It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Brilliant Concept ? Solar Energy Station in Space

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I came across an interesting concept could this be the answer to assist in cutting carbon emissions ? How expensive would it be to draw your power from it ?


Negotiators in Copenhagen have been trying to figure out just how far they will have to go to curb global warming. A Southern California company thinks it has the answer: 22,000 miles straight up.

The Solaren Corp. wants to produce solar power in space. ....

Read the rest of this article here:-

www.npr.org...




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I could definately get behind something like this. The ramifications for such a thing would definately encompass a broad scope. THESE are the kinds of things we need to be looking at!
The innovation and research required to get such a project off the ground would be great for any economy. If it were proven to be in any way cost-effective, research grants could finally start flowing toward something useful!
It would advance both clean energy and space technologies, their upkeep would provide jobs in the longterm, rocket fuels would inevitably become more efficient, much progress would be made.
It's ideas like this that are going to advance us as a species, not trying to control an ever-fluctuating climate.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
unfortunately it will never be cost effective... how do you get the thing up there? and how do you get the energy back down? Maybe we should try something like this no matter what the cost?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Tomb_Raven
 


Please click on the link explanations of how they would get it 'up there' are to be found there also how they would transfer it back to earth ! A single unit would be too heavier payload to send up thats why they propose to send up four or five smaller units that will hold their position like satallites with thrusters ! Sunlight would be available 24/7 thus neverending energy source ! Transfering the energy back down to earth via radio waves ! This is what i gather anyway !



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Awesome, that way the government can charge us whatever they want for power or cut us off if we don't fall in line with the political ideology of the day.

Not to mention with all the space debris flying around out there all it would take is a one stray little asteroid to come along and destroy the whole thing. Then to fix it you would have to launch a rocket with a manned crew to go up there and fix the thing.

So no, not a good idea, it is to costly to many potential problems, and it is yet again another large solution where we should be focusing on smaller solutions like mini-generators that fit in our homes. I want energy independence.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife


So no, not a good idea, it is to costly to many potential problems, and it is yet again another large solution where we should be focusing on smaller solutions like mini-generators that fit in our homes. I want energy independence.


So, like the Steorn Orbo project featured in another thread that is being poo-pooed by the naysayers currently ?
Would it be bombarded by space debris in the Clark belt ? The Astra satellites seem to fare pretty well there ? I dont believe they have been 'knocked out' in 20 years of broadcasting ? Don't hold me to that i may be mistaken !



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
First... "Carbon emmissions" are nothing this planet needs to worry about. The whole scare was manufactured to bring us into a state of willingness to be taxed and controled.

Second, we don't need to go to the effort of sending stuff into space. "Dark" Energy IS extractable - we have all the energy we need all around us. This is hidden because if we learned that we can extract the energy ourselves, we would no longer be tethered, financially and politically, to the system They are trying to construct for us.

Third, "Man-Made Global Warming" is a farce, again to be used as a tool to whip up support for taxes and control of the populace.

Sure, we could extract solar energy way up there - but what price would be on the tag for that? FAR cheaper to extract the energy from the plenum. ("Vacuum" means empty; "plenum" means full. Many suggest extracting energy from the "vacuum," but it is not a vacuum. If it were, there would be nothing to extract. We live in a plenum.)



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


It is a really complex system that is a 24 hour a day job to keep the satellites in orbit and too also make sure they don't have any collisions. It isn't like they launch a satellite and just let it go on it's merry way it costs 10's of millions of dollars a year to keep them functional and in their proper orbit.

It isn't cost prohibitive.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by ProRipp
 


It is a really complex system that is a 24 hour a day job to keep the satellites in orbit and too also make sure they don't have any collisions. It isn't like they launch a satellite and just let it go on it's merry way it costs 10's of millions of dollars a year to keep them functional and in their proper orbit.

It isn't cost prohibitive.


