6 ms·

I’m no rocket scientist but surely it’s cheaper to build more panels and batteries on Earth? Launching stuff into orbit is expensive in cash and emissions.

by 35mm 3y ago

notpushkin 3y ago
Perhaps Japan's area plays some role here.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
The only use case for this that comes anywhere close to being viable is if the alternative is flying in fossil fuels to run a generator. IOW, polar regions and forward military bases. The hope is that space based manufacturing will eventually make this technology viable more widely.
bluescrn 3y ago
But then you don’t get a space-based energy weapon as an added bonus
mrktf 3y ago
Maybe doing compromise - build space mirror and beam light to earth 24 hours per day, as bonus panels maintenance it on earth and can be easily upgraded. Something like this was tried by Russia: Znamya ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Znamya_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Znamya_(satellite) )
csomar 3y ago
I'm guessing it's because Japan doesn't have the Sahara Desert.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Sahara Desert is terrible for solar panels, and is why so many researchers are experimenting with molten salt and superheated steam. Solar panels lose efficiency when hot. The best locations are sunny but cool, like Germany. Not deserts
  - MilStdJunkie 3y ago
    Man, there's got to be some passive cooling Einstein-Szilard hijinks that could be gotten on the backside of those hot-climate panels. Seems like a pity if not . . although, devil's advocate, solar viability more or less hinges on dirt-cheap panels, and having some kind of whiz-bang passive cooling on the backside is going to screw with that a whole bunch.
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      I dunno. Solar power is solar power. I don't care if it's a bunch of mirrors pointed at molten salt, or if it's from a silicon panel. What I only really care about is efficacy, efficiency, and power numbers. The mirrors and salt thing is surprisingly doable. There's a few plants in various deserts that prove it to be cost effective.
SenHeng 3y ago
Not many places to build solar panels in Japan. They tried building on mountain faces but shoddy construction by yakuza linked companies lead to landslides[0] and many dead people a couple of years ago. For the record, I live in a remote mountainous (snowy) region and have panels generating 10kw on my roof. It generates really well 8 months out of the year. 2 months of snow and another couple of months for the rainy season and I’m still generating more than I use in a year. If the govt is willing to reintroduce subsidies and raise the fees in tariffs, a lot more people would be willing to install them. 0: https://m.energytrend.com/news/20210810-22918.html https://m.energytrend.com/news/20210810-22918.html
- datameta 3y ago
  What about off-shore solar farms? These couldn't trigger the same NIMBY response (which I'm not sure the Japanese good-for-society mindset would have). Some problems would be sea spray corrosion, but that could be obviated by building them high enough. If that is a problem for visual environment preservation, they could be just over the horizon, and all linked to one main power transmission cable.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  > I’m still generating more than I use in a year But you really depend on the grid for energy storage it seems. There is no technology available to consumers that can load shift and/or store energy for 2 months. In practice, this means you waste your excess electricity (or perhaps, sell it to the grid so that someone else can use it), but then still rely upon Natural Gas peakers for those other two months. > If the govt is willing to reintroduce subsidies and raise the fees in tariffs, a lot more people would be willing to install them. More solar in this scenario means that everyone involved runs out of electricity in those 2 months. A degree of the grid can be solar, but not everybody. We should get as many people on solar as is reasonable, but energy storage (especially on the scale of months) simply is science fiction. Back in the real world, there will be 2 months+ of fossil fuels to support the lifestyle you've chosen. It's better than 12 months of fossil fuels, but we aren't at a technological level where we can ignore the natural gas plants quite yet. But we can mitigate their use.
jvanderbot 3y ago
You're not a rocket scientist but you're absolutely right. It's cheaper to tear down the microwave receiver and put up solar panels and batteries than it is to send solar panels to space to beam power back to the microwave receiver. You'd have to beam 1000x the power that solar panels receive to justify the cost of sending things to space, but at that point you're lifting 100x more panels to space to get the 10x bonus, and lifing / installing them in space at 10,000x the cost or worse... Plus they have to be magical perfect installations that never fail and work perfectly. Again cheaper to put that money into more batteries and panels..
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  That's probably an exaggeration by this time. Lift costs are decreasing geometrically. Solar efficiency is going up constantly. Land and eminent domain groundside continue to go up. All the variables are moving in the direction to benefit orbital solar, and will continue to go that way. It's not so much a matter of whether it's cheaper in space, than when it is cheaper in space. And it won't be long now.
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    Every reduction in solar cost makes it more efficient to buy panels on earth. The installation cost for space is so much more than the installation cost for earth. Even at 10x the cost, which is orders of magnitude off, what do we have? We have a system in space at 10 the cost that needs a solar array sized receiving plant (double the cost) and has transmission losses (increase size of space and ground installations to offset). It would have to be nearly the same cost or cheaper to install in space than on a field in, say, Kansas. Its a ludicrous proposition. Anyway, this guy said it better: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/space-based-solar-power-is-not-a-thing/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/space-based-so...
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Those are the numbers that are changing. Transmission losses have become fairly tiny. The 'ludicrous proposition' is similar to the turn-of-the-century folk who yelled 'get a horse!'
cuddlyogre 3y ago
Limiting your future and imagination based on what is possible and practical right now is not how we advance as a civilization. Presumably, they believe there will be advances in technology such as space based construction techniques or mining asteroids for resources that will make it a viable option.
- tuatoru 3y ago
  Physics will stay the same no matter how hard we wish. Mining the asteroids is an activity where payback periods are measured in decades, plural. Space is big. Rockets are slow, and so are orbits.
_aavaa_ 3y ago
Japan's getting creative since they currently important a large amount of their energy in the form of fuels on ships. That is not gonna last if they want to continue decarbonizing. They are averse to nuclear, they are an island, and they don't have a great relationship with most of their neighbours from whom they could import electricity directly. So instead they have crazy things like this and hydrogen.
cykros 3y ago
The other thing that would be cheaper would be building molten salt cooled nuclear reactors, instead of continuing to use the water cooled once that are so prone to hydrogen explosions. I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I suspect you may even be able to re-use a lot of existing infrastructure in the process. Could even be safer if their system for beaming electricity has the potential to be compressed to a point where it turns it into a lightning gun.

