Ask The Experts asktheexperts.groupsite.com

Hi Pete

 

I have a couple of question for you with regards to the demostrator What do you propose the size of this satalite to be to colect the solar energy?

Regards

Tony Page

Hi Pete

I have been thinking about this demostrator satalite, and knowing that it is in low earth orbit, you will only be able to see the statile for about 10 mins out of every 90 min, what will the satalite be proving? 

Regards,

Tony Page

hi pete,

Considering the article some very large figures appear to be banded about givng large energy production, however little was said about the size of the satellite required to achieve these figures, the conversion losses in converting solar radiation to electrical energy and then to RF energy and the losses in the down link to the surface. If the intention is to use it the Mobile phone bands surely the mobile signals would be swamped by the envisaged power levels.

Dear Tony, forgive the delay in replying as i have been traveling extensively.  As for the demonstrator, you are right that it will be in LEO therefore giving at best around a 10 minute transmission window as it passes overhead. There are several outcomes that we are looking to achieve, all of which are listed on page 12 of our Discovery Presentation which can be viewed from our home page at www.SpaceEnergy.com. Please feel free to view this before commenting further.  However, there is another strong commercial reason for the demonstrator.  If a government (such as India) who are desperate for power and are willing to sign a power purchase agreement for, say, 1 trillion kWh's (India actually said they need to buy more than double that), then at 16 cents that represents a federal commitment of $160B, albeit over 20 years.  From a political standpoint, no government representative, department or politician is going to sign off or put their name to $160B based on just a scientific report or a ground-based demonstration.  I am sure you would agree that in their shoes, there is far more comfort if the company they are buying from has committed $300m to prove that the technology works from orbit etc.  I could go into more detail but i think that gives you a summary answer to your question. Thanks!

Hi Kevin, transmission losses are approximately 50% and the size of the satellite and the rectenna depends on several factors.  We have a great video that explains this on our Discovery Presentation on page 8.  You can see it here:  http://www.spaceenergy.com/Discovery/space_energy_files/video/powertransmission.html 

 

Hi

Mind blowing stuff - thank you.

Is there any risk that others will be able to "intercept" /exploit the power that is generated? Much like can be/is  done with a Sky TV signal for example?

Thanks

Owen

Hi Owen, thanks for your question.  The answer is a simple 'No' as the signal is sent directly (point to point) to a ground based antenna called a rectenna (short for rectifying antenna) so there is no way for someone to 'hook up' to the signal unless they are in the direct path, unlike wide area broadcast signal such as Sky TV where one can pretty much stand outside and so long as you have a way of capturing the signal (i.e a dish) then all you need to do is decode it.  With SBSP, once the power is on the ground then there are two possibilities of what to do with it.  Either feed it into the existing grid or use it as stand alone source.  Both options are available and it would largley depend on who purchases the energy contact as to which option is taken.  If it is the US or a country with a well developed grid, then you would be open to the same issues as, say, India, has right now where over 30% of its generated electricity is stolen along the transmission lines.  However, this problem is independent of the source of generation.  If it used as a stand alone power source which would benefit areas that cannot get on the grid then it would be more difficult but if it was stolen then at least the problem would be localized and easily identifiable.

As for the other common question of energy security and protection of the satellites themselves, (a question that has become more common since China shot down one of its own satellites last year) then it is worth noting that  no one is building a kinetic kill ASAT for operations--there is very little m ilitary utility in such systems, in part because of the debris problem, but mostly because there are so many other cheaper options available to attack satellite systems not to mention that the primary targets would be communications and not power as it is much harder to replace a comsat than to replace a power source which could be set up quickly on the ground if needed. 

Despite what the well-intentioned members of the arms control community claim, the Chinese ASAT test was NOT an ASAT test at all.  It was a missile defense test using a defunct satellite as the target.  That way the Chinese can deny having a robust missile defense program.  

As for comsats, it is much easier and cheaper to use a laser or jammer over-and-over again on satellites from LEO to GEO and beyond.  It is also easy to do it covertly.

