5 ms·

Space based solar or fusion power - which one will work commercially first?

IshKebab 3y ago
Fusion obviously. It only takes a simple back of the envelope calculation to show that space based power makes no sense even in theory. Fusion on the other hand makes total sense if you can do it. It's just a really really really hard engineering problem. Space based power belongs in the same category as solar roadways, energy harvesting speed bumps, solar windows, etc. Clearly if you want to scam investors an energy project is the way to go.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "It only takes a simple back of the envelope calculation to show that space based power makes no sense even in theory." That would be my gut feeling, but what simple calculation would you use to disproof it? Fusion is currently not working at all - but we can transmit power (with big losses over that distance) via laser etc. But since space is expensive, I just see no way to make this work economically.
  - practicemaths 3y ago
    People were saying the same thing about terrestrial solar for decades. Both fundamentally are engineering problems now. Also considering that there has been a lot of investment in space launch vehicles of late the cost to lift things into orbit are lowering. Technology takes a while to develop and mature with applications for this beyond just beaming power to Earth.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "Also considering that there has been a lot of investment in space launch vehicles of late the cost to lift things into orbit are lowering." Yes, but the cost of installing solar panels on the ground are astronomically cheaper than anything you can do in space and I do not see the gap closing in the near future, even with breakthroughs. Rather the contrary, we still have lots of cheap unused land (deserts). And solar panels are getting cheaper every day. Having a space based laser/power beam sounds cool - but complicated and expensive.
      - practicemaths 3y ago
        The applications for this are well beyond Earth. Additionally there was a lot more useful testing of various related aspects in this beyond just beaming power to Earth per the article.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        Oh the technology per se is definitely something amazing, that warrants more research. I was just referring to this question of the thread, of can this be a useful energy source for the earth in the near future? And I think no. Rather fusion, even though that will likely take some more decades at least. But a breakthrough with fusion seems possible, but I cannot think of a breakthrough with space beams, that can ignore the atmosphere, or gravity (the main constraints).
        practicemaths 3y ago
        Fair enough. Near future, I agree it's hard to imagine available resources for this outpacing available resources for fusion. Though fusion does have some more difficult technical engineering issues than SBS. By that I mean, as far I know, we have a decent understanding of what materials we would need and how to utilize said material for space based solar. While with fusion we are close to self sustainings reactions, we still lack understanding on containing the reaction itself for it to be feasible. That is, understanding the magnetic fluctuations around the plasma reaction and having material to housing it for extended periods of time. Of course with computing simulations becoming increasingly more accurate and powerful, those technical hurdles may not be as stringent as we see them today.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    I think the biggest problem is that the ground based receiving array is going to be so large you could have just installed solar panels in the same location. 24 hour power generation is nice, but the economics of batteries + ground based solar seems more likely to triumph. Edit: If you assume a ground based array has a 20% utilization factor, the space based panels + receivers can only be 5x the cost of the standard solar installation. Which requires ~free space launches, plus probably other technology we do not currently possess.
- epistasis 3y ago