I’m no rocket scientist but surely it’s cheaper to build more panels and batteries on Earth? Launching stuff into orbit is expensive in cash and emissions.

by 35mm 3y ago

I’m no rocket scientist but surely it’s cheaper to build more panels and batteries on Earth? Launching stuff into orbit is expensive in cash and emissions.

notpushkin 3y ago

Perhaps Japan's area plays some role here.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

The only use case for this that comes anywhere close to being viable is if the alternative is flying in fossil fuels to run a generator. IOW, polar regions and forward military bases. The hope is that space based manufacturing will eventually make this technology viable more widely.

bluescrn 3y ago

But then you don’t get a space-based energy weapon as an added bonus

mrktf 3y ago

Maybe doing compromise - build space mirror and beam light to earth 24 hours per day, as bonus panels maintenance it on earth and can be easily upgraded. Something like this was tried by Russia: Znamya ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Znamya_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Znamya_(satellite) )

csomar 3y ago

I'm guessing it's because Japan doesn't have the Sahara Desert.

dragontamer 3y ago
Sahara Desert is terrible for solar panels, and is why so many researchers are experimenting with molten salt and superheated steam. Solar panels lose efficiency when hot. The best locations are sunny but cool, like Germany. Not deserts
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  Man, there's got to be some passive cooling Einstein-Szilard hijinks that could be gotten on the backside of those hot-climate panels. Seems like a pity if not . . although, devil's advocate, solar viability more or less hinges on dirt-cheap panels, and having some kind of whiz-bang passive cooling on the backside is going to screw with that a whole bunch.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    I dunno. Solar power is solar power. I don't care if it's a bunch of mirrors pointed at molten salt, or if it's from a silicon panel. What I only really care about is efficacy, efficiency, and power numbers. The mirrors and salt thing is surprisingly doable. There's a few plants in various deserts that prove it to be cost effective.

