Comments on: Space-based microwave power

By: thetruth

thetruth — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:52:39 +0000

This seems like a perfectly reasonable cover story for the military to continue putting military sattelites into orbit under the obama administration.
Carry on military industrial complex- the pod people swoon at your might.

By: M Thomas

M Thomas — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:32:23 +0000

Tesla_fan,

There must be some truth in what you state but I was hard pressed to find it.

Maybe you should just stay in your science fiction field of endeavor and leave the real science to others.

By: mthomas

mthomas — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:08:53 +0000

Hey silly_people,

If Beijing is so advanced then why all the pollution in the air and water ?

Why do people in Beijing need to where mask to stay alive ?

Thank you for the amusing response.

By: silly_people

silly_people — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:50:30 +0000

Wow you should really do more research before publishing your silliness… Electrons cannot be accelerated as you stated above, weather and food production do not effect oil production and transportation in anything more than a temporary manner. So many statements in your stuff are just silly, lunacy that have no basis in fact.

BTW – if your looking for the future of renewable, cheap nearly unlimited supply of carbon neutral energy try looking into the enzymatic catalyzation of Co2 and water directly into hydrocarbons. Research done at the university of Beijing is leading to a chemical process that will pull CO2 from the air, catalyze it with water (using electricity) to create a hydrocarbon, creating carbon neutral gasoline from water. Yes solar power would be the best source to make the catalyzation process truly carbon neutral.

By: tesla_fan

tesla_fan — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:25:19 +0000

Hilarious… Nicola Tesla worked on a strategy for super charging the ionosphere allowing anyone with a long pole to pull power from the atmosphere, no transmission lines – reference Wyclyff – it was killed because of fears that the super charging would ultimately burn off the atmosphere. It isnt the same problem as technology has improved but the problem remains that beaming high power energy from orbit is a highly dangerous pursuit, you promote this an an environmentally friendly solution – I think not! just the simple fact of atmospheric supercharging, creation of ozone by the destruction of atmospheric gases caused by the transmission beam, lack of actual control over where the beam is pointed.

Yes any first year physics student knows there is lots of solar energy outside the atmosphere but bringing that energy to the surface doesn’t require risking the kind of large scale threat to the planet represented by high power beams piercing the atmosphere. The energy your talking about bringing to the surface of the planet by microwave is already here – it falls on the planet everyday all day. By the time you could build a working system get it approved, deployed and operational, thin-film nano-solar technology will make the price per Kwh so low as to make your exciting futuristic energy business a huge money losing proposition.

I can see a use for this technology powering a space elevator that could operate without a tether, that would be a worthwhile use.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:06:21 +0000

Bob O:
Most so called “waste heat” is released converting boiled water into electricity. Nuclear, geothermal and thermal solar are all subject to this. Even the “darkness” of solar panels causes much the same. CO2 is an added factor if you burn carbohydrates.
Dumping the waste heat in Space greatly improves the situation, as the electricity replaces some that would be Earth made.
Also, as soon as you start making solar collectors from lunar material, you can start replacing Earth’s mines and heavy manufacturing with Space based processes, dumping less and less heat on the Earth. Then, start moving the population into Space.
http://www.ssi.org/

By: Bob O

Bob O — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:45:27 +0000

So we beam 8.76 terrawatts/year toward earth… one could boil alot of water with that much energy. And the end product of all electricity is heat! Will this plan also cause an increase in “global warming” ?

