3 ms·

Yup, the big advantage the article cites for space based power is 24/7 availability vs the daily cycle on the ground, but that is so easily solved by batteries

by toss1 2y ago

Yup, the big advantage the article cites for space based power is 24/7 availability vs the daily cycle on the ground, but that is so easily solved by batteries which are also on a rapidly declining cost curve. While I tend to like space-based ideas (just cool tech problems!), it seems that by the time this is really viable the problem will have been well-solved on the ground?

m463 2y ago
Especially the 1 km square receiving grid. They say the energy would be like standing in the sun. I'll bet there is more to it than that, like cancer or radio interference or other unknown nonsense. But... wonder what a solar array 1km square would receive from the sun itself? Honestly, I'm reminded of moving across states. When I went to move, every pound of stuff had a price, like .50/lb. So I could figure out if something was worthwhile to move. If something weighed 200 lbs, it had to be worth $100 just to break even. In the same way, how much energy would we expend to get those solar panels into orbit, and how much would the receiving array cost to build in time + real estate. Would it break even compared to expending the same amount of money on the ground? like if launching an array into orbit + ground station was $10b dollars, how much ground-based solar could you get for $10b dollars. And with batteries? I'll bet the economics of ground-based is pretty good.
ianburrell 2y ago
Space solar has the same problem as other base load power as not being economic unless they run all day. Ground solar and wind can cover the day and much of the night. Battery storage can cover the night. There will be need for long-term storage for days when there is no wind and solar. But space solar would be uneconomic to leave idle. Easier to build long-term storage system, or build interconnects and more wind and solar.

by toss1 2y ago

m463 2y ago

Especially the 1 km square receiving grid. They say the energy would be like standing in the sun. I'll bet there is more to it than that, like cancer or radio interference or other unknown nonsense. But... wonder what a solar array 1km square would receive from the sun itself? Honestly, I'm reminded of moving across states. When I went to move, every pound of stuff had a price, like .50/lb. So I could figure out if something was worthwhile to move. If something weighed 200 lbs, it had to be worth $100 just to break even. In the same way, how much energy would we expend to get those solar panels into orbit, and how much would the receiving array cost to build in time + real estate. Would it break even compared to expending the same amount of money on the ground? like if launching an array into orbit + ground station was $10b dollars, how much ground-based solar could you get for $10b dollars. And with batteries? I'll bet the economics of ground-based is pretty good.

ianburrell 2y ago

Space solar has the same problem as other base load power as not being economic unless they run all day. Ground solar and wind can cover the day and much of the night. Battery storage can cover the night. There will be need for long-term storage for days when there is no wind and solar. But space solar would be uneconomic to leave idle. Easier to build long-term storage system, or build interconnects and more wind and solar.