Base Load Solar Power Beamed WIRELESSLY From SPACE?! 🤯
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2024
- Wireless, extra terrestrial, constant renewable energy. Sounds both too good to be true and totally made up?! We thought so too! Only it turns out that, not only is it real, it's also technically and economically feasible. In fact, we could see space based solar power - in which solar panels in space capture solar energy before beaming it back to Earth; could enter the grid and meet our base load energy requirements in the very near future. But what exactly is it and how does it work? Will it really form part of our Net Zero energy mix? And what's Elon Musk and microwaves got to do with it?! In this episode we venture into outer space to find out! A big thanks to the @EuropeanSpaceAgency for their support when researching this episode!
00:00 Wireless Renewable Energy?!
01:10 What is Space Based Solar Power?!
01:40 All about that base load!
03:04 How does it work?
03:38 Microwaves!!
05:06 Collecting microwaves on Earth
05:38 How Big?!
06:16 Will it cook the Earth?!
07:00 Challenges
07:38 Here come the billionaires
08:20 We're doing this already?!
08:46 An ethical debate?
10:15 What next?
Please help us reach 100k subscribers on this channel by SUBSCRIBING, LIKING & SHARING this episode with all your friends! We really do appreciate all the support.
Visit our 2023 LIVE exhibition in Europe or our 2024 LIVE exhibitions in Australia, UK, USA, Canada & Europe: fullycharged.live/
Become a Patreon: / fullychargedshow
To join our Stop Burning Stuff initiative: / stopburningstuff
Become a CZcams member: use JOIN button above Subscribe to the Everything Electric Show & the Fully Charged Show channels
Subscribe for episode alerts and the Fully Charged newsletter: fullycharged.show/zap-sign-up/
Visit: FullyCharged.Show
Find us on Twitter: / fullychargedshw
Follow us on Instagram: / fullychargedshow - Věda a technologie
So what's the verdict? The future of base load energy or utter nonsense??!
As I always say, "No silver bullet. Only silver buckshot."
So, SBSP *in addition to* clean, safe, reliable, next-gen nuclear (i.e. SMR's and MSR's) for baseload generation + new solar and wind generation capacity + a real ramp up of geothermal and tidal generation + distributed smart grids + new transmission and distribution grid capacity + HVDC long-haul transmission + advanced reconductoring (remember my mention of that at _Fully Charged LIVE Canada)_ + stationary storage (in all its forms) + V2x +, well, you get it by now.
We need a plethora of generation solutions, both baseload and intermittent/renewable, the energy from which is carried via HVDC and reconductored transmission facilities from where it's generated to where it's consumed, all working in concert with chemical and thermal storage, smart grids, V2x technology and schemes, and feeding new infrastructure for electrifying everything (passenger vehicles, heavy trucking, heat pumps, electrolyzers, desalinators, etc., etc.).
if they can throw enough small ones into orbit... musks satellite internet with some bigger solar panels, only hundreds of times more. they'd have to be CHEAP to make it worth it, on the order of ten bucks per watt at final install. it would also work as a sun shield if they put enough up.
it's a death ray
literally this is a death ray
This will definitely kill anyone this is pointed at.
Do we want death rays pointed at our planet? 😕
@@icube5677 at the very least, it'll be easy to know when someone is using it that way.
This could be a next stepping stone in building orbital economy. A first big customer for asteroid miners.
Probably cheaper and quicker to put solar on every roof possible and give everyone a battery and create virtual power grids - no need for baseload anymore because the grid won't need as much
Not probably. Certainly is the word. This idiocy has been rehashed ad nauseam for the last 60 years every decade.
It entirely depends on how launch costs reduce. Imogen mentioned in the UK you only get sunlight 20-30% of the time, but it’s 100% in orbit. If you can reduce the cost to build the orbital array, Of course there’s transmission loss too, to be less than 3x that of putting it on a roof then it becomes cheaper.
Keep an eye on spaceX’s starship development, it might dramatically reduce launch costs.
How do you power aluminium smelters 24x7? You'd have to have a lot of excess capacity in the household batteries. There won't be a single answer. It's going to be a combination of power sources.