However we are getting off track, the main point being that if you want to knock out your adversary's electrical power you don't attack the plant.  You attack the terrestrial distribution grid.   Therefore the real question is not how do you defend SBSP because that's irrelevant to all but the uninformed. The real question is how are you going to defend the terrestrial power grid, but that's not a question for a space-based solar power company.

By comparison, it is exponentially cheaper and easier to take out a terrestrial power station (and far more devastating if it is a nuclear power plant) than it is to launch an attack against an SBSP satellite that is sitting 36,000 km away and which is owned by an international group of investors with no political agenda.

In addition, SBSP will only be part of the mix of energy resources in small double-digit percentages (although wildly profitable) so why attack that?  I hope that helps.

 

Peter

 

Thanks Peter - a great response.

How are the oil companies responding to the potential "threat" this poses to their future?

 

 

As stated above, SBSP will be a part of the energy mix and not large enough over the next few years to pose any threat.  The greatest threat right now is that of energy scarcity which is rapidly approaching in the wake of declining oil reserves.  In fact if you want numbers just for the US then here are some hard hitting statistics:  A common question that is often asked about SBSP by oil enthusiasts is “Why go to the lengths of putting an SBSP system in space – could the same benefit not be realised by building solar farms on Earth?”  It’s a valid and logical question.  However, one only has to look a little beyond the surface to quickly understand that SBSP is one of the few ‘Global Game Changer’ technologies that goes far beyond providing kWh’s.

While we could easily write a small book to answer this question, in the interests of brevity we will focus on just a few key points:

Carbon Free Base-Load Supply
By placing solar panels in space there is now instant access to a permanent power source (i.e. the sun).  With terrestrial solar the fact remains that every night on Earth, it gets dark. While battery storage can mitigate this to a small extent, ground based solar will never qualify as a ‘base-load’ source that provides power 24hrs a day.  An obvious scenario to illustrate the point is that nobody would like to be hooked up to a life saving device in a hospital that was powered exclusively by ground solar, especially if it had been cloudy for the past several days.  As outlined last month, with the energy gap fast approaching, base load power is desperately needed and can mostly be provided by either fossil fuels or nuclear power - none of which offer a permanent source of clean renewable energy.  This allows SBSP the opportunity to be the leading source of carbon free energy, providing huge environmental benefits. For more information on this go to: http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/WhyNow.asp
A recent article in ‘ New Scientist ’ displayed an excellent graphic showing that for every square meter of solar panel in space, you would need forty three square meters on the ground to deliver the same power (even with energy storage).  This can be viewed here: http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2631/26311601.jpg

Unmatched Humanitarian Benefits
SBSP is the only technology that can transmit energy, on demand, 24 hours a day to anywhere on Earth.  This is an incredible advantage and one that allows SBSP to add enormous value to developing countries. It could literally help to reduce poverty on a global scale, provide rural electrification to off-grid locations, provide emergency power to disaster sites (hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunami’s etc.) and provide power to generate large amounts of fresh clean water, refrigerate crops and medicines and much more.  http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Environmental.asp

Gateway to a trillion dollar space economy
The resources of space have been well documented and are well understood.  For example, the average near earth object (NEO), such as a small asteroid, is estimated to contain up to twenty trillion dollars in precious metals and ores. The moon also offers enormous and valuable resources.  Add to this the business of space-tourism, micro-gravity research, hypersonic travel and a space-faring society, and what emerge are tremendous advantages for technological advancement, a rising economy, planet stewardship, commerce and profit, and much more. However, the biggest challenge of accessing this has always been tied to high launch costs, and the key to resolving this is economies of scale. 

In today’s world there are simply not enough demands on the launch industry to make the above opportunities commercially viable.  After all, who is going to spend billions of dollars on building an infrastructure for a market of for example, space tourism, that would not see payback for decades, let alone a customer base to justify it at present. 
Enter Space-Based Solar Power. 
The size of the current energy market exceeds TWO TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.  With full cost accounting, today’s new nuclear plants chime the cash register at over $12billion dollars each (see here for breakdown: http://www.spaceenergy.com/Discovery/space_energy_files/SBSP_and_Nuclear_Power_Economic_Comparison_v2.pdf ).   The fact is that for every country in the world, energy is a full blown necessity and tied directly to its economy and the quality of life it provides for its citizens.  If there were one market on Earth that not only could justify a multi-billion dollar investment, but does so every day, it is the energy market.
By investing in SBSP, not only does it guarantee a future of clean energy on demand, but the additional benefits it allows access to by creating a space faring infrastructure are almost incalculable.  Here is a simple example that illustrates the point.

