Comments
quettil t1_ixd7wwc wrote
> in a fixed location over the Earth that would be hit by the Sun 24/7.
What part of the Earth is hit by the Sun 24/7?
toodroot t1_ixe0eq2 wrote
GEO satellites are in constant sunlight except around the equinoxes, when they are in the shadow of the Earth for up to 72 minutes per day.
sisco98 t1_ixdce1v wrote
Without reading the article, my guess would be high above the North Pole
unclepaprika t1_ixdpni2 wrote
Tell me again how geostationary orbits work over the poles?
stewake t1_ixespx9 wrote
They rotate in place and fire their engines 24/7. ESA will need to develop a solar based engine to meet the demand of polar geostationary orbit /s
Jobotics t1_ixgcbqx wrote
Hypothetically speaking, you could put solar panels on a helium balloon and float it above the horizon at the north pole and gain the advantage of being in sunlight 24/7 and not have to convert it to microwaves to beam the energy back to earth.
[deleted] t1_ixd9qyu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixdsqmk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixf33bt wrote
[removed]
Hateitwhenbdbdsj t1_ixdu2ez wrote
Imagine an orbit going over both poles with the solar panels perpendicular and facing the sun
Jyran t1_ixcuhwg wrote
How do they plan to transfer the power from orbit to the surface?
rebellious-rebel t1_ixcvbsr wrote
Probably convert it to microwaves and transmit those to receiving stations on Earth where the microwaves would be converted into electrical energy.
lefty200 t1_ixd1wf7 wrote
You could also use it as a giant microwave oven. Heat food from outer space.
rebellious-rebel t1_ixd2qdd wrote
Needs a bigger rocket though.
Tycho81 t1_ixd8roa wrote
Gaint space turkey for space thankgiving
mr_bedbugs t1_ixfcc7f wrote
Is that when the space natives taught the space pilgrims how to grow space corn?
wwarnout t1_ixd8alz wrote
Doing this efficiently is a formidable challenge.
SeeTreeMe t1_ixedsa1 wrote
I don’t see how this could possibly be efficient with earth launched satellites, but I guess it’s good to test it for whenever we have options to build in space.
Jobotics t1_ixgaviw wrote
electric to microwave is in the ball park of 80% and microwave to electric is about 85%, so 68% or so total. Though there may be atmospheric attenuation.
dangle321 t1_ixs0vyr wrote
The real challenge is getting a physically large enough aperture to overcome the free space path loss. As a microwave engineer in the space industry, I really don't think it's feasible. Mostly, I don't think that spaced based solar would actually produce more than it's ground based equivalent over it's lifetime once you factor in the energy cost of getting it to orbit.
PreFalconPunchDray t1_ixdgex5 wrote
I think they should aim for a shallow man made lake or structure to heat and not worry too much about precise targeting. Take the heat and use it to steam and turbine and all that. Assuming they can target the power beam at all without lethal destruction but we'll see.
[deleted] t1_ixfvk8r wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixgof8w wrote
[removed]
moresushiplease t1_ixdqj3u wrote
Ha, I beat them to it! My solar panel already uses space based solar energy
KarloReddit t1_ixe0mqa wrote
I Love the name. Solaris is a wonderful book by the wonderful author Stanislaw Lem. My favorite work of his is Eden, but Solaris is great as well.
Reddit-runner t1_ixduohm wrote
If at least this project gives us Europeans a fully reusable rocket system, I'm all for it.
However I think such a project will face insurmountable challenges:
- idiots will claim this would accelerate global warming
- idiots will be against it because it would reduce Europes dependence on foreign fossil fuels. And we can't have that, can we?
- idiots will claim the energy transmission via microwaves will be 100% deadly to anything (look at the other comments...)
- many will be against it because it would "ruine the night sky"
- every 5G idiot will run amok
- etc.
Edit: spelling
MrM0jave t1_ixedl86 wrote
Luckily, as with anything that’s spawned similar mindsets, they will do nothing about it and it’ll work out fine
Reddit-runner t1_ixeihg4 wrote
The same idiots are quite successful in blocking wind and solar in southern Germany.
