Huge solar collectors will be launched into orbit around the earth and will transmit clean energy in unlimited quantities to the surface of the ground
by Renee Marie Capella
In Japan they hope that in 2030 electricity will be generated in the sky instead of in polluting coal-fired power plants. Satellites will be launched into orbit around the Earth and will hover at a fixed point above the equator. In space, the satellites will deploy solar panels 2.4 kilometers long that will receive the sun's rays 24 hours a day. The satellites will convert the solar energy into microwave energy and transmit it to reception stations on the ground. A 3.2-kilometer antenna will be installed at each ground station, capable of generating one gigawatt of electricity—enough for 500,000 homes and twice that of a typical coal-fired power plant—without emitting any greenhouse gases.
Placing solar collectors in space has a clear advantage: at an altitude of 35 kilometers, it is never cloudy. Due to the effects of the atmosphere and weather, solar radiation in space is on average 8 to 10 times stronger than on the ground. In view of the decrease in the costs of launching satellites [today the launch costs approximately $5,000 per half kilogram, compared to approximately $12,000 per half kilogram a decade ago] and the increase in electricity prices [which have already doubled since 2005] the idea is welcomed.
Later this year, the Japanese Space Research Agency [JAXA] intends to conduct a ground experiment and send a microwave beam to an antenna measuring 50 meters by two meters, where it will be converted into direct current: not yet electricity from the sky, but an important step on the way to the destination.
obstacles
One of the worrisome scenarios refers to the disinfection of the beam - something that could cause the vaporization of an entire village. To reduce the risk, JAXA scientists are developing an automatic detection system that will turn off the microwave beam if the satellite deviates from its orbit.
Expected
JAXA intends to launch in 2013 the first satellite that transmits energy into orbit around the Earth, and in 2030 to activate an array of satellites that will directly feed the electricity grid.
42 תגובות
39 Adi. For your information, I have been in the field for many years and am familiar with most of the work done in the matter.
All these professors trying to reinvent the wheel are bored people who think
Because only they will save the world.
There are very beautiful works that deserve attention. As of today, you are very close to good results.
But the establishment of a geocentric system is hardly good for a thesis for a student.
Like all my student work, 99% of the work is not applicable.
It is good that all the commenters here study the subject and respond objectively and not talk nonsense.
It is possible to put the receiving stations in the sea on rigs and this will reduce the risk of injury to humans
By the way, Michael (Rothschild), well done for following over the years the responses to this article.
Wow Chaim, what a tool you are. The Man. They're all idiots, and only you are the king of the world who fires all these idiots and probably puts them in a rasia and fucks them with some kind of bullshit, so that they know what it is, these idiots.
Haim:
Indeed - you did not say that there is no solution.
In fact, you didn't say anything - you just grumbled.
What you said in your last response - beyond the fact that it is unfounded - you did not say in the response where for some reason you expected me to read it.
Answer to Machel in 34.
Learn to read before you respond.
I didn't say there was no solution. There are costs appropriate for a scientific space station. The cost will not justify the profit.
Space doesn't have 10 times as much energy as someone says. At least it is times the energy that arrives and is absorbed by the earth. The difference between the energy in space and the one that is absorbed, does not justify such an installation.
And it doesn't matter if you budget for it for 20, 30 or 50 years.
And all the buffoons to stop talking nonsense.
Happy holiday to you all.
Cool!! In the book "I, Robot" by Isaac Asimov, such a system is described.
I think it can create a tornado because it will heat the water vapor in that microwave radiation column, which will cause there to be a strong flow of air from the bottom of the column to the top. And wind in this way creates tornadoes.
And regarding the destruction of areas, there is no doubt that a deviation of the beam of these waves could set forests on fire and, depending on you, also destroy large areas.
Haim:
They see these problems just as much as you do, but unlike you, they also try to solve them.
All satellites suffer from similar problems and are treated successfully. It is true that more precision is needed here and the risk of foul play is greater, but in order to deal with this they have allotted themselves the entire period from now until 2030.
If I were them, I would fire any person who, instead of solving problems, complains about them.
Their minds have gone completely wrong.
