heating / concentrating sunlight from say, a comfortable room temp to "might make you sweat." Seems like a whole lot of work to do very little at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
A) We're not at a lack of space on the ground. If the sunlight is slightly more concentrated than natural sunlight, then solar panels will also be more slightly efficient and you get more energy out of them.
B) Such reflectors can, hypothetically, be placed in a high enough orbit to still collect sunlight and bounce it back to the night-side of the planet.
All that said, though, these schemes cost far, FAR too much to be feasible even on paper. It'll never happen.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> How would the costs compare to putting solar on most of urban areas (not on top of St. Paul's or whatever)?
Why would you need, or want, to do that?
But sure. Let's be really generous and say that the equivalent launch mass of one solar panel's worth of reflector is 1kg. Launching to geosynch orbit costs on the order of US$20,000/kg. So that's at least $20K (dismissing ancillary mass like communications and station-keeping thrusters+fuel) for delivering what is basically a $200 solar panel's worth of ene
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly my point. The 1970's geosynchronous designs used a very large microwave beam, partly because of distance, but mostly because they wanted to keep the radiation below a level where it would kill birds. They neglected the fact that this required an antenna larger than a solar farm that could produce the same energy (at peak, so you could argue that it is smaller than enough solar farms to produce that energy 24 hours a day). I believe the antenna was a lot of dipoles spaced a few feet apart, so
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't use a single antenna, and in fact, when used to receive power they aren't even called antennas, they are called rectennas. Further, you can combine solar panels with rectennas, so you can have a solar array which is also a rectenna array and it takes up no extra space.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Using a diffuse beam is also the only thing that makes sense, because it avoids being able to use the system to cook targets intentionally, or having it happen accidentally, no matter what other sys
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure but I suspect the antennas have to be solid surfaces.
I can't speak to that specific application, but there are directional antenna designs that do not require a solid surface. Our resident radio amateurs will be familiar with the Yagi-Uda design, for example, where the reflector and director beams are parasitic elements not directly connected to the driven element but instead receive power indirectly via mutual coupling.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that is the type of antenna proposed for the very large microwave beam. Other poster pointed out that these have so much empty area that you could put solar panels in them as well.
However the much tighter beams being proposed for these satellites might require solid, or at least very dense, surfaces.
Re: (Score:1)
Unconcentrated conventional solar cells might run 25% efficiency.
If the space mirrors are properly designed, they could reflect to Earth only the wavelengths that solar cells can efficiently convert. Is 50% efficiency possible? The Earthside solar farms could be smaller.
Microwave rectennas can do better than 75% efficiency, so a rectenna farm could be even smaller.
Microwaves are invisible, so in principle a rogue beam could cook you before you knew you were in danger, The light from space mirrors would be v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The active part of PV is pretty light too and microwaves go through clouds.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're thinking of microwaves from a magnetron, they're not super-efficient and just complicate things in space.
Magnetrons are about 70% efficient off the shelf, and up to 94.6% [ieee.org] efficient in the lab. There are many problems with microwave power transmission, but magnetron efficiency isn't one of them.
Reflectors are the "easy" way to do this.
The problem with reflectors is the inherent beam-spread of sunlight, about half a degree. That corresponds to about ten meters per kilometer. Not a problem unless you're at, say, geosynchronous orbit distance, 36,000 km away.
This is intrinsic to the beam (the law of conservation of etendue) and can't be designed away by
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need masers or magnetrons, there are efficient semiconductor microwaves sources now.
The problem is the size of the antenna you need to keep the beam angle small (masers or tubes don't help there).
Re: (Score:2)
Because they determined that this system is cheaper than microwaves.
Re: (Score:2)
First question is "Why in space?
Ground based solar is dirt cheap and so is storage?
Re: (Score:2)
space-based would be closer to 24/7 sunlight (depending on orbit), would suffer less from atmospheric absorption (presumably, the light would always be coming directly "down" on the target receiver - not obliquely through the atmosphere), etc.
Re:Why the conversion? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is almost no scenario where the initial cost to put things into orbit, and the increased cost to build them to exist there, maintain and support them there, and replace them when they fail is ever paid back by the efficiency gain in having it there though.
Unless you've got essentially unlimited free energy to put things into orbit ... but if you have that you probably don't need space solar panels in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
It's too hard to maintain tight control of ground based solar and storage, when anyone can just put it on their roof - and with the decreasing cost of batteries there is a real risk that pretty soon that many consumers will hardly need to use the grid at all, once it's possible to install enough batteries to carry you through several days at a time, combined with a small backup generator for the few times it's needed.
This way, the power generation stays centralised and more easily controlled by our corporat
Re: Why the conversion? (Score:2)
I imagine a large CME would be hell on solar panels without Earth's protection.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine a large CME would be hell on solar panels without Earth's protection.
No, we've been flying solar arrays in space for 67 years now, and know how to deal with radiation-induced degradation.