And without full German support the EU/ESA will not be able to launch such a project.
Saar_06 t1_ixhugnc wrote
Based on what? Seems to me you're just getting annoyed at imaginary people here :v
Reddit-runner t1_ixhv4ch wrote
The points about global warming and microwaves being deadly were already made in the comments. That's why I wrote my comment.
Edit: spelling
Saar_06 t1_ixhvy7y wrote
One of whom is very obviously a troll.
Reddit-runner t1_ixhwuqn wrote
Maybe, maybe not.
But you can't tell me with a serious face that there wouldn't be a huge pushback by people who want to "preserve the night sky". Just look at the media attention Starlink is receiving while their satellites are barely visible.
Solar power stations in GSO will always be visible, even tho they are further away.
Also the fossil fuel industry will do the same as they have done with renewable energy. They will pull every trick to sway public opinion against such a project.
Saar_06 t1_ixhxu8t wrote
> Maybe, maybe not.
Very obviously a yes. Like, I'd use him as an example on recognizing trolling, it's that obvious he's just trying to get a rise.
> But you can't tell me with a serious face that there wouldn't be a huge pushback by people who want to "preserve the night sky". Just look at the media attention Starlink is receiving while their satellites are barely visible.
I can and I will. Which media attention? Starlink's 'sky pollution' was barely a topic. A few articles appeared on reddit.
Reddit-runner t1_ixhz28g wrote
Starlink received at least three big articles in my very local newspaper over the last few years. People will not know what the project is about, but they will instantly tell you it ruins the night sky and makes astronomy impossible.
You heavily underestimate the technology aversion of the general population. Especially in Germany. What do you think is the reason for our prehistoric internet infrastructure? Thinking that 5G causes cancer is also just short of being accepted as sensible statement.
Saar_06 t1_ixi1ba4 wrote
> Starlink received at least three big articles in my very local newspaper over the last few years.
I'm a newsjunkie and there was NO major reporting on this in Dutch media. At all. But a local newspaper in Germany is apparantly very concerned and that proves that this European project is going to face HUGE resistance? Come on man.
> You heavily underestimate the technology aversion of the general population. Especially in Germany. What do you think is the reason for our prehistoric internet infrastructure? Thinking that 5G causes cancer is also just short of being accepted as sensible statement.
And yet 5G is being rolled out with no problem all over Western Europe and the United States. As a techie you're falling for right-wing fossil-fuel propaganda that wants you to believe that there is some huge Luddite population that's the real opponent of progress instead of them.
Reddit-runner t1_ixi3mv7 wrote
>And yet 5G is being rolled out with no problem all over Western Europe
Not in Germany. 5G is still the exception here, not the norm.
>there was NO major reporting on this in Dutch media. At all. But a local newspaper in Germany is apparantly very concerned and that proves that this European project is going to face HUGE resistance?
I used that as an example that even small german newspapers are reporting negatively about Starlink. And the big ones obviously too.
Saar_06 t1_ixjou7c wrote
> Not in Germany. 5G is still the exception here, not the norm.
Which is unstoppingly changing.
> I used that as an example that even small german newspapers are reporting negatively about Starlink. And the big ones obviously too
Yeah and I used it as an example that you've got nothing besides a personal anecdote AKA nothing.
Simoxs7 t1_ixf19qm wrote
Im just waiting for environmentalists to protest against ITER because it also is „nuclear“ energy
AncientProduce t1_ixct2bj wrote
My company already did a study like this and itll work, if done correctly, so well that we will never have to worry about global energy issues again.
Reddit-runner t1_ixdt49v wrote
What was the time on ROEI?
Mistersinister1 t1_ixepoty wrote
Of course it won't be free but it should be. The things we wouldn't have to worry about with free energy, people would be free to spend money on so many other things. Wishful thinking and we know free energy will never be a thing.
Simoxs7 t1_ixf118t wrote
Well to be honest water and food should also be free..