Calculate the necessary accuracies. Calculate the solar wind that will move the collectors.
Think about the maintenance and the service to send for repairs.
For me, these jerks were fired.
In fact, transmitting energy through the atmosphere is not new in the defense industry and was only discussed recently in the Nautilus project against Katyushas
A laser beam which is actually concentrated light rays aimed at the shooting target
I don't know what frequency of light rays they thought to use in this project
Certainly not the visible light
Maybe really microwaves
In any case, the technology is, in my opinion, completely identical in the transmission of energy from a distance
After all, in both cases the energy needs to be centered so that it is not scattered and arrives as spot-on as possible. In addition, atmospheric effects on the radiation and dispersion must be avoided as much as possible.
With these problems of energy dispersion in the atmosphere and focusing, as mentioned, they will try to deal with projects of laser-based weapons, for example the Nautilus
But of course, if the Nautilus project had been successful, there would not be Scuds on Sderot today.
That is, apparently there are still problems with the implementation of laser cannons of all kinds
Despite this, here is a site that actually describes consistent progress on the subject of laser cannons
http://www.spacewar.com/Ray_Guns.html
So it is possible that despite everything Sderot can be optimistic
(Of course without the administration and the priorities in Israel that prefers weapons of the Israel Defense Forces over weapons of American companies)
Moti Gilboa:
1. Don't just choose microwaves. The fact that they can be transmitted over a long distance through the atmosphere is due to their low interaction with it.
Low interaction means a long range without energy loss - on the one hand - and no heating of the atmosphere on the other hand.
2.
A. Such a dynamo is simply not applicable. What does apply in this context is the utilization of tidal forces, that is, the imbalance that exists at all points on the moon and the earth except for their centers of gravity and a sheet of zero thickness that passes through them, between the force of gravity and the force of persistence.
The simplest way to take advantage of the tidal forces resulting from the mutual attraction between the moon and the earth along with other forces does not require a migration to the moon. I'm talking, of course, about utilizing the energy of waves and currents in the sea.
This is the idea you mentioned in section C and it is not new.
It is not implemented only because they have not yet found an efficient and cheap enough way to implement it.
B. Iceland is founded on geothermal energy almost exclusively.
It's easy there because it's an island that's still very volcanically active.
The Israeli company Ormat distributes geothermal technologies all over the world. See here:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%AA
third. Answered as part of a.
3. The space elevator should be based on the lightest cable, on the one hand, and the strongest, on the other hand.
Adding a cable for power transmission will probably burden the cable to the point of inapplicability.
If, on the other hand, the elevator cable itself can conduct electricity, your proposal may be applicable. There is no doubt that she is interesting.
The responses are wonderful, especially Gil and Michael, however, I also have a few words on the subject:
1. In the path of the radiation to the terrestrial collector beyond fried poultry there is also the huge area from the atmosphere to the terrestrial collector. This area is saturated with molecules that will respond to the microwaves.
And for those of you who like calculations, here is a formula: (the distance to the space from the collector)* (the width of the beam) * (the thickness (height) of the beam) = the area of the microwaves in the superheater.
Of course, the result must be multiplied by the number of satellites transmitting at the same time
And the resulting figure must be calculated in computer simulation to understand the consequences on the planet.
2. If you really want an efficient effect for energy, below are ideas or rather directions.
A. Kdova rotates on its axis - what about a space dynamo or a huge dynamo on the moon that uses the forces of gravity as a connector to operate the dynamo.
B. The amount of energy found in the nucleus as a DNA is infinite in human terms, a way must be found to connect and utilize.
C. The ocean currents are an expression of the utilization of energy in a natural way, those who know the route and know the method understand that there is a huge and natural engine in the great sea, all that is needed is to utilize it.
3. It will be possible to minimize the damage of the beam by raising the collector to the height of the upper atmosphere, while from the collector the energy will be transferred to Heaven by safer means, even by a huge cable: I would not have come up with this idea if it were not for the talk about the space elevator!! ??
The idea is described in Niven Fornell and Gerry Flynn's book "The Fall of the Angels"
In my opinion there is long-term value in investing in space technology.