@@theharper1 Thats where green hydrogen finds its niche
@@rtfazeberdee3519 maybe so. Using green hydrogen might be good for transferring energy from day to night, although it would need a ready water supply in a dry land.
In addition to the terrific video, I must say that the lighting was very interesting. This is another example of why Imogen is a terrific presenter.
Imogen is such a natural and engaging presenter, I could listen to her all day! She's either incredibly good at memorising scripts, or she's very good at reading a teleprompter without it looking like she is ...
More content like this please EES! 😎👏🏻
your wish is our command!
That was a fascinating topic presented with flair and great production techniques. 👍👏😊
Thank you!
I'm a futurist at heart, so this looks awesome! But as an engineer, I will say this: proliferation of EVs and V2G will result in a massive battery on the grid. Dying EVs will have a lot of second-hand-use batteries to create even more (stationery) batteries. So, while go along this route a winner will emerge sooner than the first SBSP deployed.
Exactly. Storage is not easy, but we are already further along than most people realize.
_“California’s batteries provided more power - over 3,360 megawatts - than the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, the state’s largest electric generator, which tops out at 2,250.”_ - LA Times (2022-09-13 heatwave story)
@@DemPilafian Thanks for this quote, I like numbers!
And this is really just the beginning, the future is brighter than most think!
@@Sekir80 _I Gotta Wear Shades._
@@DemPilafian I wear my sunglasses at night.
@@DemPilafianyes but, how long can those batteries deliver the 3 MW for? Two to four hours? A nuclear power plant can deliver at capacity continuously.
If solar panels become so cheap and lightweight that this makes sense then it will make even more sense to cover every roof on Earth with them making electricity generation more local and reducing the need for transmission.
That's the clue there, it is the opposite, there is much high er cost to the transmission infra, due to the peak output compared to the value of the energy.
Excellently scripted episode. Great to see more science oriented content on this channel.
Another informative and entertaining segment, expertly presented. Thank you, as always, _Everything Electric Show_ for creating and sharing such stellar content.
She is easily convinced by marketing spam designed to fool rich investors without any clue.
Our pleasure!
I have been enjoyed, so thank you for delivering.
Great video. I learned so much!
Glad you enjoyed it!
This is wild and amazing.
Very interesting 👍
Diversification of power sources is critical.
Cheers
Ralph Nansen's reference sat for NASA/DOE (Boeing schematic at 00:30) brings Kubrick to mind, what with the solar-pumped radio beamer at top of the "monolith" causing a piercing ruckus in the headsets nearby.
Keep the industry up for a couple of decades and you get space babies. 🌙 ☀ 🍼
Every problem may actually have a solution. Nice one.
This is brilliant
You spoke my mind, thanks. Good to know your idea.
Another great video 👍🔋🇦🇺
We do the off shore floating receiver: HELIOFLOAT
Isaac arthur stans where we at?
Everyone else catching on to space based solar
Good ole Isaac Asimov. Saw this coming 60 years ago
Dyson sphere powering the drinks and snacks factory when?
You're not Prime Minister, but should be! It was great meeting you in Vancouver!
I'd like a video on the concept of deep bore geo-thermal as an alternative to this. With the idea we could convert current thermal electricity plants to geo-thermal.
I like how Imogen looks posh but sounds a little like Open All Hours.
Thanks
I remember seeing Elon Musk laughing at the idea of SBSP. It did not take long to notice a pattern in the way he spoke about many things, which is basically this: If I am doing it, it is great. If I am NOT doing it and somebody else is, it is stupid.
Elon is a kind of like a real life Sheldon Cooper. Achieves a lot, but looks down on everyone.
But his argument against space solar wasn’t addressed here. He says the cost of microwave receivers is so high, ssps can’t compete with current renewable energy production, and things are trending even further from ssps viability.
It would require thousands of tons of launches and each would require in orbit refuelling.
He was laughing because he’s done the maths and he knows it would be far easier to just use solar power here on earth.
It's true that Elon Musk is a very ambitious and driven person. He has achieved a great deal in his life, and he is always looking for new ways to push the boundaries of what is possible. This can sometimes lead him to be dismissive of other people's ideas, especially if they are not his own.
