Power plant in space by 2035

[Mark Kaine]

14 minutes ago, tikker said:

Yes, just microwaves. The physics behind it (accelerated charged particles create radiation) works both ways: you can use power to generate radiation and you can use that radiation to generate power and a transmitter is just a receiver "in reverse" (and vice versa). As for the physics: in case of a transmitter, an AC current will constantly accelerate the electrons, due to which they start radiating at some frequency. In case of a receiver the opposite happens. Incoming radiation accelerates the electrons and induces a current.

ok that's too complicated/ abstract for me ...

So we have electrons... 

 

i guess it goes like this 

 

photovoltaic "thing" > electrons > "some sort of device that beams these electrons to a receiver,  but its not electrons its "microwaves" now" > profit

 

 

now the question is what kind of device is that?

 

and how do electrons get transformed to microwaves or do they just change names for no reason ?

or are microwaves just used as a carrier wave for the electrons?

 

and wind, storms, planes,  etc do not stop the microwaves (that one gives me the biggest pause tbh lol)

[IPD]

On 5/13/2022 at 11:05 PM, LWM723 said:

You can't "beam electricity". Maybe a long extension cord.

Nikolai Tesla would like a word with you.

[tikker]

49 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

ok that's too complicated/ abstract for me ...

So we have electrons... 

 

i guess it goes like this 

 

photovoltaic "thing" > electrons > "some sort of device that beams these electrons to a receiver,  but its not electrons its "microwaves" now" > profit

 

 

now the question is what kind of device is that?

 

and how do electrons get transformed to microwaves or do they just change names for no reason ?

or are microwaves just used as a carrier wave for the electrons?

 

and wind, storms, planes,  etc do not stop the microwaves (that one gives me the biggest pause tbh lol)

No electrons are beamed across or transformed into microwaves. Assuming the "radio style" of transmission, the device that does this is an antenna or dish with an antenna (for more preciseness and better aiming), just like cell towers, radio antennas, radar antennas etc.

 

In physics an accelerated charge will emit EM radiation. Acceleration is a change in velocity, so if an electron is speeding up, slowing down, or moving in a circular motion, for example, it is accelerated and hence will emit radiation. I like this example: https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/cheerpj/radio-waves/latest/radio-waves.html?simulation=radio-waves (takes a while to load) to illustrate that it's the accelerating electron creating an EM wave and at the other end that wave accelerating an electron, thus inducing a current.

[jagdtigger]

12 hours ago, CarlBar said:

you want an orbit that is almost never obscured from the sun by the earth

Unless you build a global network of receiving dishes (and plan for frequent re-fuel of the satellite from all the re-positioning it has to do) you want geostationary orbit. Which means it will be covered up by the earth quite often....

[jos]

There will be a lot of energy that is not intended for earth that will be transmitted to earth. Energy can't be destroyed. So my confusion is what will be the impact of this excess energy on environment.

[wanderingfool2]

On 5/15/2022 at 3:03 AM, mr moose said:

And to think we could still improve those numbers by building a nuclear plant instead of a wind farm. 

Yes and no. I do like nuclear as an option, but the more I do learn about it I don't think Uranium nuclear power plants are the way to go.  Overall I think they are safe, but an overlooked topic is how much fuel do we realistically have for nuclear.  Sure, if we developed Thorium reactors and proved they are safe and reliable I'm all for it but aside from China I don't recall any other countries trying to develop that technology.

 

As the sources of uranium start getting to be depleted people have to shift towards less concentrated ore extraction....so now you end up having the cost for nuclear power skyrocketing.  Overall we need to come up with a better fuel or energy production than Uranium plants, as it will just create a crisis in like 100 years otherwise.

 

 

Honestly though, I get wanting to put solar panels in space (no cleaning, consistent light, etc) but at only 13 times better than a panel on Earth I don't think that it's going to work out.  We would be better off having buildings being mandated to have solar on their roof; from there we can start working on other storage technologies.  Imagine if people had powerwalls and solar; I'd imagine the grid itself would be a lot less stressed. 

 

 

[jagdtigger]

10 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

t will just create a crisis in like 100 years otherwise.

