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: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 

A geostationary orbit is 24,000 miles above the equator. The satellite only produces power when it is in sunlight (on the day side of the Earth). The satellite intercepts sunlight which would have fallen on Earth. The satellite casts a "shadow" over the location where it is situated.

The sunlight intercepted by the satellite never makes it to the atmosphere or the surface below the satellite, it is instead converted to electrical energy then transmitted to the surface. If the satellite is not there the energy (70% of it) is absorbed by the surface and atmosphere. The net heat gain is the same in either scenario.

Hmmm. Come to think of it, the solar panels would have to be 70% efficient. I had it backwards.



[edit on 12/19/2009 by Phage]




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 

On reconsideration, the satellite is exposed to more sunlight than the surface of the Earth is. So, yes, additional solar irradiation is captured.

But considering the very small amount in comparison to total irradiance, it becomes insignificant.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


I read the article. Seems no one is addressing the issue that these solar panels would be huge and a over time micrometeorites will come along and Swiss cheese the whole thing.

As someone pointed out in the comments section, for the cost, this thing would be very inefficient.

Nope.. I think we should stick to developing Free or Cheap energy here on earth first.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
This article in Scientific American says that the target cost is 6.5cents per kWh for space based energy, which should be achievable.

It would be sensible to have a large flotilla of satellites for redundancy, beam back the energy using a number of masers and use a very large array for receiving the energy. This would keep the energy density low meaning the beam is safe enough for aircraft and biological systems

Japan is planning to have low power a system up within a decade with Mitsubishi as one of the main contractors.


[edit on 19/12/2009 by LightFantastic]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


We should stick to trying to develop cheap energy, as 'free' energy can't exist



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
It would have cost energy to protect the panels from space junk. Solar panel populaurity on earth seem like a good target for the future.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
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.


So in fact what you will have is a space based weapon that is virtually unstoppable, able to destroy virtually anything on the surface it wants to....



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
What do you do to protect it from solar storms?

This is just a bad idea all around the cost of maintenance and the astronomical amount of money to repair the array is insane.

I don't see this being a feasible option at all, besides how are we going to distribute the power? Extremely long runs of cable and step up transformers? Talk about a national security risk.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I don't think it will work. No physical object such as a cable would be able to hold it because of centrifugal force and if they try to beam it down to Earth, most of the energy will be lost in the atmosphere as heat, and thats not good when your trying to stop global warming.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
We've seen this Solar Array theory proposed in many sci-fi and amine and in each one, the concept has seemed ludicrous. Solar Energy is inefficient even if it is plentiful and despite all the contraptions in space, the simple fact is that by the time we have built the Space solar array, it would be obsolete as human technological progress moves at such a rapid pace.

It would be much more wiser to invest in controlled fusion reactors and other concentrated sources of energy as they offer significant rewards and flexibility. Nuclear power is so coveted today because of the enormous flexibility and versatility it offers. It may have high capital costs but its benefits still outweigh its costs.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


But the cost of maintenance on nuclear vs the cost of maintenance of a space based solar array is apples and oranges. Could imagine having to send a manned crew up to the solar array every time something needed fixed?

The problem is most of the "greens" have no concept of economics or feasibility the planet comes first above everything and anything. These are not the people I want making economic decisions.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
In case some missed the link earlier here it is :-

derrenbrown.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


I disagree. There is an electric charge between the earth's surface and the atmosphere. This is a proven fact. Tesla used this to power his car driven by a magnetic motor. This is also a fact. It was tested in public demonstrations for over a week and tons of people saw it and wrote about it. This happened in the 1930's

If you use a voltmeter you can measure this electrical charge on any large metal structure such as a Tv antenna tower. It's energy, and it is free.

You see, we think some "laws" of science cannot be broken. but this is false. It depends on the models you use. Using the standard model made by Newton, you cannot do certain things. but, if you look at science from a different point of view and use different models, the impossible becomes possible. This has been proven in science many times over the years.

To say something is impossible simply means it hasn't been looked at objectively enough under the right model or set of conditions.



[edit on 19-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 

A geostationary orbit is 24,000 miles above the equator. The satellite only produces power when it is in sunlight (on the day side of the Earth). The satellite intercepts sunlight which would have fallen on Earth. The satellite casts a "shadow" over the location where it is situated.

The sunlight intercepted by the satellite never makes it to the atmosphere or the surface below the satellite, it is instead converted to electrical energy then transmitted to the surface. If the satellite is not there the energy (70% of it) is absorbed by the surface and atmosphere. The net heat gain is the same in either scenario.

Hmmm. Come to think of it, the solar panels would have to be 70% efficient. I had it backwards.


Phage, why would anyone stick a satellite in direct line of site between the sun and the earth? What do you do when there's an eclipse, even though they don't happen that often? Now, on the satellite being in line between the sun and the earth, there's this thing called wave/particle duality. As a certain amount of light will hit the earth anyway, even in the shadow, as long as the satellite doesn't perform a total and constant eclipse.