However, it's important to remember that Musk is also a very intelligent and creative person. He is constantly coming up with new and innovative ideas, and he is not afraid to challenge the status quo. This has made him a very successful entrepreneur, and it has also helped him to make a significant contribution to the field of technology.
So, while it's true that Musk can sometimes be arrogant and dismissive, it's also true that he is a brilliant and visionary leader. It's up to each individual to decide whether or not they are willing to overlook his personality flaws in order to appreciate his contributions to society.
As for the comparison to Sheldon Cooper, I think it is apt in some ways. Both Musk and Cooper are highly intelligent and successful individuals who can be arrogant and dismissive of others. However, there are also some important differences between the two. For example, Musk is more of a risk-taker than Cooper, and he is not afraid to fail. Additionally, Musk is more interested in using his intelligence to solve real-world problems, while Cooper is more interested in academic pursuits.
Overall, I think it is fair to say that Elon Musk is a complex and contradictory figure. He is a brilliant entrepreneur and visionary leader, but he can also be arrogant and dismissive of others. It is up to each individual to decide whether or not they are willing to overlook his personality flaws in order to appreciate his contributions to society.
I think people often misunderstand his behaviour. People with Apserger's or autism tend to immediately give their opinion without toning it down for the benefit of others. They don't mean to sound arrogant or dismissive but their heads are so full of thoughts that they tend to respond rather abruptly as is preoccupied with something else (which they very often are). Musk thinks this particular idea isn't cost effective due to the tremendous amount of tonnage needed to get into orbit, plus other reasons but that's probably a main one. It's far cheaper and more accessible to just put conventional solar panels in places where you need them. The lower efficiency is made up for by the ease of access for maintenance etc.
Excellent though-provoking episode. I can imagine astronomers going puce at the idea though ...
Elon's Starlink satellites in LEO are worse than a smaller number of *geostationary* power satellites 30,000 km up, as far as interference with astronomy is concerned. A geostationary satellite is a dot. LEO satellites make lines through long exposures.
Good idea... but what will happen after the solar panels in space are at the end of lifetime? How we should get this thing out of orbit again? And I think, that it could also be used as a weapon. Maybe the sun which hits earthground and the wind on earth are enough, to power all of us, without taking these risks in space. (Buy the way: Very good video 👍)
I'm sure they would likely do what they do with basically everything in orbit that they can control. De-orbit it & let it burn up in the atmosphere.
@@darthsirrius You can't reasonably de-orbit things from geostationary orbit - it takes far too much fuel. By international law, all geostationary satellites have to have enough fuel to be pushed into a graveyard orbit, where they will sit indefinitely.
@@darthsirrius in geostationary obit, they are usually boosted into a graveyard higher orbit. It's LEO satellites which are deorbited.
Far easier in many, many ways to just use solar pose here in earth and focus on getting more efficient PV panels.
Pipe dream. Not to mention the absolutely huge CO2 emissions of getting things into space. And autonomous robots can't build solar panels on earth yet. So many reason this will never get off the ground.
Thanks Imogen for that presentation I've always wondered if this was feasible. I just had a quick look, and for $5B you could get 50GW of battery storage today if my napkin maths correct that's 50x cheaper(Tesla Mega pack =$1M for 10MW).
With what lifetime for the batteries? That's a good question for a solar satellite too. If batteries on the ground are recycled after 10 years, it may still work out better than a graveyard of dead solar satellites. How do you recycle and repair equipment in geostationary orbit?
@@theharper1with management static storage batteries could last 20/30/40 years. It wouldn't matter if they eventually go down to 50% capacity as they do not need to be moved around. More batteries could then be added in the future to make up any losses, which will be better and cheaper than our current tech. Unlike in a car where a 50% drop in range can only be rectified with replacing cells.
We thought about that too! What you need to add to your calculation is the cost of electricity generation to fill those batteries too!
@@Jamessansome for static storage batteries, redox flow or other tech makes more sense than Lithium Ion. There's no need to consider weight, and other chemistries are less of a fire hazard. Battery chemistry other than Lithium ion would probably last longer with less loss. My main point was that recycling is easier if the device is on the ground rather than in space. We already have a lot of expensive junk in graveyard orbits. I agree - static batteries ought to last longer, although there was a recent fire in a large scale Tesla storage battery which was a bit of a worry.
