3 ms·
Space-based solar power is not a good method of transferring power, besides the debris issues that schiffern mentioned, it's incredibly inefficient. Where on E
by mlindner 4y ago
Space-based solar power is not a good method of transferring power, besides the debris issues that schiffern mentioned, it's incredibly inefficient.
Where on Earth do we beam power long distances in any other application? If it was a good idea we would be doing it instead of running power lines through complex terrain like over mountains.
The normal case of efficiency in power beaming is an efficiency of only around 40% (if that). At that point any gains you get from putting your solar panels in space are immediately lost in the transmission to the ground. At which point you've wasted a ton of money putting solar panels in space for no gain in energy as opposed to building them on the ground.
As far as I'm aware, any attempt at space-based power is some segment of scientists misleading politicians for funding grants. It doesn't make any technical sense.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago> Where on Earth do we beam power long distances in any other application? If it was a good idea we would be doing it instead of running power lines through complex terrain like over mountains. This doesn't necessarily follow. For example, imagine a 96% efficient magic pixie beam that costs exactly as much as 1000km of HVDC transmission line and travels in line of sight. There's no line of sight where it outperforms HVDC, but if you could cross 4000km with two hops via space, suddenly it makes sense. SBSP is still a terrible idea though, just not for that specific reason.
- thenewthotness 4y agoThe argument for is based on being able to receive 144% of the maximum insolation 99% of the time vs ground based which has <100% for 40% of the time and 0% for the rest. Clever engineering could potentially balance those numbers.