Absolute nonsense #ESA plans for space generated solar power. IIRC, one of the studies was supposed to be delivered two years ago.
Such huge structures in space will be highly vulnerable to space debris or malicious attacks, to name just two apparently unsolvable security problems. It'll be interesting to see what the numbers say, when comparing the total cost for such a monstrosity with similar plans for solar power generation on the surface of the Earth.
@65dBnoise Don't disagree with any of your analysis of the risks, but I think SBSP is an interesting thought experiment - in a perfect world perhaps it could bridge the gap between terrestrial solar and fusion… I had a lot of fun making a video about it a couple of years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBlOb2z26Do
Europe needs to be self-sufficient in energy and build a strong infrastructure for its future survival. These proposals/studies are a necessary part of the search for solutions. In my view, they are not feasible at all in the time frame described, i.e. 2022-2070. Other strategic proposals need to be brought up.
For example, Africa is much closer to Europe than space, actually next door, and eager to develop, but instead of seeing Europe embracing African countries strategically ...
1/2
(and maybe solve the huge migration crisis by creating local jobs), we see China all over that continent.
I still remember reading, as a kid in the '60s, about German plans to develop self-sufficient solar production farms in the Sahara desert. Nothing was ever done with those, even after the unification of Europe. Instead of strategic and much more important geopolitical solutions, we now we get tons of space hype and unfeasible plans.
Ourzazate seems to be a current working project in Morocco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station
There's a proposed "Xlinks" HVDC cable from Morocco to the UK, but these days the UK can't even keep raw sewage out of the water.
One major thing about these projects is that they were from a time [I know, 12 years ago is "from a time"] when PV was much more expensive compared to now, insolation mattered, and solar thermal looked like a real potential competitor. Since 2011, PV panels have gone from $1.00/W to $0.17/W or something. I can't keep up. North Africa still has lots of land and good consistent sunlight, and it's a lot farther south than the UK or Germany so the winter sun is much better. But the math is much less obvious than it was in 2009.
@nebulousmenace
The German plans I mentioned above (by AEG, IIRC) were about both production of solar cells/panels and production of electricity, i.e. self-sufficient factories using locally available silicon to grow and reproduce as they grew. I was deeply impressed by the almost biological in function concept.
@65dBnoise In the 1960s ... PV was ludicrously expensive and almost entirely imaginary. There were, maybe, a few kW on the planet and in orbit? Still a cool idea, but more "Walt Disney's Tomorrowland" than "This quarter we're going to build..."
@nebulousmenace
Or maybe it was in the early '70s?
Still, it was already proven simple technology with existing low volume manufacturing, looking for ways to mass production, but it didn't happen. So, I have very serious doubts that pie in the sky Solaris project will ever materialize.
@65dBnoise Also if I recall there's some weirdly specific sand they like for solar panel wafers. My guess is iron-free but that's only a guess. [Iron is a super common atom and poisons solar panels, as does gold. ]
I'm rooting for "algae-powered fuel cells", which also convert CO2 to oxygen. I'll worry about space based power generation when I have a vacation home at Lagrange 6 (and perhaps use algae for both power and air recycling)
L-6 is real and transitory which makes it four dimensional, but the vacation home exists solely in my imagination, which has many (non-spacial) dimensions.
There is a 6th point inside the moon where the pull of the earth's gravity balances that of the moon, but it doesn't get enough sunlight to make the algae thing work.
@Ralph
I always wondered how they did it in all those universes in Heinlein's Number of The Beast, and managed not to end up at an L6 point inside a planet 😀
@65dBnoise The CASSIOPeiA study that proposes that actually goes into the cost details, and there’s a lot of merit to it. They estimated out the cost of electricity generation from one of those satellites, and it’s cheaper than nuclear and comparable to CNG + Carbon Capture Sequestration, and the power generation is basically continuous for all but a few hours a YEAR if they’re located in Geostationary orbit.
@bcoffy
Yes, I skimmed through the docs.
Usually the parts of technical projects that extend geographically and depend on local conditions and people, are the ones with most contingencies and unpredictability, meaning long time extensions and drastically increased costs. So, even if power production calculations are favorable, it's the other dependencies that can ruin it, and that's recognized in both studies. This IMO makes such a project of very high risk, and thus unfeasible.
@65dBnoise Great subject and I definitely need to read more about it. But what caught my eye was the ESA post featured image. I got triggered by the bent pen pocket clip 😅.
@duncanhart
Here are some reservations off the top of my head:
• How does one protect a huge structure in GSO? Any state/privately owned GSO satellite, even those in a graveyard orbit with some fuel left, could threaten such structure. The only feasible protection seems to be orbital maneuvering, which for the size of the farm would be very costly, while for an attacker minimal
@duncanhart
• How does one protect a huge structure from space weather? What would the result be from a big solar flare directed to Earth?
• The space debris problem is worsening by the year, and no solution is in the horizon. I'd expect risk to grow exponentially with size.
I haven't read the cost/benefits studies yet, so I don't know if they took these problems into consideration.
@jaystephens
Roman aqueducts are extremely simple systems, requiring little, if any, maintenance. I don't expect the same for extremely complex technical systems; they require extremely costly maintenance.
@jaystephens
Reading abt the risks as they are described in the studies, I see no way that this will become a real project any time soon, and I mean not in my lifetime, but in the centuries to come. This project requires almost utopian conditions in order for it to be feasible, even in the technical aspects of it, which seem to be the least risky.
Add comment