50 GWh assuming 100 dollar/kWh, that's 5 Dinorwig. That would be very useful for soaking up excess wind power in storms and deliver it when the wind stops.
7:05 Scale cannot be OVERstated, surely? Saying something cannot be understated means it's negligible
One might hope that SBSP beaming to earth to fill in base load will substantially reduce the need for grid battery storage allowing the lithium to be better utilized in transportation energy storage.
Great video, especially the questions at the end - SBSP vs V2G/Home Battery etc. From what you said, either of these are cheaper and quicker than fusion (much as I love the idea). As PM, *I* would immediately encourage and incentivise the terrestrial elements with integrated and strategic support/investment (including tidal/wind) while diverting funds from Fusion/CC/Hydrogen towards SBSP.
This will NEVER happen, it's extremely expensive and wouldn't work as some might believe. Besides, we have millions of acres of parking lots and empty roof space, needing to be covered with solar panels. Estimates show, if all roofs were covered with solar panels, we'd produce nearly 60% of our needed electricity, and that's not counting parking lots. We have FAR too much unused land now to be looking at this crazy solar panels in space idea.
Never say never, but I agree it would probably make more sense to cover every warehouse etc with panels.
No thanks, that still leaves us all tied to buying our energy from big business energy providers, what we need is to make every home energy self-sufficient & as off grid as possible (depending on location), so that we can all harvest as much energy as we use for free to run our homes & vehicles.
What would the per GW (or GWh) CO2/GHG emissions be for all the launches needed for construction (& maintenance)?
Each Falcon 9 launch puts out like 400,000kg of Carbon into the atmosphere, but those are launching 3 times a week anyway at this point putting communication satellites up, so whats the harm in putting up energy generation satellites instead?
Lifecycle analysis from the Uni of Strathclyde estimated around 24g/kWh of CO2e for space based solar
8:59 should do it but don’t rely on it.
So much complexity
Energy beaming between places on earth would also be interesting
If anyone is up for a good old fashioned case of nimbyism id be happy to have the microwave receivers in your hemisphere
Nuclear is around $50/Mwh.
Even with the EPR in Finland., grid prices are now lower now then with coal.
Much lower for existing nuclear, that has been refurbished and will run another 40-50 years.
Below $40/MWh
There are a few comments on "this is a death ray". To be clear a death ray in uts original sence was a bunch of mirrors on land foced on ships at sea. Then later on it was about using lenses to focus light onto a spot. But notice the microwave beaming has no lenses to focus the energy in the beam. Mater of fact the physics of microwave optics mean the beams diverge or spread out seceral orders of magnetude faster than optical light. In short, the sun is more a death ray then a geosynchronous orbiting space based solar pannel beaming microwaves.
If one is fearful of death rays from space, consider space based optical lasers in near earth orbit. Those are more pratical death ray weapons.
It looks like making and repairing rockets may become enormously faster and cheaper from 3D printing rockets and their parts. Some parts which took months to manufacture could be made in this way in a fraction of the time. There's a company in the US working on making a 3D printed rocket right now.
hmm, just putting this out there, could these be placed over the poles to help reduce solar melt of the ice caps ???
I do hope these proto types get funded all the way through.
It worked well on Sim City 2000
"The scale of these thibngs cannot be understated" - I don't think that's what you meant...
Should we?
Good question. I think not!
Some issues I come to think of:
1. If global warming is a problem - should we add more energy onto our planet?
2. If there is a malfunktion. Could we get wrong areas heated and power loss.
3. Hacking or corruption. Energy stolen and sent else where.
4. war for control of energy.
5. People and animals exposed to radiation. What's safe on paper may be unsafe in reality.
6. Too high energy transmission
7. Too wide area and low energy density
8. Expensive. Big energy projects is usually running way over budget and or late.
9. Contractor bankrupt
10. Every thing about this is new. How many things can go wrong?
11. Do we need more stuff in orbit around the earth?
12. How will a collision affect it.
13. How will it be decommissioned.
14. Will it interfere work for astrophysicists? Some stuff up there is already doing that.
I heard of an attempt to send microwaves out over sea. In a effort to test long range energy transmission, much like this video, solar in space. I remember they had problem with the beam, it split in two beams after a single or a few km.