No, the way it would work is that the satellites would be left or right, above or below the planet and out of the light's path from the sun to the earth. This light which would normally travel off into space would be harvested. Since the light being harvested never impinges upon the earth, if transmitted to earth it would be ADDITIONAL input energy. Energy that would have never made it to earth if it wasn't for the satellites.

Concerning the efficiency of solar panels, this is a distraction. Whether the panels are 2%, 30%, 70% or 100% efficient, the energy transferred to the earth is still ADDITIONAL ENERGY and the NET result is planetary heating in an amount that varies based on the ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT.

So, if some wanker sticks satellites up there to harvest energy and microwave it down here at a rate of say 1 terrawatt per second, expect the earth's average temperature to rise 10 - 12 degrees C over a one year period. Anyone want to challenge this number, go for it, I was conservative. The earth cannot radiate the input energy away fast enough. In addition, if for some reason the entire microwave beam is not collected, I think you can safely (or unsafely as the case may be) expect to see new lava tubes opening up in the area of the collectors. Hit the ground with a few billion watts of energy and I think you'll see some massive changes in the ground/crust, not to mention the atmospheric heating. Plus the collectors would have to be at unity, 100% RF to electrical conversion, yeah, that's going to happen soon (NOT).

This is a recipe for catastrophe but our politicians and many scientists are greedy enough to go for it anyway. Just look at the IPCC and COP15 ;-)

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/20.2009 by bobs_uruncle]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by IAF101
 


But the cost of maintenance on nuclear vs the cost of maintenance of a space based solar array is apples and oranges. Could imagine having to send a manned crew up to the solar array every time something needed fixed?

The problem is most of the "greens" have no concept of economics or feasibility the planet comes first above everything and anything. These are not the people I want making economic decisions.


I agree, the costs would be very high maintaining a platform. I also agree that to put the greenies in charge is a mistake. But as recently proven via the IPCC, the UN, the IMF and every country in the world, politicians, bankers and boot licking paid off scientist won't turn the trick either. Something about credibility, conflict of interest, obfuscation and general reliability concerning the science and their methods.

In order to make informed and viable decisions, we need all the information as well as total transparency in government with consequences that involve a reasonably pain free method of sending their non-complying carcasses to the netherworld of their choice.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by IAF101
 


But the cost of maintenance on nuclear vs the cost of maintenance of a space based solar array is apples and oranges. Could imagine having to send a manned crew up to the solar array every time something needed fixed?

The problem is most of the "greens" have no concept of economics or feasibility the planet comes first above everything and anything. These are not the people I want making economic decisions.


Most environmental "scientists" are idealists who don't understand the true struggle of humanity in most of the world. Their hypothetical worst case scenarios are laughable compared to the reality of our present day, where millions of children die each week due to starvation or neglect. People who live all their lives without access to clean drinking water or even electricity etc. Most of the world lives hand to mouth existence where their next meal is not assured and their health is at the mercy of God. By implementing grand climate schemes they only add a further burden upon the poorest of the poor, indirectly committing millions of human beings to starvation and destitution. Those people don't care that after 50 years the temperatures would increase by 2C because they don't know if they'll be alive tomorrow!



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Their hypothetical worst case scenarios are laughable compared to the reality of our present day, where millions of children die each week due to starvation or neglect. People who live all their lives without access to clean drinking water or even electricity etc.


The problem may much worse than the ambient temperature being a couple of degrees hotter.

If you believe the predictions, which I have no reason not to, huge swathes of currently fertile land will become unsuitable for living or growing food. Drinking water and food will become much more scarce, especially for the less fortunate. Huge amounts of people will have to relocate. There may even be increased instances of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

People living like you mentioned are unlikely to look past the next drink of water or meal but they aren't causing the problem. "Our" nations have the resources to minimise the problem to make the world a better place for everyone. The problem is our selfishness and greed.


Originally posted by IAF101
It would be much more wiser to invest in controlled fusion reactors


I agree, eventually we are going to need a 'renewable' source of energy as a planet and fusion is one of the best candidates. It is clean, safe and uses a small amount of fuel. I have often wondered why there is comparatively little investment and research in this area - there are only 3 major experiments running to my knowledge - JET, ITER and HiPer.


[edit on 21/12/2009 by LightFantastic]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp

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 !


Carbon alone is not an issue, really - unless you get extremely high particulate adulteration of the air. Carbon monoxide, yes. A bit. But in the mixture of things, even then it's not a huge amount.

So...

Though it might make a difference in cities to go with plenum energy over fossil fuels in that regard, I doubt it would make a huge difference.

Still, many other issues would be solved if we switched, the least not being socio-economic.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join