Managing Partner - Saul D Humphrey LLP (Certified B Corporation™️)| Professor - Anglia Ruskin University | Chair - Institute of Directors (Norfolk) | Vice President - Chartered Institute of Building
“If you can build solar farms in space, and then you can beam that energy down to ground stations via microwaves. It means clean limitless energy from space becomes an absolute possibility.” See The Telegraph 👇 24/7 perpetual clean energy….? #sustainabilityleadership SDG 7
Would that microwave the planet? What are the efficiencies on such a system, what happens to the most energy and what are the ENF implications? Seems like a dream for the machines, but another death sentence for biological life. If the iPhone 12 can produce EMFs that are harmful to humans, what can microwave energy transmission do?
Chris Bright
11mo
The main objections are launch costs, the efficiency of beaming power to Earth, and the risk of abuse as a death ray requiring 007 to deal with the villain in charge. “The name’s Bond, Equipotential Bond. I’ve come to bring you down to Earth". Beaming power would use radio frequencies in the ISM (Industrial, Scientific and Medical) bands to avoid interference with telecommunication services. Frequencies should be above 400 MHz to avoid absorption in the ionosphere, especially during sporadic E events. Power densities should not exceed 10 kW/m2, ideally much less to avoid electro-magnetic interference. Even so, that power density corresponds to an electric field strength of 2 kV/m, enough to light a fluorescent tube without wires.
Michael Fletcher
11mo
You can’t fix an orbiting solar array on a wet Saturday afternoon, and the phrase eggs in one basket springs to mind. Just because something is technically possible, doesn’t make it a good idea. There’s enough energy at ground level and we’d use it if it wasn’t for the prevalence of politically motivated fallacies and the enthusiasm to create parasitic secondary industries which obfuscate the objective.
Pavel K.
11mo
It's not worth it as there is a very small difference between solar radiation above atmosphere (~1400 W/m2) and at the ground level - a little less than 1 kW, this difference is caused by absorption in atmosphere. But sure there is no danger even when such energy is sent down to Earth in form of microwaves, in fact any frequency which not much absorbed will work. As energy is sent not to boil the seas it will go down in the form of narrow beam absorbed by the antennae.
Andrew Cook
11mo
Yes - apart from it being able to be weaponised, there are a few questions - like (1) what is the hydrocarbon budget for constructing and sending all that engineering up there, and for constant maintenance trips, and (2) the timeframe - seriously - if even ground based major infrastructure projects take a minimum of 10-15 years to develop, what do we do while we're waiting for the limitless solar energy? Large scale tech answers are not the solution. Especially given that global food production is going to be affected in the next few years, we should be designing and installing robust small scale local systems that can survive as far as possible on their own without the need for complex global trading structures.
Michael Turner
11mo
Read about this in Horden library in 1979. Arthur C Clarke predicted this and that it would be connected via cables that were manufactured in space. He believed that alloys formed in zero gravity environments would be significantly stronger than those made on earth where the gravitational field warps the bonding of atoms. Science fiction or science fact? As the atmosphere reflects about 30% of the suns energy what would be the impact of short circuiting this protection by increasing overall levels of energy absorption? If it stops us releasing millions of years of fossilised suns energy per year then this must be an improvement? As increases in temperature also increase radiation (not deflection) back into space then slowing mans impact on the earths heat engine (by releasing fossilised suns energy) might start to balance things out? Good old Arthur and can we stop killing libraries please (even if they are full of dead trees)?
Michael Bond
11mo
It's not "limitless" if the gas guzzlers get their sticky paws on it. You will be limited by how much you can pay them for it. And the sun burns out in about 10 milliard years. And don't get me started on the potential effects of beaming/burning microwaves through the atmosphere, and any passing birds.
Darren Catterall
11mo
What is the EROI on this? The amount of fossil fuels to build the panels, The amount to put them in orbit? The amount to replace after end of life etc etc? Does it make energy sense?
But doesn’t the sun do this already every day? What possible advantage will there be. Let alone cost and resources. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should.
Pragmatically, trying to Improve the Built Environment
11moIs there any part of this that makes sense? Massive amounts of CO2 from the rocket preparation. Massive amounts from launch. Losses from microwave transmission and effectively a DEW. Beamed to one location, cos that's where the infrastructure is. Debris, longevity. I imagine service callouts might be tricky.