Another project was to send lenses into orbit and shade earth from sunlight.
The Tesla powered Mega battery stations now have a working baseload ! Maybe research this!
We really should be looking forward to lunar spin launching solar panels and other materials produced on the moon for building out space based infrastructure around Earth.
Today's Spinlaunch suborbial platform has a launch velocity comparable to the lunar escape velocity.
Hopefully the lunar gateway will be used to start us in that direction.
Seems Spacex needs to upgrade their satalites with bigger panels to do this
A very expensive baseload source it seems. For the 5 billion needed per Gigawatt, I think we could use geothermal to generate much more baseload and use the saved money to provide more clean drinking water supplies to communities hard hit by climate change.
Maybe you could build an antenna in space, capable of transmitting power across oceans. Send power from Europe to the US or vice versa.
Yeah, the sun is shining somewhere. I bet VPPs and batteries will win, anyway. This concept looks awesome, power transmitting through large distances is well feasible, but the problem with both is scale: it need a lot os money and will to do these mega-projects. Small scale stuff deployed a million times is more likely to win here.
What about space debris? Wouldn't a panel that size get damaged to often?
Yes, cost for maintenance and repairs would be quite high even if the individual modules are small and cheap, robots could replace them with a stash of replacement parts to lower the costs but stashing unused parts in space is not very efficient use of resources. Also half the price of nuclear power is still very expensive.
Space debris is mostly in LEO.
One little meteorite could destroy the whole array.
Imogen for PM!
"Has been shown to be economically feasible" lol
I remember seeing 007 Die Another Day and using their solar laser idea got me thinking as to why we cant have solar umbrellas geo stationary somehow beaming 24/7 electricity from the sun, Space Exploration should be about efficient energy capture, but instead the power that be wish to make space a an elite tourist attraction. Tesla has the idea of wireless energy so we should be able to use Tesla coils to move energy wirelessly and safely around the whole world. 👍
Imogen you're not a narcissist so it disqualifies you to be a priminister... in voters eyes. I'd vote for you.
I don't understand the issue about baseload. We know we can get to 150% or more of our needs through renewables quite quickly. The problem is what happens for the smallish percentage of time when the wind doesn't blow or when the sun doesn't shine - and therefore one of storage and not baseload. Am I missing something? SBSP will surely be much more expensive than a bit more storage through pumped hydro or batteries etc.
It's not 'a bit more storage', and no, storage is extremely expensive. This is the real elephant in the room when it comes to the green energy transition. Here's some napkin math:
In the UK solar panels have a typical 'capacity factor' of 10%, meaning they actually only generate about 10% of what they would generate in optimal conditions. In space they're permanently in optimal conditions and so have a capacity factor of 100%. About 50% of the power is lost in the process of conversion to microwaves, transmission, reception and conversion back to electricity, so combining these factors, solar panels put in space are generating about 5x as much power as solar panels in the UK. If you want 2 GW of avg power in the UK you need a 20 GW nameplate solar farm ($1B per 1GW = $20B) + all the battery storage which could cost another $5-$10B depending on how reliable you want your system.
In space you need 4 GW nameplate of solar PV, and no batteries. So if you can pull that off for less than $25B you're winning.
To compare to wind, the Dogger Bank Wind farm in the UK cost $11B for 3.6 GW nameplate, and assuming a very generous 50% capacity factor, that works out to be $12.2B for 2 GW, plus lets say $2.8B of batteries (less needed due to less downtime), so SBSP has to beat a price tag of $15B to beat wind. Also very doable.
Also none of this is factoring in the fact that batteries will not last 20-30 years, and so the capacity will degrade and need replacing, upping the cost significantly for storage.
Interesting, esp the idea that it is economically feasible. But I wish you had talked more about microwaving power. How much energy is lost? If not much, Could we consider microwaving power from one place on earth through space to another place on earth, thus getting rid of the need for long transmission lines?
Only if you don't mind cooking birds & other living things along the route.