However, to expect that a satellite solar farm will be more economical than a solar farm on Earth in the coming years and with today's space technologies borders on naivety.
Today it is a factor of tens to hundreds: kg of fuel per kg of useful cargo
It is true that sheets can be used without massive support in the absence of radiation, but since it is required to transfer huge power supplies and transmit them, we are still forced to send a large load of conductive electronic components (on conductors?)
In the long term, this is the closest source of energy after we succeed in utilizing all solar energy in its existing forms (including wind, waves, rivers, etc.) or the penny (fossil fuels)
Ohad:
I don't know if sending solar energy to Earth was first conceived by Asimov or if it was thought of before him. Do you have proof that no one has thought of this before?
Of course, using an idea presented in the book is not theft.
Anyway, the idea has been around for many years and until 1973 was considered impractical due to the lack of a reasonable way to transmit the energy.
It was only in 1973 that a man named Peter Glaser registered a patent for a practical way to send energy over a long distance using microwaves and in fact this is the only real invention here.
Moshe Katz:
The truth is that in the calculation I described I treated the Earth as a disk.
If it is treated as a sphere, the arcsin function should be used instead of arctan, but the results remain very close to those presented
Just so you know it was Asimov's idea that was stolen from him
With him it was a focused laser beam and the satellites were about half the distance from the Earth to the sun but the same idea.
It's not practical today mainly because it's too dangerous, no one in the world will let it happen.
Even in space there is a problem of space (especially with a huge amount of satellites that generate electricity) and it is still not enough electricity for all the Earth even if they surrounded it all with such a system...
Well, I will use the excuse of too many working hours 🙂
What's new:
All the issues you raised have already been discussed in the previous comments (and links from them).
Moshe Katz:
Think for yourself.
The radius of the earth is about 6000 km.
The satellite distance is about 36000
9.462322208025617391140070541742=(Arctan(6/36
The head angle of the triangle is twice this and when you divide by 360 degrees you get less than 6%
Be that as it may, the inclination of the earth's axis eliminates, as mentioned, also the remaining concealment.
I was indeed in a hurry, but 6%?
This is a huge radiation intensity and I have to check:
1. What is the effect of radiation on air bubbles
2. What happens if clouds pass or it rains in the area.
3. What happens if a flock of birds passes by.
4. Can hostile elements invade the system.
Also what is the chance that the system will be damaged by meteorites or the solar wind.
and now in Hebrew :)
You have an error in your account.
Even if there was an overlap between the equator and the Milka plain, at a distance of 36000 km there would be darkness less than 6% of the time.
Since there is no such overlap, the satellite will always be in the light
Moshe Katz:
You have an error in your account.
Even if there was an overlap between the equator and the Milka Island plain at a distance of 36000 km, it would be dark less than 6% of the time.
Since there is no such overlap, the satellite will always be in the light
Just one small problem
In geostationary orbit above the equator there are on average 12 hours of light and 12 hours of darkness
Apparently a complicated array of satellites and relay satellites will be needed
age:
You are old enough to start.
Instead of talking a lot about your ideas and you will get rich (if not in money - at least in understanding that what you describe as simple is actually complicated)
"Could cause the evaporation of an entire village"
According to what is written here, it will be possible to use this technology also as a deadly weapon almost like an atomic weapon only without radioactive radiation remaining in the field.
There are no fish in the sea that generate electricity from less than that
Through genetic engineering it will be possible to produce clean electricity from nature
and develop those gardens to give electricity output through the trees from the sunlight.
Ok, what a little genetic change?
money grows on trees
The best green energy is from the trees
The trees absorb the sunlight much better than any existing solar panel
Just a small genetic change in the DNA for them to become the perfect electricity producers.
age:
You are wrong.
The process in question will hardly introduce any additional energy to the earth - it will mainly focus the energy that would have arrived anyway into a type of energy that is easy to use and where equipment that can use it is placed.