Er i DO know the concept i said it would utilise thrusters to maintain position ! I don't presume it'll 'think' for itself and go...ooh abit of a rock comin my way i better dodge it quick' ! Of course they will be monitored and controlled from the ground so whats your point ?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


If it costs 10's of millions of dollars a year to maintain the satellites position in orbit, plus the cost of maintenance to keep the receiver on the ground functioning properly who can afford a KWh of electricity when it cost $1.50? The current US average per KWh is somewhere around 14 cents.

Why not just build nuclear power plants?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
First... "Carbon emmissions" are nothing this planet needs to worry about. The whole scare was manufactured to bring us into a state of willingness to be taxed and controled.

I agree that GW is being used as a stick to beat us with but i think carbon emissions pose health problems for man ! Inhaling all that sh1t can't be good for you !



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Boeing and Rockwell looked at this idea a few years back, like 15 years ago. Rather than try and figure out how to keep the solar station in orbit, try and figure out how you are going to get rid of the input energy. The earth is basically a closed system, so if you "beam down" energy using microwaves (which the energy transfer happens to be) or say high power laser, you might be sending trillions of watts to earth that never would have reached earth in the first place. You want to talk about increasing global warming, yehaw! It would be like focusing microwaves on one part of a chicken, eventually, the whole think is going to cook.

The thermal effects to our planet would be disastrous just from coordinated use. What happens if a plane flew through the beam or birds? What if the satellite beam tracking went askew and crossed a major city or 10? The path of destruction would be incredible.

Extra energy coming in to our closed ecosystem has to go somewhere. It would be nice if there was some logic in this world...

Cheers - Dave



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by ProRipp
 


If it costs 10's of millions of dollars a year to maintain the satellites position in orbit, plus the cost of maintenance to keep the receiver on the ground functioning properly who can afford a KWh of electricity when it cost $1.50? The current US average per KWh is somewhere around 14 cents.

Why not just build nuclear power plants?


Hey i'm in UK so am quite ignorant of the price you pay in the states for your electricity or gas ! I know that here in the UK energy prices have soared something like 55% in the last 12 mths or thereabouts and people are dying of hypothermia because they can't afford to keep themselves warm ! It's constantly discussed in the houses of parliament and House of Lords but still the energy companies increase theyre charges it's been ongoing like this for years ! And we all know that once a new technology appears for consumers it's always expensive but those charges decrease the more consumers buy the product ! DVD players for example it's now possible to buy a dvd player for less than it cost's to buy a movie to play on it ! When once they were £300 or more ! You can get one now for £9.99 !



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I put the link up so we could debate this idea i didn't actually state i thought it could work ! In my view the way i read it the thing would'nt be that far away I think somewhere in the Clark Belt ! When a plane flies across my satellite signal it does'nt cut out my transmission !



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


Power generation doesn't ever become cheaper, it only rises with inflation. Only very few people would ever be able to afford this. It is unfeasible, uneconomical, and the potential for catastrophe is extremely high.

Power generation is not producing DVD players. Then look at what Bob said up above your post and I agree with him. Even if it was economical to do this what are the consequences of beaming all that power back to earth? Electricity generates heat and having a steady beam gigawatts in power is going to generate huge amounts of heat.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Perhaps it won't be 'constant' maybe they have ideas to counteract all these 'problems' i think we should just keep an open mind and at least one eye on developements, if any ! ? Really we should'nt just close the door on ideas straight from the outset, we would never get anywhere then ! Perhaps they have ideas on how to offset these ASTRONOMICAL charges etc etc ! I'll reserve my judgement and see how things develope ! I'm glad it has sparked some debate anyway ! I appreciate all your contributions whether you concur or not !



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I put the link up so we could debate this idea i didn't actually state i thought it could work ! In my view the way i read it the thing would'nt be that far away I think somewhere in the Clark Belt ! When a plane flies across my satellite signal it does'nt cut out my transmission !


Well, I am debating and it's a very bad idea.

Satellites for TV or cell send in the 100's to 1000's of watts range using a diffuse transmission characteristic, meaning the transmitter does not focus on a specific area. The collectors for a high energy (terrawatt) beam would have to focus on collectors on earth, which means the beam would have to be focused with an extremely low angle of diffusion. I have seen cars cut in half with a couple of megawatts of lasers and I use to "play" regularly with a couple of 16 foot CO2 100 kilowatt continuous beam lasers. Think of what would happen to a plane traveling through a focused microwave beam of trillions of watts (not a few thousand diffuse watts like sat TV). Multiply the power of your microwave by a billion or two times.