SenHeng 3y ago

Not many places to build solar panels in Japan. They tried building on mountain faces but shoddy construction by yakuza linked companies lead to landslides[0] and many dead people a couple of years ago. For the record, I live in a remote mountainous (snowy) region and have panels generating 10kw on my roof. It generates really well 8 months out of the year. 2 months of snow and another couple of months for the rainy season and I’m still generating more than I use in a year. If the govt is willing to reintroduce subsidies and raise the fees in tariffs, a lot more people would be willing to install them. 0: https://m.energytrend.com/news/20210810-22918.html https://m.energytrend.com/news/20210810-22918.html

datameta 3y ago
What about off-shore solar farms? These couldn't trigger the same NIMBY response (which I'm not sure the Japanese good-for-society mindset would have). Some problems would be sea spray corrosion, but that could be obviated by building them high enough. If that is a problem for visual environment preservation, they could be just over the horizon, and all linked to one main power transmission cable.
dragontamer 3y ago
> I’m still generating more than I use in a year But you really depend on the grid for energy storage it seems. There is no technology available to consumers that can load shift and/or store energy for 2 months. In practice, this means you waste your excess electricity (or perhaps, sell it to the grid so that someone else can use it), but then still rely upon Natural Gas peakers for those other two months. > If the govt is willing to reintroduce subsidies and raise the fees in tariffs, a lot more people would be willing to install them. More solar in this scenario means that everyone involved runs out of electricity in those 2 months. A degree of the grid can be solar, but not everybody. We should get as many people on solar as is reasonable, but energy storage (especially on the scale of months) simply is science fiction. Back in the real world, there will be 2 months+ of fossil fuels to support the lifestyle you've chosen. It's better than 12 months of fossil fuels, but we aren't at a technological level where we can ignore the natural gas plants quite yet. But we can mitigate their use.

jvanderbot 3y ago

You're not a rocket scientist but you're absolutely right. It's cheaper to tear down the microwave receiver and put up solar panels and batteries than it is to send solar panels to space to beam power back to the microwave receiver. You'd have to beam 1000x the power that solar panels receive to justify the cost of sending things to space, but at that point you're lifting 100x more panels to space to get the 10x bonus, and lifing / installing them in space at 10,000x the cost or worse... Plus they have to be magical perfect installations that never fail and work perfectly. Again cheaper to put that money into more batteries and panels..

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
That's probably an exaggeration by this time. Lift costs are decreasing geometrically. Solar efficiency is going up constantly. Land and eminent domain groundside continue to go up. All the variables are moving in the direction to benefit orbital solar, and will continue to go that way. It's not so much a matter of whether it's cheaper in space, than when it is cheaper in space. And it won't be long now.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  Every reduction in solar cost makes it more efficient to buy panels on earth. The installation cost for space is so much more than the installation cost for earth. Even at 10x the cost, which is orders of magnitude off, what do we have? We have a system in space at 10 the cost that needs a solar array sized receiving plant (double the cost) and has transmission losses (increase size of space and ground installations to offset). It would have to be nearly the same cost or cheaper to install in space than on a field in, say, Kansas. Its a ludicrous proposition. Anyway, this guy said it better: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/space-based-solar-power-is-not-a-thing/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/space-based-so...
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Those are the numbers that are changing. Transmission losses have become fairly tiny. The 'ludicrous proposition' is similar to the turn-of-the-century folk who yelled 'get a horse!'

cuddlyogre 3y ago

Limiting your future and imagination based on what is possible and practical right now is not how we advance as a civilization. Presumably, they believe there will be advances in technology such as space based construction techniques or mining asteroids for resources that will make it a viable option.

tuatoru 3y ago
Physics will stay the same no matter how hard we wish. Mining the asteroids is an activity where payback periods are measured in decades, plural. Space is big. Rockets are slow, and so are orbits.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

Japan's getting creative since they currently important a large amount of their energy in the form of fuels on ships. That is not gonna last if they want to continue decarbonizing. They are averse to nuclear, they are an island, and they don't have a great relationship with most of their neighbours from whom they could import electricity directly. So instead they have crazy things like this and hydrogen.

cykros 3y ago

The other thing that would be cheaper would be building molten salt cooled nuclear reactors, instead of continuing to use the water cooled once that are so prone to hydrogen explosions. I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I suspect you may even be able to re-use a lot of existing infrastructure in the process. Could even be safer if their system for beaming electricity has the potential to be compressed to a point where it turns it into a lightning gun.