The overall calculation of the energy balance should take into account the following questions:
1. How much energy in general affects such a small area compared to the area of the Earth
2. How much of this energy would have entered the atmosphere anyway (for example - all the energy that the satellite absorbs during the hours it is below it)
3. What is the efficiency of the microwave energy conversion process.
I don't know what this calculation will give, but it may turn out to be a reduction of the energy absorbed in the atmosphere.
Add to that the fact that the energy will be used instead of oil energy and the profit could be huge.
Of all the things you brought up only in fear of the birds there is something, but in any case it is a small area that the birds may know to avoid (I, for example, pull my hand when I accidentally touch the oven).
And it is not a situation that the authors of the article ignored the dangers - they actually mentioned dangers that, contrary to the ones you bring up, are serious dangers.
Totally delusional
The launch of the satellite uses a lot of oil
Even if technology improves and the price of labor decreases
The amount of oil for sending the satellite will remain the same amount
The receivers cannot be repaired after the launch
Solar flares from the sun and dwarf asteroid hazards were not taken into account
The microwave radiation will make names especially for birds
In this process, additional energy is purchased for the earth, which does contribute to the global warming process that has started
Cold nuclear fusion of course...
The energy of the future - nuclear fusion
A. Ben-Ner:
The original idea seems better to me because:
1. It is easier to place the receivers in geostationary orbit than on the moon.
2. The moon is in constant motion relative to the earth, so it will be a bigger problem to maintain the direction of the beam so that it reaches the receivers on the earth.
3. The moon has "day" and "night" and the problem is of course with the "night" when the sun's rays will not reflect on the collector. This means that many collectors are needed and that the collectors will only work half the time (waste).
4. The distance from the moon is greater. This creates more difficulties in transferring the energy to the earth (the beam is scattered, every deviation of a fraction of a degree is expressed in a huge shift, more obstacles on the way and more)
In short, it is much easier to place several such systems in geostationary orbit and enjoy a constant supply of energy at fixed and well-equipped reception points (and perhaps, also, for safety reasons, far from any inhabited place)
The idea is great.
It can be further refined and the solar collectors can be placed……on the moon.
The advantage is twofold:
A. It will be possible to get solar collectors in a huge area, much larger than in space. Receiving antennas will be located at many sites around and around the city of DHA and thus the system will be used by all countries. The moon will be declared international territory,
In the possession of the UN and for the use of all countries.
B. It will be possible to build a power station on the moon
What was a great advantage in using the moon, for example as a base for astronomical research, even on the dark side of the moon.
Eyal. A
The conversion of the energy into microwaves is designed to overcome problems of the permeability of the atmosphere, including the problem of cloudiness. Otherwise the radiation could be used as it is.
Extensions can be found on this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite
and in links from it
Nuclear electricity is the solution...no matter how we look at it.
A space elevator is needed to have solar stations on a reasonable scale.
For Danny, the idea of using solar weapons for an attack from space was already brought up by the Nazis and is actually a continuation of an older idea of a German scientist, who proposed solar mirrors in space for agricultural applications.
See here:
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=940
What about Iran, you can't vaporize their facilities with such energy
Blessed, but problematic.
As with any technology that holds great promise, so does the damage it can cause, in the wrong hands.
1. Technical - the radiation beam must cross the atmosphere, therefore the location of the receivers should be in an area with as little cloudiness as possible in the annual average, preferably in a dry and high area.
2. It is somewhat worrying (in the future) to place large energy reserves in an unprotected place (in view of the developments in space weaponry)
3. Those energy resources of one country can turn into a deadly weapon at a moment of decision.
Just a small error correction, the altitude to which the solar cells will be launched should not be 35 km but probably 35 thousand km. Father, please check.
good week
Sabdarmish Bacher
A possible forecast for another hundred years:
In the future mining of energy will be simple and cheap and not restrictive. Accordingly, water will also be a resource accessible to all - unlike today. The people of the future will invest a lot of effort and available energy in polymerizing all those carbon dioxide molecules that their ancestors (we) made sure to release and disperse in the atmosphere. Given cheap energy, it will be possible to plumber and bury all those oil resources that were burned, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect and all that is implied by the air pollution that occurred in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Greetings friends,
Sabdram.. ZA Ami Bachar