I'm a bit concerned at the idea of beaming high power microwaves at the ground from something that's free floating. If this is done can we please at least have the ground stations on former offshore oil and gas rigs far from land. Then people will have less chance of being randomly microwaved from space if something goes wrong. or perhaps a laser on the ground that acts as a 'passcode' to enable the space microwave, and no power is sent if the space laser misses the ground station.
Come to think of it, you could produce hydrogen gas from the microwave power combined with the seawater, then put the hydrogen down the former gas pipelines back to shore. And gas can be sent by ship as well, unlike electricity.
I know, it's an expensive place to put anything. But the lift cost is dropping geometrically these days. And the benefits are pretty generous - higher light flux, no night to deal with, aim the power where it's needed (microwave laser).
The unsolved problem is attrition. The new telescope was holed by micrometeorite the first week.
I expect folks will work out something smart, and soon.
The solution is not bother with space solar. Any other conceivable idea involving Earth-based solar, even if it means floating solar panels, a worldwide power grid, or vast energy storage solutions, will be far cheaper and more practical.
This seems like such a stupid boondoggle. Loved this quote:
"I can relax assumptions all day," Handmer wrote. "I can grant 100 percent transmission efficiency, $10/kg orbital launch costs, complete development and procurement cost parity, and a crippling land shortage on Earth. Even then, space-based solar power still won’t be able to compete. I can grant a post-scarcity fully automated luxury communist space economy with self-replicating robots processing asteroids into solar panels, and even then people will still prefer to have solar panels on their roof."
Readit News
Come to think of it, you could produce hydrogen gas from the microwave power combined with the seawater, then put the hydrogen down the former gas pipelines back to shore. And gas can be sent by ship as well, unlike electricity.
I know, it's an expensive place to put anything. But the lift cost is dropping geometrically these days. And the benefits are pretty generous - higher light flux, no night to deal with, aim the power where it's needed (microwave laser).
The unsolved problem is attrition. The new telescope was holed by micrometeorite the first week.
I expect folks will work out something smart, and soon.
And solar flux in orbit is many times that on the ground. So efficiency improves again.
Let's skip over the objection about transmission-loss. That's estimated at 10% or 20% at most.
The cheaper part is fast evaporating. Lift cost is falling geometrically with new rockets etc.
Costs of eminent domain, mounting and weatherproofing are not zero. They're maybe the largest ground-based cost.
Wet blankets aside, space-based has the huge, huge advantage of not requiring local planning permission to do!
"I can relax assumptions all day," Handmer wrote. "I can grant 100 percent transmission efficiency, $10/kg orbital launch costs, complete development and procurement cost parity, and a crippling land shortage on Earth. Even then, space-based solar power still won’t be able to compete. I can grant a post-scarcity fully automated luxury communist space economy with self-replicating robots processing asteroids into solar panels, and even then people will still prefer to have solar panels on their roof."