Even if thats true its stil 100 years of stable energy supply, that means we can redirect funds and resources from unstable supplies to developing the successor of uranium reactors.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Even if thats true its stil 100 years of stable energy supply, that means we can redirect funds and resources from unstable supplies to developing the successor of uranium reactors.

If there is a choice between Wind/Solar vs Nuclear at the moment I would lean towards solar if it's feasible.  The more investment that goes into it, the more the pricing can be reduced.  Solar is rated to last 25 years (Samsung at 80% of max), so even after that 25-50 years it still is producing power from 60-80% of the original.  If you use Lithium iron phosphate batteries which can cycle up to 10k times, even at a cycle a day you are looking at a 27 year lifespan (at which point it can be recycled).

 

There is less incentive then to build out nuclear, as what we have now is Uranium reactors.  Could be wrong, but I thought Thorium reactors aren't even allowed being studied in the US (as in building test reactors).  So overall, pumping money into nuclear I don't think is necessarily an option (unless they pump it into the development of reactors that actually have enough fuel for thousands of years...which would be Thorium).

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

lean towards solar if it's feasible

Thats my point, it is not feasible. Factoring in the stupidly expensive energy storage solutions a npp is more economical both in terms of money and pollution.

Edited May 19, 2022 by jagdtigger

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

Theoretically space energy works. They use microwaves because they are less absorbed by the atmosphere, but there is a lot of complexity involved.

1. You need to send in space an enormous amount of reflectors
2. You need to send in space humongous concentration stations
3. You need receiving stations on the ground to convert mircowave beams into useable energy

Advantage is that (once fully deployed) you get energy night and day if you are clever with the reflectors and concentration station positioning.

Disadvantage is that the collectors/ground station pair are centralized points of failure and it is that it's very expensive to send mass in orbit, even more expensive to get to geostationary orbit. It's a monumental investment. I'm not sure it's cheaper than using ground based solar energy coupled with lots of batteries.

 

I do not think space energy has any chances of supplying any meaningful amount of power soon enough to mitigate climate change. It's an endevour that should receive founding and be explored to be of use later this century, it would recude the amount of batteries we need to recycle eventually.

[mr moose]

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yes and no. I do like nuclear as an option, but the more I do learn about it I don't think Uranium nuclear power plants are the way to go. 

The premise I have is this;   if climate change requires immediate and major action, then Uranium is the only current solution that fits the bill.  If people aren't considering it then climate change isn't the immediate issue it's made out to be.   We can easily shift away from nuclear when other options become workable, but we keep getting told we don't have time.  It seems like a bit of a dud argument against nuclear.

 

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Overall I think they are safe, but an overlooked topic is how much fuel do we realistically have for nuclear.

 

Last I read the conservative figures was something like 230 years.  If we haven;t developed better energy tech in  that time we do not have what it takes to avoid extinction.

 

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

  Sure, if we developed Thorium reactors and proved they are safe and reliable I'm all for it but aside from China I don't recall any other countries trying to develop that technology.

Me too.

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

As the sources of uranium start getting to be depleted people have to shift towards less concentrated ore extraction....so now you end up having the cost for nuclear power skyrocketing.  Overall we need to come up with a better fuel or energy production than Uranium plants, as it will just create a crisis in like 100 years otherwise.

 

As I said earlier, I believe the amount required for the next 230 years is easily mined and not really a problem.   If they work out how to mine the sea and upgrade to fast breeder reactor then upto 300K years.

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

Honestly though, I get wanting to put solar panels in space (no cleaning, consistent light, etc) but at only 13 times better than a panel on Earth I don't think that it's going to work out.  We would be better off having buildings being mandated to have solar on their roof; from there we can start working on other storage technologies.  Imagine if people had powerwalls and solar; I'd imagine the grid itself would be a lot less stressed. 

 

 

So long as we are honest about the environmental impacts of solar versus centralized nuclear generation.    II have panels on my house, but I am in no way convinced they make that much of a difference when all things are considered.

[MageTank]

On 5/13/2022 at 11:55 PM, Forbidden Wafer said:

I'm in favor of shooting down any attempts of building death rays in the space. 