Efficiency and taste (Score:2)
Why not create the electricity in space then beam it down via microwaves?
Probably because that will be much less efficient. Not only will you lose energy in the conversion from light to microwaves but with a longer wavelength that beam will diffract - i.e. spread out - far more than a light beam would.
Plus for any unlucky wild geese or ducks who fly through the beam, they'll taste a lot better being roasted in sunlight than microwaved.
Taking bug zappers to a whole 'nother level. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PIe (Score:2)
Pie in the sky. Aina nevah gonna happen. Getting the power down to earth? Right.
Maybe once Europe is only 2% of its current population, that will work.
Are they redirecting energy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
that otherwise would not hit the earth? If so, how is this a good idea? You are increasing solar energy to the earth, which I'm thinking increases warming. Now if they are just concentrating energy that would hit the earth, I guess it would work. Even if they are only redirecting, still could cause side effects since we would be altering the normal heating effects caused by the sun in possibly extraordinary amounts. A column of light(heat) so to speak. And of course there is the Dr Evil thing from the first post, frying some unsuspecting area.
I'm imagining a misalignment being triggered by some unforeseen stupidity, since we are living in the dumbest timeline, and searing a nice wide swath of land before heading out to sea to superheat a column of water down a foot or so as it travels creating a plume of steam. Seems a great idea, since us humans never make stupid mistakes ever.
Re: Are they redirecting energy (Score:2)
That's what the Xindi did to Florida.
Re: (Score:1)
No, no matter how much you wish it, global warming is not caused by changes to the sun's irradiation, at least not at the scale of this or of normal solar variability.
I agree it sounds like this is solar concentration and really trivial to convert into a weapon.
Re: Are they redirecting energy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be a bit confused even though you said exactly why this is right. The temperature is going to reach an equilibrium point. Small changes to how much energy is received will change the speed at which it reaches this equilibrium point but will not change the point itself.
Re: Are they redirecting energy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to get a sense of scale. The changes in amount of energy received are unmeasurably small. The changes to the rate might be observable but is tiny as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then how do you explain volcanic eruptions causing global cooling? https://www.dri.edu/new-resear... [dri.edu]
Volcanic eruptions can produce high-level aerosol particles that reflect light covering an area as large the projected area of the Earth, about 125 million square kilometers. Even a 1% increase in reflectance is huge over an area of 12 million square kilometers. Any plausible solar panel is so tiny compared to this area that the heat effect is negligible.
Are the massive increases in juice that everyone wants on the same scale as what say that volcano did?
No, projected increases in electrical usage is much much much smaller
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they redirecting energy that otherwise would not hit the earth? If so, how is this a good idea? You are increasing solar energy to the earth, which I'm thinking increases warming.
Even assuming more solar energy would reach Earth, that would be offset by less energy having to be released on Earth by other means.
As example when you burn coal to generate energy, you release energy already present on Earth but sequestered in the coal's chemical bonds. Part of that energy will be wasted as heat during energy production due to inefficiencies, the rest will end up in heat eventually.
Whether that's better or worse depends on how much more or less efficient the technology is. Note that a typ
Re: (Score:2)
But wouldn't it be great if we could get energy from the sun at night?
Re: (Score:2)
The serious proposals require rectenna receiving farms that are actually larger than a solar field producing the same energy.
They do shade the underlying ground somewhat less than solar panels so may have lower environmental effects. But the land use and the need to build transmission lines makes this very similar to solar as far as problems go. And that is ignoring the cost of putting this huge thing in space and maintaining it.
Re:What about solar panels on Earth? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a lot of space that can be used for solar farms where environmental issues are of little consequence or even beneficial. Rooftops are the obvious example. Parking lots are an often overlooked space where panels can provide useful shade, shelter, and, with some planning, even reduce harmful run-off.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I absolutely agree.
Re: (Score:3)
But wouldn't it be great if we could get energy from the sun at night?
Seems to me that you might do that more simply and cheaply via transmission lines from the bright side of Earth to the dark side. Make'em bi-directional, of course.
Even with the obvious difficulties in that scenario, it seems a lot saner, and a lot more likely to actually happen, than beaming energy down from space.
Re: (Score:2)
But long-haul electricity transmission wastes 2-3% every 600 miles and costs around $3 million/mile to construct (from a study assuming 800-1,000kV lines @ 4,000A). 6,000 miles = 20-30%+ energy wastage and close to $20 billion for one line that could handle maybe a couple of cities.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dumb Idea (Score:1)
Between having to run a power cable to space, Or having the clouds block your reflections is totally is just to bleed investors of more cash so CEO's can get free money.
Re: (Score:1)
could (Score:2)
You thought the internet last mile was rough... (Score:2)
Both Mirror based and PV to microwave transmission models have an atmosphere full of stuff in the way, which so far seems to interfere enough that the business plans based on theoretical values fall into the financially unfeasible realm every time. The guys pushing these plans have all the enthusiasm of a perpetual motion inventor, and seem to have some of the same ability to ignore losses in the system.