I don't suggest doing this (and if you do it is at your own risk) but you could make a little plane of tinfoil and put a mouse inside, then put it in your microwave on high and see what happens (from a distance). The little tinfoil plane will start a arcin' and a sparkin' and then a couple of minutes later the mouse will almost literally explode. A little gruesome, but it gets the point across visually. But this is just one problem with the microwave transmission of energy from space.

Energy into a closed system must have an energy out vector otherwise, the closed system heats up, this is standard thermodynamics. I haven't done an analysis of the thermal increase rates or the number of watts required to uniformly bake the earth, but I am quite sure that say 1 to 10 terrawatts per second will have a more than seriously detrimental impact on earth's ecosystem, since 8 terrawatts is apparently about 10% of the earth's present absorption rate of solar energy from the sun.

If a 2% change in CO2 is supposed to cause all these terrible effects according to Fat Albert, imagine what space based energy transfer would do.

Of course, if we had extremely efficient electrical systems and a population of 500 million like Maurice and Fat Albert want (according to themselves, UN and Rothschilds), hey maybe they could stick the collectors out in a remote uninhabited area and since we'll all be dead anyway (except for the 500 million), it won't matter ;-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I don't suggest doing this (and if you do it is at your own risk) but you could make a little plane of tinfoil and put a mouse inside, then put it in your microwave on high and see what happens (from a distance).


Ha ha ha although i dont advocate cruelty to animals this did make me smile ! Well okay laugh ! If we're not careful we'll have the animal rights activists down on us like a ton of bricks ! But it was funny ha ha ha !

Like i said it will be interesting if anything actually does come of this idea but the way you put it i don't wanna be inline with that beam !



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


The power from the satellite would have been entering the Earth's heat budget anyway. The system converts solar irradience which would have been heating the atmosphere and the Earth's surface to electrical energy.

About 30% of total solar irradiance is reflected into space by clouds, the atmosphere, and the Earth's surface. Photovoltaic panels are hovering around 30% efficiency. At this level there is no net heat gain. The satellites simply intercept the power before it's "wasted" just heating the atmosphere. Only at efficiency levels beyond 30% would heat added.

But the idea is not to add capacity but to replace capacity. Burning fossil fuels and nuclear energy both add heat which is not present in the system. Bringing heat from the Sun introduces less additional heat to the budget than building a new nuclear plant.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


The power from the satellite would have been entering the Earth's heat budget anyway. The system converts solar irradience which would have been heating the atmosphere and the Earth's surface to electrical energy.

About 30% of total solar irradiance is reflected into space by clouds, the atmosphere, and the Earth's surface. Photovoltaic panels are hovering around 30% efficiency. At this level there is no net heat gain. The satellites simply intercept the power before it's "wasted" just heating the atmosphere. Only at efficiency levels beyond 30% would heat added.

But the idea is not to add capacity but to replace capacity. Burning fossil fuels and nuclear energy both add heat which is not present in the system. Bringing heat from the Sun introduces less additional heat to the budget than building a new nuclear plant.


I'd have to disagree Phage, the systems presently running on earth are part of the total earth mass/energy content. Additional converted energy from space would not have normally arrived on earth and would therefore be an additional energy input. Since there is no way to remove the energy except through heating and thermal radiation, the planet, simply based on thermodynamic laws must increase in temperature.

Concerning your remark about the 30% wasted energy caused by cloud reflection, I have already taken that into account. We are not taking about reflected solar energy, we are talking about a completely independent system that would probably be located geostationary and 18000 to 24000 miles above the planet's surface. In addition, if we removed all the clouds, the earth would heat up under the present solar conditions.

If the earth could operate at thermal unity (which it can't), meaning it was a rather large IF (internally flawless) diamond (which it isn't), a system like this might work. But we don't eat diamonds or live on one.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/19.2009 by bobs_uruncle]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join