[deleted] t1_ixdhvo3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixdzcd2 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixe1wha wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixfkbh2 wrote
[removed]
Decronym t1_ixhxoed wrote
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |ESA|European Space Agency| |GEO|Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)| |GSO|Geosynchronous Orbit (any Earth orbit with a 24-hour period)| | |Guang Sheng Optical telescopes|
|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
^(4 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 16 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8338 for this sub, first seen 23rd Nov 2022, 16:02])
^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])
barzbub t1_ixd0ern wrote
How do they get the ENERGY to earth!? A giant cable down to the city!? Charge batteries and drop them down 🙃
seiggy t1_ixd2azd wrote
Usually it's microwaves. See the Department of Energy Infographic - https://www.energy.gov/articles/space-based-solar-power
barzbub t1_ixd4210 wrote
Microwaves are DEADLY!! Not sure that’s a good idea ☠️
Total_Simple7988 t1_ixd5w2a wrote
I didn't think you were being serious but looking at your post history, you're being very serious. 😬
[deleted] t1_ixd6m41 wrote
[removed]
barzbub t1_ixd66tw wrote
You deny that microwaves are dangerous!? A microwave from space won’t be 100% effective. Energy will be lost to the atmosphere! Talk about Global Warming!!
seiggy t1_ixdegd7 wrote
The wavelength they're proposing usage of is significantly large enough to make the amount of energy negligible to any life in the path of the beam. The receiver dish is between 3-10km in diameter, and if you were to walk out on the dish during the night you would be exposed to about half the amount of radiation as you would walking around in the midday sun. So no, not very dangerous. You do realize that the Sun bombards us with massive amounts of microwave radiation already? This is simply enhancing and focusing that energy to a point where we can more efficiently collect it 24/7 instead of simply during the daylight. And the loss to the atmosphere is estimated to about about 1.5-2%. We're talking miniscule amounts compared to the energy the sun pours into our atmosphere. Not to mention, you would also be reducing consumption of fossil fuels by a significant amount, thus actually overall reducing the amount of energy added to the atmosphere. Assuming 2% of a 30GW space solar energy plant, you're looking at 600MW of energy being lost into the atmostphere. To produce 30GW of energy on fossil fuels, you're dumping about 70,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. CO2 is dangerous in the atmosphere because it happens to vibrate and absorb energy in the Infared spectrum, not Microwave spectrum. Microwaves at the energy level proposed here would not excite water molecules or CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, thus it would not increase the thermal energy in the atmosphere by any significant amount.
barzbub t1_ixezy9q wrote
I’m sure they make it SAFE!! I’m talking about the atmosphere and how microwaves travel through it causing it to cause Climate Change ☠️
seiggy t1_ixf0krm wrote
Did you not read what I wrote? Infared causes heating of the atmosphere, not microwaves. Wrong frequency.
barzbub t1_ixf39xy wrote
Microwaves transfer their energy to all particles they strike! Otherwise all energy would already be transmitted by it now!
[deleted] t1_ixfcjpj wrote
[removed]
seiggy t1_ixfxkr5 wrote
No, they don’t. Electromagnetic waves don’t work like that. Light behaves as a particle wave. It doesn’t interact with all matter, and the energy transfer greatly depends on the wavelength of light and the energy level of the matter. CO2 happens to be easily excited by Infared light, but microwaves have a longer wavelength and are really poor at transferring energy into CO2 gas. https://www.livescience.com/50259-microwaves.html
Wanna know how to prove it? Go turn on your microwave for 2 mins with a small glass of water inside. Did the air temperature inside rise at all? Only the water inside is heated because the wavelength of a microwave is too large to transfer the energy to most gasses. There are a few noble gasses like Neon that would be excited if they were in there, but CO2 isn’t one of them, while it is the primary gas responsible for global temperature increase.