I am not a complete luddite, I just have yet to see a hint of the magic sauce required to get energy in
Attitude/altitude control is going to be a pain (Score:2)
Consider how normal satellites can be knocked about by solar storms, these things will be giant solar sails with way more surface area relative to mass.
AFAICS the only way to design them is as heliogyros, so they can sail the solar wind for manoeuvring. Doing that, while also beaming power is going to be an interesting control problem.
Pumped hydro (Score:1)
Magnifying Glass (Score:2)
Sounds like using a magnifying glass to reflect, refract, and focus more of the Sun's energy onto the Earth than would normally strike the Earth.
Seems like this would have a warming effect. Why would that be undesirable?
Get the first ones up there (Score:2)
And then we can start predicting what year the EU could get 80% of it's power from space-borne solar reflectors.
As every engineer (including software engineers) knows, that first one is always the hardest. The rest is just rinse and repeat.
My prediction: the very *first* such solar farm won't be in space by 2050, let alone enough to cover the majority of the EU's electricity needs. MAYBE they'll have the first prototype up there, enough to power a few homes.
Re: (Score:1)
And then we can start predicting what year the EU could get 80% of it's power from space-borne solar reflectors.
Last year, German overall electricity generation was at 56% renewables already, IIRC. This year's figure will be significantly higher due to additional units being installed nation- & EU-wide and general weather conditions. My site is at ~15% above 2024 levels YTD. I'd wager we'll be at mid-60 percentage levels at the end of this year, conservatively.
So, the project might have made good sense 20 years ago. They are just a tiny bit late to the party.
Europe, but not the U.S. (Score:2)
Paraphrasing Trump from US Will Not Approve Solar or Wind Power Projects, President Says [slashdot.org]
solar takes up too much [space]
Re: (Score:2)
Has he ever been to northern Nevada? It's all tumbleweed and sage brush. Nothing grows out there, and almost nobody lives out there. Seems like a good place to put a solar plant to me.
Could (Score:2)
SimCity 2000 (Score:2)
Yes, I've been looking forward to this technology since playing SimCity 2000 as a kid. They had microwave power plants in the game which would occasionally catch fire if the microwave beam "missed" the dish. Exciting!
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to make this comment haha. Dat nostalgia...now I need to give C:S1 a break and try SC2k for a minute lol
I could accomplish some work today (Score:2)
But we know that isn't going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
But we know that isn't going to happen.
Spending too much time on Slashdot?
Won't these become solar sails? (Score:2)
What prevent these solar panels from becoming solar sales as the light particle hit them. What prevents small debris and rocks from exploded comets etc from destroying these panels on the regular?
Estimates 20+ years in the future are always wrong (Score:1)
One crazy dream after other (Score:2)
First fusion and now space solar. Neither will ever be commercially profitable. Experimental tiny projects aside, neither had or will have any future.
Simple number feeding to either of these system will tell you that the cost is too exorbitant even if we have 100% technology today based on any known science. So unless, we have some fundamental laws of science uncovered which open different avenues, these projects are doomed.
Inefficient and overpriced (Score:1)
Delusional (Score:2)
I love science fiction as much as the next person, probably more, but the headline is totally delusional. There's no way that's happening by 2050, though if we cut it out with the hair-brained schemes (and wars and other stupidity, like the race to be the world's first trillionaire) and actually continue doing (and meaningfully funding) the work of installing solar panels and other renewable energy sources everywhere, ideally in micro-grids, with distributed local storage and/or more long haul HVDC lines,
Mirrors in sauce, solar panels on the ground? (Score:2)
The design, which the system imitates, uses mirror-like reflectors to collect sunlight in orbit. The sunlight is then transmitted to stations on Earth and converted to electricity before it is delivered to an energy grid.
Re: (Score:1)
Mirrors in HP Sauce
Mirrors in Chipotle Sauce
Mirrors in ketchup
Re: (Score:2)
All energy eventually ends up as thermal (Score:2)
So they're proposing putting solar collectors of some sort in space, not shading the earth, and beaming that energy down somewhere on the surface. Is that right?
If true that would contribute to global warming by adding energy not destined to come to earth and bringing it to earth. Not to mention the potential catastrophes of beaming energy to the surface. What could possibly go wrong?!!!
Even if it was technically feasible, it's a no go (Score:2)
Even if this project was technically feasible (which, to be clear, it totally isn't), it wouldn't ever get built. If you think the fearmongering about nuclear fission plants is bad, imagine the fearmongering that would break out as soon as someone seriously proposed implementing this. Hell, look at the first comments posted to this page, and this is on "news for nerds".
It wouldn't matter that there are straightforward safeguards to prevent accidents. The first, last, and only thing the rubes (and therefo