I disagree. I say we aim this directly at Florida and let nature take its course. Nothing short of a high-powered space laser is going to be powerful enough to put an end to Florida Man.

[IPD]

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

I disagree. I say we aim this directly at Florida and let nature take its course. Nothing short of a high-powered space laser is going to be powerful enough to put an end to Florida Man.

Typical.  Hate the state whose dirty laundry is in the open.  Pay no attention to the states where you can't go a city block without passing a dozen needles or piles of human feces.

[Fnige]

4 hours ago, IPD said:

Typical.  Hate the state whose dirty laundry is in the open.  Pay no attention to the states where you can't go a city block without passing a dozen needles or piles of human feces.

Ah landfills, yeah it could be aimed at Orange County landfill instead

[Azryu]

Anyone who's seen 'Die Another Day' knows this is a bad idea

[wanderingfool2]

21 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Thats my point, it is not feasible. Factoring in the stupidly expensive energy storage solutions a npp is more economical both in terms of money and pollution.

It's more than feasible, and solar pays for itself in about 10-25 years (depending where you live) and after that it's profits.

 

Current costs of building a npp have the cost per kWh to actually be above the cost per kWh for solar [Apparently 25 year life span averages $0.06/kWh solar...modern npp is estimated lifetime cost to be $0.17/kWh).  Solar also has lower carbon emissions over the lifetime as well vs npp (not by much though and depending where it's sourced from)

 

Overall, the economies of scale can start factoring in for solar.

 

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

The premise I have is this;   if climate change requires immediate and major action, then Uranium is the only current solution that fits the bill

The issue is is that it takes 5 years to build a nuclear power plant (and even more when it comes to all the politics involved in it).  So it's not exactly something that would fit the bill for short time needs.

 

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

Last I read the conservative figures was something like 230 years.  If we haven;t developed better energy tech in  that time we do not have what it takes to avoid extinction.

Well there is a key though, there is the 230 year number...but at what cost.  If it starts to cost like 2 - 3 times for the material cost then nuclear starts becoming quite pricey.

 

The US makes up for 30% of total nuclear in the world, but in the US only 19% is nuclear.  If lets say you replaced every single natural gas and coal plant with nuclear, you about 3.15x the amount.  So nearly double the world usage.  That would mean the 230 year estimate drops down to 115 years.  If China converted over to nuclear then the number drops to 50 years I think.  At which point though the prices will be sky high.

 

Ultimately I think we need to diversify into multiple sources, because nuclear isn't enough to save use (in its current state)...and nor is solar.

 

With that said, I don't see the space power plant going anywhere.  Even if their claim was something like 50x more energy than conventional, the fact is launching things into space is still absurdly costly per kg.

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

So long as we are honest about the environmental impacts of solar versus centralized nuclear generation.    II have panels on my house, but I am in no way convinced they make that much of a difference when all things are considered.

If you are in an area that is serviced by hydro or nuclear, then no.  Otherwise, yes.  When battery walls become more of a thing though, it should help out a lot more...because it helps with grid stabilization.

[jagdtigger]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Current costs of building a npp have the cost per kWh to actually be above the cost per kWh for solar [Apparently 25 year life span averages $0.06/kWh solar...modern npp is estimated lifetime cost to be $0.17/kWh).  Solar also has lower carbon emissions over the lifetime as well vs npp (not by much though and depending where it's sourced from)

Factre in the energy storage costs for solar, until then this is apple vs orange.

Edited May 20, 2022 by jagdtigger

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's more than feasible, and solar pays for itself in about 10-25 years (depending where you live) and after that it's profits.

 

Current costs of building a npp have the cost per kWh to actually be above the cost per kWh for solar [Apparently 25 year life span averages $0.06/kWh solar...modern npp is estimated lifetime cost to be $0.17/kWh).  Solar also has lower carbon emissions over the lifetime as well vs npp (not by much though and depending where it's sourced from)

 

Overall, the economies of scale can start factoring in for solar.

 

The issue is is that it takes 5 years to build a nuclear power plant (and even more when it comes to all the politics involved in it).  So it's not exactly something that would fit the bill for short time needs.