barzbub t1_ixhffom wrote
You’re right, and the sun’s electromagnetic energy doesn’t cause changes in the earths atmosphere! The Northern Lights is just fireworks 🤣
seiggy t1_ixhmke0 wrote
You do realize you're proving me right with that statement. The Northern Lights aren't caused by EM Radiation, they're caused by charged electrons in Solar Wind, not by Microwaves. EM Radiation are photons and uncharged fundamental particles, not high energy electrons. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23377-5.epdf?sharing_token=Q0rjm5h2j_KavQboPe5r0NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Nipe223V5hYGHe-RFuAQXUauChqVoyT7zITbpx_l9I4d9y3fMVLy0n3sVw5SJRoc_II7uBqXU-SzFM3JaTK6_kNmWDs_aEyfCQVLoWqqw15NsYjbFSXvak0yfuKrH76x8%3D
Are we going to just be going thru a full particle physics lecture by the end of this?
barzbub t1_ixhnfja wrote
Did you realize I’m proving that every type of energy has an effect on our atmosphere! Microwave transmissions will cause climate change! They’ll hear the water droplets in the atmosphere causing the temperature to rise!
seiggy t1_ixi0ggz wrote
You do realize that the whole point of these projects are to replace the existing fossil fuel plants. Not replace things like Hydroelectric, wind, solar, or nuclear power which doesn't add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. So by reducing the greenhouse gasses, Microwave or Laser based satellite solar plants would reduce the global climate change impact of humanity, not increase it. The amount of energy added to the atmosphere from a Microwave or Laser based solar plant is significantly less than the energy added because of the CO2 that a fossil fuel based plant adds to the atmosphere. Did you not read my post 3 topics ago? That's the entire point I've been making is that it's a net loss of energy compared to today, thus not increasing global temperatures.
barzbub t1_ixi0s33 wrote
Microwave energy heats water in the atmosphere! That percent doesn’t change much every year. Those issues have other solutions.
seiggy t1_ixi2pgd wrote
Right, so why haven't we seen a massive increase in global warming from the absolutely massive amount of microwave radiation we already produce from cell phone towers, wifi, bluetooth devices, and other modern wireless tech? Oh yeah, because the wavelength is too large to cause such energy transfer. It's the wavelength we use specifically because it's safe, low energy, and passes thru most matter easily without energy loss.
barzbub t1_ixi4qdu wrote
Haven’t we!? Or they’re blaming one cause and not another to misinform the public!?
seiggy t1_ixi6xgt wrote
Ah, so you're one of those. CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas that has caused accelerated global climate change. All of the science agrees and points to it. Only nutcase conspiracy theorist with no actual evidence claims anything else. If we're going to talk conspiracy theories and wild baseless claims without facts and science to back it up, I'm done explaining things to you.
Sir112 t1_ixslmqq wrote
How would they benefit in any wax from such disinformation. Like, there are actually usef ways in manipulating the public, like investing in your secret services, build more surveillance and make classical state propaganda that actually has a purpose and has proven throughout history to work
[deleted] t1_ixfchgt wrote
[removed]
KekoSpace t1_ixd6nt9 wrote
its like your mom is a black hole and your dads a neutron star and you
inherited all the denseness from them
barzbub t1_ixd6sgf wrote
Still didn’t address the the danger of microwaving our atmosphere ☠️
[deleted] t1_ixekomz wrote
[removed]
nickeypants t1_ixerpol wrote
Oh, you're one of those people who believes in the Sun?
barzbub t1_ixf3it6 wrote
The huge thing that causes climate change!? Nope, don’t know what it is 🙃
adoughoskins t1_ixdkb8k wrote
How does this 'not' contribute to global warming?
Reddit-runner t1_ixdtdmi wrote
How would it?
Our problem is NOT the release of energy here on earth. Our problem is the CO2 in the atmosphere that captures the suns energy.
Edit: words
seiggy t1_ixer3e4 wrote
>The wavelength they're proposing usage of is significantly large enough to make the amount of energy negligible to any life in the path of the beam. The receiver dish is between 3-10km in diameter, and if you were to walk out on the dish during the night you would be exposed to about half the amount of radiation as you would walking around in the midday sun. So no, not very dangerous. You do realize that the Sun bombards us with massive amounts of microwave radiation already? This is simply enhancing and focusing that energy to a point where we can more efficiently collect it 24/7 instead of simply during the daylight. And the loss to the atmosphere is estimated to about about 1.5-2%. We're talking miniscule amounts compared to the energy the sun pours into our atmosphere. Not to mention, you would also be reducing consumption of fossil fuels by a significant amount, thus actually overall reducing the amount of energy added to the atmosphere. Assuming 2% of a 30GW space solar energy plant, you're looking at 600MW of energy being lost into the atmostphere. To produce 30GW of energy on fossil fuels, you're dumping about 70,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. CO2 is dangerous in the atmosphere because it happens to vibrate and absorb energy in the Infared spectrum, not Microwave spectrum. Microwaves at the energy level proposed here would not excite water molecules or CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, thus it would not increase the thermal energy in the atmosphere by any significant amount.