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:45:09 +0000

Could also consider Criswell’s Lunar Solar Power system.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/355/1
He sez it is 50 times easier to build solar collectors (98+% from lunar material) ON the Moon than placing in Clarke (geosync) orbit.
I hope nobody is still thinking of launching all of this from Earth!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:45:18 +0000

The Earth’s resources are indeed being used up because nobody wants free alternatives due to the greed factor. As a result the Earth is being ruined, however it won’t be destroyed. It’s well known that Australia has an untapped oil supply in Bass Strait, but personally I’d like to see alternative fuel supplies get a hold. Besides solar, wind, and electric power, even water may be used for steam or hydrogen power. To me, steam power is the obvious solution, but scientists always neglect to mention it, as the govt wants to keep it illegal. Why not just continue polluting the atmosphere with toxic gases, so long as they can rake in the taxes. Our brilliant scientists, rather offer the solution of apparently or possibly dwindling oil reserves, to be to further increase the fuel cost burden on motorists, to “force” them to buy hybrid cars which few can afford. This ‘plunder the poor’ mentality is just a ruse obviously to give the govt an excuse to bleed the public dry before they get a chance to switch to a less taxable alternative. It’s so bleedin’ obvious, and such a “scientific” view must be bought and paid for by our caring ruling parties.

By: M Thomas

M Thomas — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:12:19 +0000

What’s interesting to me as no one has mentioned any possible applications ? Here are a couple to get things rolling.

1. Desalination of the Ocean for fresh water – cheaply, anywhere forever.

2. Power grid for cars, homes, hospitals, ships, trains, etc. – clean energy

I would be interested to read some thoughts on applications and not so much on pointing out a missed decimal point or units of measure.

Let your mind think about the possibilities for the future of mankind with clean renewable energy.

By: gt solar

gt solar — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:59:31 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Zorg

Zorg — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:36:05 +0000

oh, btw:
> It is still possible to shoot down a satellite in GEO, and impossible to shoot down a satellite in L1 though.
If it’s possible to put something /somewhere/ once, it’s possible to put something /somewhere/ twice.
If you can put a satellite in L1, I can put a pipe bomb there too.

By: Zorg

Zorg — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:29:21 +0000

> Wireless power transmission (…) is rather inefficient over long distances.

The point of this whole article is that it’s inefficient through athmosphere, because of refraction. Though vacuum there is no loss due to distance, provided the receptacle covers the output angle.

> The first prototype, which was designed to prove wireless power transmission was possible, [...].

Tesla? He didn’t try to prove anything, he aimed to utilize without proof (which was contradictory).

By: an Arse

an Arse — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:42:21 +0000

“… If wireless power transmission is feasible, why put the solar satellites in GEO when you can put them on L1? It’s *much* closer to the sun, thus receiving much more power. Duh.”

Wireless power transmission (from my rather outdated knowledge about it) is rather inefficient over long distances. The first prototype, which was designed to prove wireless power transmission was possible, could only transmit electricity up to 10 feet at 20% efficiency. I’m guessing that these solar satellites may take a dive in efficiency, due to the distance from L1 to Earth. It is still possible to shoot down a satellite in GEO, and impossible to shoot down a satellite in L1 though.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:30:43 +0000

It seems like putting up solar panels on the Earth could be achieved for a tiny fraction of the cost of launcing a satellite into orbit that essentially does the same thing.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:04:18 +0000

… If wireless power transmission is feasible, why put the solar satellites in GEO when you can put them on L1? It’s *much* closer to the sun, thus receiving much more power. Duh.

By: Zorg

Zorg — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:32:47 +0000

Yeah, it’s fixed… but not quite; now it has 8.76Terawatt/year/satellite when it should be either 8.76Terawatthours/lifetime/satellite OR 876Gigawatthours/year/satellite.
A constant production of 100MW will, in a year, produce 876 Gigawatt-hours, the “hours” part is essential since else it can be instantaneous (i.e. 876GW for one second, which equals 243.3MWh) or continuous (i.e. 876GWh every hour for one – or ten – full years, either of which would put it in the Petawatt-hour range).
Sorry to nitpick, but for something like this, accuracy (and nomenclature) is important.

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:05:35 +0000

Fixed.

Cheers!

By: M Thomas

M Thomas — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:54:06 +0000

Zorg,

You’re right. Hope to have this corrected. Thank you.

24 x 365 x 10 = 87,600
100,000,000 x
—————————–8,760,000,000,000 or 8.76 terawatts.

Regards,

Michael

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:42:29 +0000

Good catch. Looks like you’re right. Someone doesn’t speak metrics.