 

Well there is a key though, there is the 230 year number...but at what cost.  If it starts to cost like 2 - 3 times for the material cost then nuclear starts becoming quite pricey.

 

The US makes up for 30% of total nuclear in the world, but in the US only 19% is nuclear.  If lets say you replaced every single natural gas and coal plant with nuclear, you about 3.15x the amount.  So nearly double the world usage.  That would mean the 230 year estimate drops down to 115 years.  If China converted over to nuclear then the number drops to 50 years I think.  At which point though the prices will be sky high.

 

Ultimately I think we need to diversify into multiple sources, because nuclear isn't enough to save use (in its current state)...and nor is solar.

 

With that said, I don't see the space power plant going anywhere.  Even if their claim was something like 50x more energy than conventional, the fact is launching things into space is still absurdly costly per kg.

If you are in an area that is serviced by hydro or nuclear, then no.  Otherwise, yes.  When battery walls become more of a thing though, it should help out a lot more...because it helps with grid stabilization.

The problem is there isn't enough viable lithium resources to make solar or wind a viable option beyond what it currently is, maybe a bit better than what it is.  The world however could go nuclear in 5 years and support itself power wise for the next 50 years giving solar and wind (plus other technologies) a chance to actually become viable. 

 

I also don't factor cost into the equation,   people argue the cost of green power is worth it because it "saves the environment".   Therefore the same argument can be applied to nuclear.  

[MageTank]

16 hours ago, IPD said:

Typical.  Hate the state whose dirty laundry is in the open.  Pay no attention to the states where you can't go a city block without passing a dozen needles or piles of human feces.

Oh if the laser can be moved that far, I am not opposed to taking out California while we are at it. Not for the reasons you mentioned, but because Hollywood is too powerful and needs to be stopped. That said, I don't think we will need a laser to do that. If everyone gathers near the fault and jumps at the same time, we might be able to kickstart mother nature and let her do it for us.

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Factre in the energy storage costs for solar, until then this is apple vs orange.

There are already multiple places where just having battery packs on a home can already pay off itself (charging at the lower price and then either selling or using it up during the peak). iirc the megapack in Australia already have recuperated their installation costs.

 

I mean even a name brand Tesla powerwall costs about $10,000.  Which means even in the worst case scenario where you do replace the pack as well you are talking about $0.18 / kWh...and this is literally the assuming a worst case scenario.  Not every household will need a full powerwall, and there will be large scale plants built (which have a bit more economy of scales)

 

There also is the selling back to the grid option that many places do have, so the energy storage costs mean a bit less there.

 

The tl;dr if the plant already exists then yea nuclear, if it needs to be built the current pricing you are better pumping money into facilities to make panels/power packs.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

The problem is there isn't enough viable lithium resources to make solar or wind a viable option beyond what it currently is, maybe a bit better than what it is.  The world however could go nuclear in 5 years and support itself power wise for the next 50 years giving solar and wind (plus other technologies) a chance to actually become viable. 

There's plenty of lithium, just not really being mined.  If you are talking about issues mining them, then the same pitfall happens with nuclear as well.  Mining of uranium would become a pinch point (which gets back to Thorium, as it's pretty much currently a waste product so dirt cheap and amply abundant).  Kazakhstan produces 41% of uranium apparently, and hasn't increased production in years.  So to fulfill the demand lots of mines still would need to be opened.

 

There's actually a ton of lithium throughout the world, we just don't really mine it (due to environmental concerns).  There have already been proposed enhancements of mining with less environmental concerns but an issue is is that there hasn't been much incentive in the past to do it.  Mining operations though can take 5 years to get to scale, so if there truly was a push to go green it could be achieved.  There are also large scale batteries that are starting to get funding (which don't rely on lithium)...e.g. large scale hydrogen (I think it was 80% efficient for the scale plant).

 

There's already a 73 million ton reserve of lithium discovered.  With the US having about 7 million of that (although this was from 2020 before more exploration, and apparently that number has changed...since the % has dropped from 10% to 4%...but still lets assume 7 million).  Australia has actually less than the US, yet produces 42,000 tons (150 years before depletion)...enough for 2.4 million homes with current lithium tech (conservative, more realistic being 5 million).  Instead of nuclear if they focused on lithium extraction, solar can become a lot more viable.  So if the US matched Australia and they both doubled production you could outfit all the US within 7 years with enough lithium to maintain during no light output value.

