3 ms·

I think there probably is an actual niche for space-based solar, depending on how retarget-able it is. Imagine being able to beam 24/7 power to remote mining or

I think there probably is an actual niche for space-based solar, depending on how retarget-able it is. Imagine being able to beam 24/7 power to remote mining or military installations, or if you could really steer it, beaming it the receiving station with the highest power prices. If it's competing with diesel that needs to be flown in (or trucked through hazardous terrain), it would be much easier for it to be competitive.

czbond 2y ago
Good counter points, thanks for sharing those.
idontwantthis 2y ago
So you would build a solar array in space at enormous cost and then need to truck or fly in a receiver, and build it. Versus trucking and building a solar plant with batteries on site. I still don’t think that it’s ever going to make sense.
- feoren 2y ago
  Have you seen an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for a new mine in pristine wilderness? They take tens of millions of dollars and the better part of a decade. Mining companies would throw money at you if you could turn "ship in and burn a bunch of diesel on-site" or "clear 200 acres of wilderness for solar panels" into "build a small collector on-site one time" in their EIS. That being said, there aren't that many new mine sites going up in the world. I suspect we could get collectors pretty small and efficient if they were optimized.
  - jandrese 2y ago
    I'm skeptical. How much of that EIS cost is the generators? Diesel is well understood, reliable, and in the grand scheme of thing shipping it in isn't that big of a hassle. Obviously if you are mining something you already need to have shipping concerned worked out. You aren't flying ore out by helicopter. Getting Diesel delivered for your generators will be more expensive than your local gas station, but it's hard to imagine a space solar solution ever being competitive given that you need to build a constellation of the things, launch them into space, and then maintain the array and the ground stations. You also have to convince the mining company that not only will your brand new technology be reliable, but that your business model is sound enough that you won't be out of business a couple of years into their mining operation. The idea that the company will be doing revenue service in 2 years is complete hogwash. This reeks of investor scam. They would have to be launching prototypes 5 years ago for this to even be in the realm of reason. Finally: How in the world is the EIS going to be any easier for "we intend to hit one spot on Earth with intense microwave radiation for years on end"? I feel like that is going to raise a lot of flags over at the environmental regulator's office.
    - feoren 2y ago
      > it's hard to imagine a space solar solution ever being competitive given that you need to build a constellation of the things, launch them into space Someone has to do that, once. Yes, that company will need to sell their offering to many different clients over a long time to recoup those costs. One single mining site is not covering the cost of the initial space deployment, obviously. > The idea that the company will be doing revenue service in 2 years is complete hogwash. This reeks of investor scam. Well I certainly agree with that. I'm not defending this particular company. > How in the world is the EIS going to be any easier for "we intend to hit one spot on Earth with intense microwave radiation for years on end"? Compared with "we're going to do a billion small explosions of fossil fuels and emit the combustion byproducts into the air for years on end?" All you've done is write a scary-sounding description. Plenty of things that sound scary end up being safe in the end. It doesn't take much imagination to see a possibility that this technology could easily be the best option for delivering power to a highly protected area. Literally any technology sounds ridiculous if you describe it like that. "You wish to sail a ship up stream by lighting a fire under its decks, I have no time for such nonsense." - Napoleon Bonaparte on the use of ironclads
exe34 2y ago
would be a pretty cool weapon, you could melt the Kremlin and blow up every missile that make it past launch.

czbond 2y ago

Good counter points, thanks for sharing those.

idontwantthis 2y ago

So you would build a solar array in space at enormous cost and then need to truck or fly in a receiver, and build it. Versus trucking and building a solar plant with batteries on site. I still don’t think that it’s ever going to make sense.

feoren 2y ago
Have you seen an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for a new mine in pristine wilderness? They take tens of millions of dollars and the better part of a decade. Mining companies would throw money at you if you could turn "ship in and burn a bunch of diesel on-site" or "clear 200 acres of wilderness for solar panels" into "build a small collector on-site one time" in their EIS. That being said, there aren't that many new mine sites going up in the world. I suspect we could get collectors pretty small and efficient if they were optimized.
- jandrese 2y ago
  I'm skeptical. How much of that EIS cost is the generators? Diesel is well understood, reliable, and in the grand scheme of thing shipping it in isn't that big of a hassle. Obviously if you are mining something you already need to have shipping concerned worked out. You aren't flying ore out by helicopter. Getting Diesel delivered for your generators will be more expensive than your local gas station, but it's hard to imagine a space solar solution ever being competitive given that you need to build a constellation of the things, launch them into space, and then maintain the array and the ground stations. You also have to convince the mining company that not only will your brand new technology be reliable, but that your business model is sound enough that you won't be out of business a couple of years into their mining operation. The idea that the company will be doing revenue service in 2 years is complete hogwash. This reeks of investor scam. They would have to be launching prototypes 5 years ago for this to even be in the realm of reason. Finally: How in the world is the EIS going to be any easier for "we intend to hit one spot on Earth with intense microwave radiation for years on end"? I feel like that is going to raise a lot of flags over at the environmental regulator's office.
  - feoren 2y ago
    > it's hard to imagine a space solar solution ever being competitive given that you need to build a constellation of the things, launch them into space Someone has to do that, once. Yes, that company will need to sell their offering to many different clients over a long time to recoup those costs. One single mining site is not covering the cost of the initial space deployment, obviously. > The idea that the company will be doing revenue service in 2 years is complete hogwash. This reeks of investor scam. Well I certainly agree with that. I'm not defending this particular company. > How in the world is the EIS going to be any easier for "we intend to hit one spot on Earth with intense microwave radiation for years on end"? Compared with "we're going to do a billion small explosions of fossil fuels and emit the combustion byproducts into the air for years on end?" All you've done is write a scary-sounding description. Plenty of things that sound scary end up being safe in the end. It doesn't take much imagination to see a possibility that this technology could easily be the best option for delivering power to a highly protected area. Literally any technology sounds ridiculous if you describe it like that. "You wish to sail a ship up stream by lighting a fire under its decks, I have no time for such nonsense." - Napoleon Bonaparte on the use of ironclads

exe34 2y ago

would be a pretty cool weapon, you could melt the Kremlin and blow up every missile that make it past launch.