Fred Smith – Build it and they will come.
Before Fred Smith built Federal Express it was still possible to send packages to other countries overnight, but very few people did so because of the enormous cost and logistics involved.  Take a simple example of wanting to send a package from Vancouver to Tokyo.  You would need to hire a courier to pick up the package, pay for someone to deal with the export paperwork, charter a jet, have someone deal with customs on the other side, hire a courier to delivery it from the destination airport to the clients address and then coordinate any proof of delivery to be sent back to you along with the rest of the paperwork trail. Could it be done? Yes.  Could it be done for under $100? Not on your life.  Then all of a sudden, Fred Smith comes along and invests millions of dollars building an infrastructure that allows regular people to do what we described above and makes it as easy as regular mail. The rest of the story is history.  However, the interesting point is that the market did not exist before Fred Smith built FedEx - just the potential that was waiting for someone to unlock it.  The potential for a vibrant trillion dollar space economy is waiting and SBSP offers the key to unlock it in a way that nothing else can.  It is also estimated that for the US alone, a serious commitment to SBSP would generate at least the same amount of jobs that the Apollo progam did - i.e. in excess of 500,000.

Prevention of War
One final, and underestimated, benefit to SBSP is the ability to prevent what the Pentagon has called a ‘pre-determined resource war’.  This essentially means that unless we do something drastically different with our consumption of resources versus our ability to replace them, then virtually all future scenarios point to an inevitable global war over resources within 10-15 years.  While it is not Space Energy’s intention or policy to enter into scaremongering, (and nor do we claim SBSP to be the sole solution), we would invite you to look at the excellent paper that Lt. Col Michael Hornitcheck wrote on this subject, entitled, ‘War Without Oil’ available on our website at www.SpaceEnergy.com

There are safety issues that will need to be resolved before the system could go live. First you have the problem of persuading people that 2.4GHz radiation is safe at any level. Given the ongoing debate over cellphone masts it shouldn't be assumed that lack of evidence of any harm will be sufficient. This is at least as much an emotional issue as it is a scientific one.

Secondly there is the possibility of the system being used as a weapon. The answer already given, that it uses 2.4GHz microwaves is worrying. It isn't an answer to the question and presenting it as such is disingenuous. What else are the proponents trying to hide?

There are ways to ensure that the beam intensity cannot be increased enough to weaponise it. Presenting those might not persuade hardened doom-mongers but would at least have satisfied some of the engineers reading the proposals.

Hello Pete,

I have pure aviation background and so my question is clear:  Rectennas should be in populated areas to avoid loss of energy in transmissions. So most probably there will be necessary limit overflying of a) satellites and space debris, b) military aicraft, c) commercial aircraft d) birds..?

Do u have an idea how to deal with this topic?

 

Hi,

I am concerned with the interference with GSM network. The microwave signal is very strong and large energy will be emmited outside the reception area. Has anyone done any practical experiments with footprint of such signal? This should be well tested/verified, before satellite is lounched.

Regards, Joe

I would like to know is how many sbsp's would be needed to provide enough energy for say a land mass the size of the UK, what is the shelf life of the product, who and how will it be maintained, what is the cost of said maintenance, where are you planning to produce the product. will you be applying enviromental techniques and resources to build the product. at product end life what will you do with it, is it recycleable?

1- I agree with Joe L. and have the same question about interference with cell phone networks.

2- On the other hand, another solar energy project called "DESERTEC" by an European consortium bases it's project on the idea, that the deserts in the world receive
in ONLY 6 HOURS a sun energy, that is enough to produce THE WHOLE WORLD for A WHOLE YEAR.

Also in that "Desertec" project the energy loss over 2000 km is only less than 10%.

If such information were true, I think, the SBSP is not that economical compared to the European project, that is already supported by many governments in both Europe and North Africa and the Gulf region.