There is one small problem ... earth = sphere, line of sight = not very far
You would need huge transmitting and receiving antennae in order to reduce the energy flux to safe levels. Furthermore a lot of the energy would miss the receiving antenna and be wasted.
It was used for telecoms before fibre optics took over.@@Alessandro---
What about instead of sending thousands of tons of equipment to collect energy in space, we just send out a reasonable sized microwave mirror to a geostationary orbit.
Then use the same microwave beam technology mentioned in the video to send power from points in the earth where there's high amount of renewable energy, and reflect that power down to a collection point near population centres where the power is needed.
You'd effectively eliminate the need for long distance electrical lines.
You loose a significant amount of power through the atmosphere and distance. So making that extra hop doesn't make sense.
Cables will always be more efficient than wireless power.
@@drewcipher896 you're absolutely right. There will be losses in any technology - wired or wireless. But as the video says at 4:40 microwave radiation should be largely unabsorbed by our atmosphere and therefore we would not lose a lot of it during transmission.
Moreover think of all the money and time saved by not having to spend billions and years doing land acquisitions to build transmission pylons.
Also different renewable energy generation sites could point to different mirrors in the sky to match the electricity demand for different cities in the world.
Interesting idea, though given the round trip is 72,000km, the spreading of the beam would be significant. To get it tight enough it would take a seriously monstrous transmitter (probably 3km diameter, double the size of the cassiopeia transmitter in GEO), and you'd need a very well made (therefore expensive) mirror to ensure the power goes exactly where you want it to.
Microwaved From SPACE scares me. I have a few question what will Microwaves do to the atmosphere i.e ozone water vaporous and other elements. Is there a chance that the Microwaves could be used as a weapon i.e some nutter take control and redirect and cook a region on earth. There are so meany scary question but that may be my low impression of humanity at the moment with all the wars. Sorry for the downer.
It's just a bit easier to throw a solar panel on your shoulder and climb a ladder 1 story tall than it is to lug that panel TEN MILLION STORIES UP INTO SPACE. Yeah; check my math. Then add 30,000kph just to get into orbit.
The usable space remaining for this is a major problem. Geostationary orbit is not infinite, is already quite full of other devices and on the pathway of many debris. I don't see anything the size of the example on the video being feasible. maybe at a smaller scale but then tit might not make sense costwise
Or use Starship to launch a bigger payload all at once
It's an interesting concept, but the political/ethical issues would need to be sorted before anyone leapt too far into implementing it. My question would be for the astronomers and astrophysicists of the world: with ongoing projects like Starlink already messing up the sky for ground-based observations, what would a 2km diameter receiver/emitter do for our understanding of the wider universe? Existing ground-based (let alone space-based) observatories are already woefully oversubscribed by current demand, so the solution isn't simply to stick more stuff in space.
Why are General motors,Ford and Honda not producing Electric vehicles any more ? I know we get solar,hydro,wind turbine "free power",bur this doesn't reflect in my fuel bills.So why are EV manufacturers saying we aren't making them anymore and why are my utility bills costing me money when it's green "free energy" ?
Would this tech be a good option to power a base on the moon?
Ground mount solar on the moon would likely be easier.
The Moon has a two week long night if you are not at the poles so this or nuclear.
Nuclear has already been developed for this, I think it was called Kilopower.
On the moon it would be easier, with no infra and not 1000 orbiting sats or people.
Would it be at all feasible to use microwaves to transport power on earth in a controlled environment? Cabling and distribution are expensive and time consuming to install, so if power could be transported, or relayed by microwave it may make transporting power from solar farms in deserts to other countries more viable. Maybe bounce the microwaves off satellites or something similar.
I suspect an awful lot of folks WISH you were Prime Minister.
ah,the gundam x method of solar farms on the moon and shoot it through microwaves.. if that season tells me anything.. it better be above a big body of water
Microwave solar farms and all my chocolate bars will melt.
Imogen for PM
This is AMAZING!!! Not even a minute of critical thought was applied in the production of this episode. Thunderf00t and EEVBlog are gonna have a field day.
That's a shame that you think that, we try to be balanced and take a technical but pragmatic view. Thanks for taking the time to watch and offer your feedback
3:31 International Space Station. Not a communication satellite.