  > Fusion on the other hand makes total sense if you can do it. It's just a really really really hard engineering problem. You could also say that space based solar makes total sense "if you can do it, it's just a really hard engineering problem" For fusion, the equivalent envelope calculation is the cost of a large thermal electricity generation installation, where the heat source is, say, half the cost of fission or even a tenth the cost of fission. The floor of fusion's end cost is that thermodynamic conversion, if the promos of fusion is super cheap heat energy. And when you start calculating the cost of 2GW of turbines plus 2GW of cooling towers, one might conclude that there's only a decade or two left before solar and wind and storage makes thermal electricity generation obsolete. Thermal electricity generation equipment isn't getting any cheaper, but the competition is getting cheaper exponentially. I would say that fusion is prettt close to a scam as a power source. There may be some cool physics and should be pursued for those reasons. But the idea of fusion as any sort of economical source of energy, when it has all the radioactivity problems of fission, massive scale challenges, and no reason to think that it will ever be anything except massive construction project, is just wishful sci fi thinking. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but "solar roads for sci fi fans" really is the shortest possible description of fusion power I can think of.
  - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
    > You could also say that space based solar makes total sense "if you can do it, it's just a really hard engineering problem" The thing is that while they are both really hard engineering problems, space solar (which includes energy transmission via lasers) is also a massive ongoing logistics and coordination problem. Solar power without wireless transmission makes a lot of sense the closer you get to the sun and in the inner solar system it almost certainly makes more sense than fusion but once you get to the asteroid belt or further out, inverse square law would suggest that it quickly becomes infeasible.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "solar roads for sci fi fans" Solar roads are expensive and worked out economocially nowhere, where they were build. Unless you mean roads that have roofs of solar panels - that is a sound concept, because you can have standard cheap panels and replace them at will, but is not what is generally understood with solar roads. Also about fusion: "when it has all the radioactivity problems of fission" Not at all the same. What exactly are you referring to? Fission with heavy isotopes has radioactivity by design - but Fusion not really. There is some radiation with some designs, but the basic idea of fusing hydrogen into helium works without radioactivity. "massive scale challenges" And where exactly are they? Once a small reactor runs, what is the problem to build a big one? "and no reason to think that it will ever be anything except massive construction project" Because fusion bombs work since 70 years. And fusion in labs are not hard either. We can do fusion - we just cannot do it in a controlled way yet. But recent records with controlling hot plasma indicate that there is real progress. So (allmost) no one is currently betting that we will soon have fusion power, but at some point we will, if we keep on working.
WJW 3y ago
Trick question! Space based solar derives all its energy from fusion anyway.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  lol then so does all solar terrestrially
  - weregiraffe 3y ago
    And so does terrestrial wind, hydro, coal, oil and gas. All ultimately came from the sun. Only uranium proudly stands apart.
    - 0wis 3y ago
      And uranium also comes from nuclear reactions before/outside our planet. In the end, we only use current or stored production of nuclear cosmic energy coming from E=mc2 isn't it ? https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/the-cosmic-origins-of-uranium.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
      - weregiraffe 3y ago
        Hmm.... tidal power comes from the Moon gravity interacting with Earth. And the Moon was created as a result of an impact of Earth by a large mass early in Solar System's history. So ultimately it is derived from the potential energy of the cloud of gas that coalesced to create Solar System, and not from any fusion or fission inside Sun or other stars.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        The energy of uranium is ultimately sourced from gravitational potential energy (of collapsing stellar cores or merging neutron stars), not from nuclear energy. Indeed, the process of converting the iron of a pre-collapse stellar core to uranium is highly endothermic from a nuclear perspective, as iron is the lowest energy state of nuclear matter.