Copying my response to someone else above.
rocketsocks t1_ixh21oa wrote
Oh yeah, it totally would, let's check the scale of the problem to see if it's a concern.
Annual global energy usage is about 500 million terajoules per year. If all of that energy is gathered off Earth and beamed to the planet that would ultimately end up being released in the form of heat, which would potentially heat up the Earth.
In contrast, the amount of excess heating due to human caused greenhouse gas emissions translates to about 24,000 million terajoules per year, which is fifty times more heating. So replacing any carbon emitting heat source with space based solar power would still be objectively vastly advantageous in terms of reducing global warming.
IXICIXI t1_ixere31 wrote
Layman here — but this is not like a microwave oven appliance. The appliance doesn’t exactly produce heat to warm food. It fires microwaves at a finely tuned frequency to excite the water molecules in your food which makes them hot (correct me if I’m wrong here please). So I’m assuming the microwaves used in this project would be tuned differently so as not to excite our atmosphere.
rocketsocks t1_ixh263o wrote
Ultimately it doesn't matter how the transfer is made, it's the question of usage. Importing energy to Earth then using it would technically generate heat. But it's such a tiny amount compared to global warming heating that it's not worth worrying about at the current scale.
IXICIXI t1_ixijgjs wrote
Is this a matter of adding more energy to the system than there otherwise would have been without intervention?
rocketsocks t1_ixj39uk wrote
Yep. But whether it happens with burning coal that was buried forever or using sunlight that wouldn't have landed on Earth the result is the same. Replacing fossil fuel power generation with space based solar is net neutral with regard to direct heat production but avoids the generation of greenhouse gases which result in orders of magnitude more heating of the Earth (due to trapping heat that would otherwise have escaped), so it would be a huge win in that case.
Compared to where we are now, worrying about the impact of direct heating from human activities would count as a "nice problem to have".
IXICIXI t1_ixk32r6 wrote
I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for the response.
quettil t1_ixe4puo wrote
Isn't space solar just a terrible idea all round?
ChefExellence t1_ixf3my9 wrote
It's a lot of effort Vs just building nuclear or renewables with more storage, but also promises a lot of benefits too
quettil t1_ixg91vc wrote
Not really, if you have solar panels it's more cost effective to just put them on the ground.
chrisdh79 OP t1_ixcseks wrote
From the article: The European Space Agency (ESA) is set to approve a three-year study to determine whether sending huge solar farms into space could effectively meet the world's energy demands, a report from the BBC reveals.
A space-based solar power plant would be launched into a geostationary orbit, meaning it would orbit in a fixed location over the Earth that would be hit by the Sun 24/7.
So, if all goes to plan, the technology could one day harvest massive amounts of energy from space — enough to power millions of homes.
The ESA's space-based solar power initiative is called Solaris, and it is one of several similar projects worldwide, including ongoing research by China's Xidian University, which has built a 75-meter-tall (246-feet-tall) steel tower to test the technology for a ground receiving station, and Caltech's Space Solar Power Project.
Research ministers at the ESA's triennial council are expected to meet today, Tuesday, November 22, to discuss the ESA'S idea. They will also consider several other proposals before deciding the budget for the next phase of the space agency's space technology development plans.
In an interview with the BBC, ESA director general Josef Aschbacher said, "we do need to convert into carbon neutral economies and therefore change the way we produce energy and especially reduce the fossil fuel part of our energy production. If you can do it from space, and I'm saying if we could, because we are not there yet, this would be absolutely fantastic because it would solve a lot of problems."