All new ideas are interesting if not always practical or economic and many have potential pitfalls and unintended consequences. Do we really need to go to space when we can achieve what we need to more quickly, cheaply and efficiently with what we already have?
If we are to rapidly electrify and decarbonise we need to keep it as simple and achievable as possible. We know that decentralised behind the meter solar and batteries can be done at scale and that it works very well. The only impediments being price, supply and installation run rates. Very high installation run rates can be achieved with focus and effort and bring the average installation cost down. Batteries can be installed quickly so rapid run rates are achievable. What we need to do is focus on bringing battery prices down and massively increasing supply. We need to maximise the sizes of rooftop solar arrays an home and commercial battery capacities. We also need to bring down the cost of balance of system components such as inverters, racks etc.
I'm not against future tech but surely given the cost why not give every household solar plus batteries thereby reducing the need for the grid instead. Would be cheaper in the end.
It is only a dream, never will work. Probably be cheaper to require every new construction project have solar and battery systems.
Hinkley point c is what 10billion per Gw so 5billion per Gw doesnt seem as wild
LCOE?
What a crazy concept, I can see this being used by bad actors unfortunately, and as it’s remote there’s nothing anyone can do about it, leaves me undecided on the concept. Oh and Imogen for prime minister! ❤😁🤞
Put the collectors on our roofs and being the power straight to our homes
Do you really want to live in a microwave oven?
@@theharper1 Ok I don't know how safe it would be and I remain sceptical On the whole subject
This is an example of how strong the beam would be tho
A microwave beam at 250 W/m2 is equivalent to the heat generated by a halogen lamp held about 30 cm from the skin. It is also equivalent to the heat generated by a sunlight-exposed window on a hot summer day.
Here are some other examples of things that produce 250 W/m2 of heat or more:
A toaster oven
A hair dryer
A car engine
A wood-burning stove
A blowtorch
It is important to note that the power density of a microwave beam can vary depending on the distance from the source and the direction of the beam. The power density of a microwave beam will also decrease over time as the beam spreads out.
In general, microwave beams at power densities below 250 W/m2 are considered to be safe for humans and other living organisms. However, exposure to microwave beams at power densities above 250 W/m2 can cause burns and other injuries
@@adus123 rather than spend too much time on research, the Wikipedia article suggests a signal strength of 1 to 23 mW/cm^2 at the rectenna. The rectenna array would need to be 10km in diameter. The article also talks about many technical challenges involved. Personally, I think that the costs are such that it would be more efficient to build ground-based solar and various systems of storage such as batteries and pumped hydro than to put satellites in space and beam the energy down. Another problem is that the rectenna would ideally be close to the equator, which limits the usefulness of the system for high latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Power satellites in LEO would be subject to damage from space junk and the challenges of keeping the transmission beam on the moving rectenna below would be harder.
What happens in a solar storm?
Maybe Imogen should be prime minister, make it happen!
you should be PM Imogen ...
hahah we think so too
@@EverythingElectricShow seriously, without going to PM level, it would be great if people with portfolios had some expertise in the field of the department they're heading. Neither Imogen nor any other EES/FCS presenters would ever come up with the stupidity of Therese Coffey, Nadine Dorries, Grant Shapps or Robert Jenrick, to name a few!
Are the CO2 emissions for bringing all this stuff in space considered in the feasibility studies?
Why not focus on scaling renewable and nuclear energy here on earth by an order of magnitude?
I think fusion will happen before this is an actual thing
It’s a great idea, but I just can’t see it happening in practice. Surely the cost to build this would be prohibitive (astronomical, you might say) We have so many other simpler and cheaper solutions to implement before we need to consider this. Or does it just appeal to powerful men’s vanity? They’d rather spend trillions on a space power plant than insulate peoples houses properly.
Beaming power to Earth by satellites has been a science fiction meme for d cades, if not at least a century.
However, if you I stall solar panels, you bypass any need for this technology. Solar panels and battery storage are all you need to lose you home and your car. You could always add wind turbines if you wanted to be kept topped up.
