Esa mulls Solaris plan to beam solar energy from space

[WX]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62982113

The European Space Agency will this week likely approve a three-year study to see if having huge solar farms in space could work and be cost effective.The eventual aim is to have giant satellites in orbit, each able to generate the same amount of electricity as a power station.

[LeeG]

Ah yes, more, we need more.

[WszystekPoTrochu]

[CWSmith]

I don't see the sense in this. It has to heat the atmosphere. Add the cost of lifting the array into space just to get an unattenuated view of the Sun vs the savings of a more robust mounting hardware on the ground and it's hard to believe it's cost effective.

[Dave Hadfield]

ESA?

Any hardware will be 20 years in the future.

[WszystekPoTrochu]

I don't see the sense in this. It has to heat the atmosphere. Add the cost of lifting the array into space just to get an unattenuated view of the Sun vs the savings of a more robust mounting hardware on the ground and it's hard to believe it's cost effective.

Common sense can be misleading sometimes - remember the Monty Hall thread?

1) In some transmission bands, air and clouds and even living beings are virtually 100% transparent. It will heat the atmosphere, yes, but the losses can indeed be comparable to what they'll lose on conversions.
2) A structure only needs to be robust when it's on the ground. In space, a set of thin tubes with solar panels as thin as a shopping bag is sturdy enough.
3) There is no land taken, no bad weather, no dust settling that has to be washed away... what's lost at launch, may or may not be offset by higher efficiency.

Just to be clear, I'm playing the devil's advocate here. This looks a hundred times more legitimate than the concrete towers as energy storage, but I'm still very sceptical.

[Paul Pless]

I don't see the sense in this.

imagine being able to beam 10,000 megawatts directly into a certain bedroom window in mar o lago

[CWSmith]

2) A structure only needs to be robust when it's on the ground. In space, a set of thin tubes with solar panels as thin as a shopping bag is sturdy enough.

You misunderstood what I said.

Try to consider this - building sides, windows, walkways and roads made from photovoltaic material serving 2 purposes and avoiding the cost of lifting it into space.

imagine being able to beam 10,000 megawatts directly into a certain bedroom window in mar o lago

You are a bad influence, Paul, but I like it.

[WX]

There is also the danger from micrometeorite hits and possibly space junk as well.
Still I do like the idea.

[CWSmith]

One other thing - it costs roughly $10,000 to put 1 pound of anything into orbit. That doesn't include assembly of the array or the cost of facilities to receive the energy beam.

One pound of photoarray doesn't generate that much energy compared with $10k of photoarray spread across the roof our our homes.

[skuthorp]

I am reluctant to deploy Ralph Esperanza again…..but……..

[WX]

I have been stand alone solar for over 40 years.

[WszystekPoTrochu]

One other thing - it costs roughly $10,000 to put 1 pound of anything into orbit. That doesn't include assembly of the array or the cost of facilities to receive the energy beam.

One pound of photoarray doesn't generate that much energy compared with $10k of photoarray spread across the roof our our homes.

That is an excellent point, even though SpaceX charges 1/8th of that price.

I'm thinking "why ESA"

Untitled.jpg

Of course, a solar array plus pump water storage power plant still feels a cheaper solution - and way, way less prone to, say, a missile from russia or china.
I'm curious to see what the three year study brings. If we'll ever even hear about them again.

[Gerarddm]

#4: +1

A sexy sci-fi idea that doesn't make much practical sense.

Now a Dyson Sphere, that's something else. ;-)