 

This is also ignoring that you could have stored energy solutions, like hydro batteries.

 

If there was a drive for things, I'd bet that solar and wind could be scaled with energy storage as well.

[wseaton]

Photovoltaic in space is a solution in search of a problem. All it does is move the distribution problem to LEO vs earth. We need more decentralized power generation....not more centralization. 

 

You dont need expensive panels anyways. Space tethers can pull in huge amounts of electricity literally just floating in orbit.

 

The nuclear option is the only way I see out of this hole. We need to stop building reactors based on cold war light water designs linked heavily with weapons grade fissile production. 

 

Power companies are increasingly hostile towards residential solar surplus. I dont see that making a dent in the problem.

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, wseaton said:

Photovoltaic in space is a solution in search of a problem. All it does is move the distribution problem to LEO vs earth. We need more decentralized power generation....not more centralization. 

 

You dont need expensive panels anyways. Space tethers can pull in huge amounts of electricity literally just floating in orbit.

 

The nuclear option is the only way I see out of this hole. We need to stop building reactors based on cold war light water designs linked heavily with weapons grade fissile production. 

 

Power companies are increasingly hostile towards residential solar surplus. I dont see that making a dent in the problem.

Nuclear would be considered a centralized source, just as an fyi.

 

Admittedly panels in space would make more sense if the cost to orbit wasn't insanely high (and there wasn't the issue that you can't really send that much power without toasting some birds that fly in the beamed path.  (Although I guess given a large enough beam it might actually make the energy not really lethal).  Either way, with current space technology it wouldn't be profitable.

 

To prevent power companies being hostile, laws need to be in place.  Here in BC there is only one power company owned by the government...so they could pretty much do what they want.  If the government wishes to, they could make solar on houses a very viable option.  They could even instruct new buildings having a mandate to have a certain amount of solar...which makes it a lot more attractive of an option because installing solar while the roof is being built can really reduce the cost of solar.

 

As an fyi as well...with nuclear being the only way...that puts too much eggs all in one basket.  As a note as well, all nuclear power plant designs can be used to make weapon grade bombs...even Thorium reactors (with a bit of modification)

[jagdtigger]

36 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

As an fyi as well...with nuclear being the only way...that puts too much eggs all in one basket. 

A basket that is down here on earth and costs less to maintain. Also has a very stable output and ATM unparalleled energy density. Also this plan could also be turned into a weapon, watch Fortress 2: Re-Entry.....

[wanderingfool2]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

A basket that is down here on earth and costs less to maintain. Also has a very stable output and ATM unparalleled energy density. Also this plan could also be turned into a weapon, watch Fortress 2: Re-Entry.....

Ignoring the fact that I said it's impractical for this approach?  There are more than the 2 solutions, it can't be space solar and nuclear.  (More like, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear as all options).  Also, energy based weapons like that would be a lot less feasible than converting a nuclear reactor into weapon grade.

 

Also, ignoring the launch cost elephant in the room, solar in space would cost less to maintain.  No cleaning required, as there is no dust.  Even now solar is cheaper than nuclear...where nuclear has the density solved (but that in itself would go against the decentralized concept of power which the poster was talking about).

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

gnoring the fact that I said it's impractical for this approach?

Didnt wanted to quote the whole thing, the main part of my comment was the 2nd and 3rd sentence.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There are more than the 2 solutions, it can't be space solar and nuclear.  (More like, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear as all options). 

As i said before, compared to nuclear those are unstable and more expensive. (Weather is unpredictable and thus their output.) From a practical standpoint those should be ignored, build reactors in safe places and use the surplus funds to develop their successor.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

solar in space would cost less to maintain.  No cleaning required, as there is no dust.

That is highly questionable, at some pint you will have to send someone up and there goes all of the "savings". A fragile structure up in space exposed to high levels of radiation and high-speed objects doesnt spell "less expensive" maintenance....