Fusion obviously. It only takes a simple back of the envelope calculation to show that space based power makes no sense even in theory. Fusion on the other hand makes total sense if you can do it. It's just a really really really hard engineering problem. Space based power belongs in the same category as solar roadways, energy harvesting speed bumps, solar windows, etc. Clearly if you want to scam investors an energy project is the way to go.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"It only takes a simple back of the envelope calculation to show that space based power makes no sense even in theory." That would be my gut feeling, but what simple calculation would you use to disproof it? Fusion is currently not working at all - but we can transmit power (with big losses over that distance) via laser etc. But since space is expensive, I just see no way to make this work economically.
- practicemaths 3y ago
  People were saying the same thing about terrestrial solar for decades. Both fundamentally are engineering problems now. Also considering that there has been a lot of investment in space launch vehicles of late the cost to lift things into orbit are lowering. Technology takes a while to develop and mature with applications for this beyond just beaming power to Earth.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "Also considering that there has been a lot of investment in space launch vehicles of late the cost to lift things into orbit are lowering." Yes, but the cost of installing solar panels on the ground are astronomically cheaper than anything you can do in space and I do not see the gap closing in the near future, even with breakthroughs. Rather the contrary, we still have lots of cheap unused land (deserts). And solar panels are getting cheaper every day. Having a space based laser/power beam sounds cool - but complicated and expensive.
    - practicemaths 3y ago
      The applications for this are well beyond Earth. Additionally there was a lot more useful testing of various related aspects in this beyond just beaming power to Earth per the article.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        Oh the technology per se is definitely something amazing, that warrants more research. I was just referring to this question of the thread, of can this be a useful energy source for the earth in the near future? And I think no. Rather fusion, even though that will likely take some more decades at least. But a breakthrough with fusion seems possible, but I cannot think of a breakthrough with space beams, that can ignore the atmosphere, or gravity (the main constraints).
        practicemaths 3y ago
        Fair enough. Near future, I agree it's hard to imagine available resources for this outpacing available resources for fusion. Though fusion does have some more difficult technical engineering issues than SBS. By that I mean, as far I know, we have a decent understanding of what materials we would need and how to utilize said material for space based solar. While with fusion we are close to self sustainings reactions, we still lack understanding on containing the reaction itself for it to be feasible. That is, understanding the magnetic fluctuations around the plasma reaction and having material to housing it for extended periods of time. Of course with computing simulations becoming increasingly more accurate and powerful, those technical hurdles may not be as stringent as we see them today.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  I think the biggest problem is that the ground based receiving array is going to be so large you could have just installed solar panels in the same location. 24 hour power generation is nice, but the economics of batteries + ground based solar seems more likely to triumph. Edit: If you assume a ground based array has a 20% utilization factor, the space based panels + receivers can only be 5x the cost of the standard solar installation. Which requires ~free space launches, plus probably other technology we do not currently possess.
epistasis 3y ago
> Fusion on the other hand makes total sense if you can do it. It's just a really really really hard engineering problem. You could also say that space based solar makes total sense "if you can do it, it's just a really hard engineering problem" For fusion, the equivalent envelope calculation is the cost of a large thermal electricity generation installation, where the heat source is, say, half the cost of fission or even a tenth the cost of fission. The floor of fusion's end cost is that thermodynamic conversion, if the promos of fusion is super cheap heat energy. And when you start calculating the cost of 2GW of turbines plus 2GW of cooling towers, one might conclude that there's only a decade or two left before solar and wind and storage makes thermal electricity generation obsolete. Thermal electricity generation equipment isn't getting any cheaper, but the competition is getting cheaper exponentially. I would say that fusion is prettt close to a scam as a power source. There may be some cool physics and should be pursued for those reasons. But the idea of fusion as any sort of economical source of energy, when it has all the radioactivity problems of fission, massive scale challenges, and no reason to think that it will ever be anything except massive construction project, is just wishful sci fi thinking. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but "solar roads for sci fi fans" really is the shortest possible description of fusion power I can think of.
- CuriousCosmic 3y ago
  > You could also say that space based solar makes total sense "if you can do it, it's just a really hard engineering problem" The thing is that while they are both really hard engineering problems, space solar (which includes energy transmission via lasers) is also a massive ongoing logistics and coordination problem. Solar power without wireless transmission makes a lot of sense the closer you get to the sun and in the inner solar system it almost certainly makes more sense than fusion but once you get to the asteroid belt or further out, inverse square law would suggest that it quickly becomes infeasible.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "solar roads for sci fi fans" Solar roads are expensive and worked out economocially nowhere, where they were build. Unless you mean roads that have roofs of solar panels - that is a sound concept, because you can have standard cheap panels and replace them at will, but is not what is generally understood with solar roads. Also about fusion: "when it has all the radioactivity problems of fission" Not at all the same. What exactly are you referring to? Fission with heavy isotopes has radioactivity by design - but Fusion not really. There is some radiation with some designs, but the basic idea of fusing hydrogen into helium works without radioactivity. "massive scale challenges" And where exactly are they? Once a small reactor runs, what is the problem to build a big one? "and no reason to think that it will ever be anything except massive construction project" Because fusion bombs work since 70 years. And fusion in labs are not hard either. We can do fusion - we just cannot do it in a controlled way yet. But recent records with controlling hot plasma indicate that there is real progress. So (allmost) no one is currently betting that we will soon have fusion power, but at some point we will, if we keep on working.

WJW 3y ago

Trick question! Space based solar derives all its energy from fusion anyway.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yieldcrv 3y ago
lol then so does all solar terrestrially
- weregiraffe 3y ago
  And so does terrestrial wind, hydro, coal, oil and gas. All ultimately came from the sun. Only uranium proudly stands apart.
  - 0wis 3y ago
    And uranium also comes from nuclear reactions before/outside our planet. In the end, we only use current or stored production of nuclear cosmic energy coming from E=mc2 isn't it ? https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/the-cosmic-origins-of-uranium.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
    - weregiraffe 3y ago
      Hmm.... tidal power comes from the Moon gravity interacting with Earth. And the Moon was created as a result of an impact of Earth by a large mass early in Solar System's history. So ultimately it is derived from the potential energy of the cloud of gas that coalesced to create Solar System, and not from any fusion or fission inside Sun or other stars.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      The energy of uranium is ultimately sourced from gravitational potential energy (of collapsing stellar cores or merging neutron stars), not from nuclear energy. Indeed, the process of converting the iron of a pre-collapse stellar core to uranium is highly endothermic from a nuclear perspective, as iron is the lowest energy state of nuclear matter.