I had a thought about implementing these types of satellites. I remember when SpaceX first launched it's Starlink satellites and all the astronomers complained about "light pollution" from the reflected sunlight off of these satellites, that they would ruin ground based astronomy. If someone does indeed launch power sats, wouldn't theyhav a similar effect?
Geostationary satellites are dots. It's LEO satellites like Starlink which ruin astronomy because they make lines across long exposures. Solar panels and batteries make a lot of sense for home use, but how are you going to power the smelters to make steel and aluminium or any other metals you want to extract from ore, or recycle? That would need a lot of excess power from homes to provide the energy.
Re-watch the video, all your answers are in there!
What worries me about this option is, that we are adding more energy into the system, which is overheating due to our comfort blanket around the earth.
Even Asimov mentioned this - interaction between the atmosphere and the microwave beam would produce heat and transmission loss.
@@theharper1 If the energy does any work here (the entire point?) it will add heat! IANAP but this point seems inescapable...
@trs4u the frequency of microwaves proposed is low, in order to minimise loss from the atmosphere. Even Asimov admitted that there would be some heating of the atmosphere. But a signal 10km across with a low power density would have less impact on the atmosphere than a tight beam such as a laser.
@@theharper1 Sorry for not making my point more clearly - I wasn't referring to 'work done' by the beam on the atmosphere it passes through, but in energy-consuming applications here on Earth. Those applications are still 'in the atmosphere' so their heat will warm the atmosphere too.
@trs4u if you want to worry about waste heat from using electrical devices, you might as well go back to the stone age, after killing 90% of the human population. Our current problem isn't caused by waste heat but all heat inside the atmosphere being reflected back by greenhouse gases instead of escaping to space.
failing to calculate how much this would cost if the spacex starship $/kg to orbit turns out to be what they want it to be.... is a massive fail
but how much Carbon is emitted by all those Rockets!
There are many reasons why terrestrial solutions are preferable. But they may not matter. This space based approach has an advantage that terrestrial solar does not have: It can be run as a monopoly, or near-monopoly.
The people who (largely) control our decision makers are very skittish about anything that takes power out of their hands and puts it in the hands of the masses. Or, in other words, they are bullish on endeavors that promise large profits.
The profit potential for a system that requires huge investment is much greater than for a system that any Jack or Jill can buy from any online catalogue.
I hope we can achieve a system of decentralized power. But I fear that we will be saddled with more monthly rent payments that fluctuate according to the whims of the energy landlords.
Not worth it. Technology will advance, but the numbers will never add up because the advancements also apply to ground based solar farms. The additional cost of going to space will always be better spend building storage and transmission infrastructure on the ground. By the time space solar could make sense, we'll have fusion.
So you took lumens in space from another solar panel in the ground
Ummm... so WiFi should be able to change my phone?
I can see another issue here that you didn't mention. Geostationary orbit is a fixed distance from earth, around 36,000 km above the surface. It's a busy area, because a lot of people want to put satellites there, and for a good reason. Despite the name "Geostationary", these things are not completely stationary, even relative to a fixed point on earth; they move a bit, and need slight corrections to keep them in place. And occasionally accidents happen, and space debris is created.
And solar panels are large, and they are fragile.
And it's not just about them getting damaged by space debris, it's also about them becoming space debris if they are hit.
For the sizes you're talking about here, this sounds to me like a showstopper.
It's OK, we'll have level 3 Shields by the time they get the panels up there 😅
If everything hardly moves or is not meant to move in geostationary then as far as I can see there is less chance for collision than say low Earth orbit. There might be some chance for collision by crossing orbits from higher to lower or vice versa. Is there much ever put into orbit above geostationary so that it might cross geostationary and cause a collision? There is a lot in orbits below that but in those orbits satellites or anything else usually deteriorate their height and eventually burn up or made to burn up in the atmosphere. I do have questions about using the atmosphere as a furnace though.
@@grgmetube the problem is it's essentially 1-dimensional, a line (albeit a circular one), although obviously there's a little bit of leeway. But the further off that line you are the more correction you are going to need, in the form of small motor adjustments. So everyone aims for that line. And it's a very popular line, for obvious reasons. It's a limited resource, and putting huge things up there like this is going to be problematic for that resource.
Ride an Ebike ⚡
This may change the world long before nuclear fusion.