 

 

Given the Beam Spreading likely from the Satellite Antenna, what would the Terrestrial Footprint for a typical 1MW Emergency Beam be? e.g. Bandar Aceh post Tsunami.

What size will be the exclusion zone around the Ground Sation, and what do you anticipate the W/m2 to be on the example previosly mentioned, given that the Satellite will presumably have to station keep as other GEO's do.

I agree with a previous contributor that Animal and Aircraft incursion into the beam will be a major concern, as will be the safety of the recipients of unwanted energy if the Satellite goes walkabout viz Nigcomsat, what happens then? Do we have a Bond Movie Scenario, or do we have to destroy/shutdown the satellite?

 

 

Thank you for all your questions so far. Peter and the Space Energy team will be looking to respond to your comments through the course of the next week.

Please keep them coming as I know they are really keen to address all the concerns and technical challenges that you feel that they will face within this project.

Lets not forget that Energy shortages and climate change pose a massive challenge and if these guys can deliver safe, clean low cost energy in this way, then it will be a great thing that they are doing?

If you haven't already watched them, there are a couple of great videos on this and there is a lot more information through their website for those who want to delve deeper into this topic.

Stay in touch with this story, as we are going to release this article to a very large number of people across all the technology sectors, in the next week and I am sure that it is going to run. Also in a few weeks we will be pulling together a panel of Space experts to debate all your comments and we will be publishing our summary paper called 'The Verdict' for you.

Thank you for the contributions made already. It really is a fascinating subject.

A trillion kWhr in a year is a bit under 120 MW continuous power.  Asuming 50% transmission losses in your download, 20% on the space side and 20% ground side, you need to intercept 355 MW of solar power, say 400,000 sq m.

As geosyinc is already crowded, where do you envisage the collectors to be?

What happens while the collectors are in earth shadow?

How big an antenna to you plan to have in space to send the energy down, particuarly if you plan to use a focussed beam? 

Tom..

Firstly I’d like to say that this concept/project is very interesting and exciting, I hope that it proves to be both possible and viable, and that it becomes a reality, humanity needs an energy solution, and as expressed elsewhere in this forum “the need is urgent”. Will the pilot plant scheduled for 2010 be able to provide empirical data that is of acceptable certainty to verify if this technology poses no danger to the atmosphere? As previously stated in this topic, terrestrial solar collector systems can provide a 24/7 power supply, however the main reason cited for not going down this path is due to the high capital costs. I wonder however if a system such as follows might prove to be viable. Collect sufficient solar energy in the day time to pump water to a higher altitude reservoir which then drives water turbines during hours of no sunlight thus providing the required electrical demand when solar collection is not possible. The above system could incorporate marine farming thus generating another lucrative revenue stream, and as with energy, people need food, and this like energy is also another area that urgently requires sustainable development. Geographic locations of such plants are limited to predominately hot and low density populated areas, this in turn requires International cooperation and collaboration, but so too does space energy. Given that there might be many instances where no power grid is available and long distribution distances from the rectenna to consumers are anticipated, this subject will need to be researched; Direct Current transmission might prove be the answer.

I have only just come across this topic but will definitely be keeping an eye on it to see how it pans out. The technology does seem very interesting but the concerns stated previously with intereference of mobile phone networks will be high up in the list of priorities for most people. Although the benefits of this product do seem immense the practicalities of the project seem somewhat unrealistic. How many satellites would be required, and how many rectennas and where would these be placed? Most people are aware of the need for renewable energy sources but still fight the implementation of wind turbines as they are unsightly. Would this be a problem for this project? Another concern will be the maintenance costs for such a large project, if something unexpectedly goes wrong will this increase the cost of the fuel to the consumers?

 

 

Hello,

Obviously this is innovative and mind blowing. This a worthwhile venture which requires further research and experimentation. If this eventually becomes operational at a little capacity through the development stages, what are the challenges regarding expansion and monopoly if safety issued are sorted.

If geographical locations constitute no limitation, what about the installation and maintenance cost of the earth based stations.

Finally, if deployed, it the SBSP going to run in parallel with the already Hydroelectricity and other Sources.

Relenting is not an option

Thanks,

 Francis