Like the "Microwave Energy" power plant from SimCity 2000, that beams down energy from space, but sometimes the beam strays and fries part of your city
The specific Isaac Asimov story referenced here is Reason. It's a short story, contained in I, Robot. Note: I, Robot is nothing like the movie, and is instead a collection of somewhat interconnected short stories. It's very good, go read it!
@@brtuh5865 - Towards the end of his life, he wrote several bridge novels that connected the Robot novels, the Settler novellas, and Foundation into a single Future History. It is truly amazing.
Thank you for this comment, and to those who relied with additional input - I have been umming and ahhing over where to start with Asimov and somewhat put off with the popular perception of I Robot, so thanks to all of you I will give it a go. As a lifelong nerd I feel incomplete without a dive into one of the revered masters of SciFi.
And oddly enough, even though he did not come up with the concept Sci Fi writer Arthur C Clarke popularized geosynchronous orbits in a paper..hence the term Clarke Orbits….science fiction writers still helping to forge our future.
@@Alex-qx7jn Ahem. SimCity 2000 and 3000 has Microwave Powerplants, which used orbiting satellites to gather solar energy in orbit and project energy into the station's dish. Miss, and the ground burns from received energy.
Yep. And to work the would probably need some kind of ground control to update aim. How secure would that be to hackers? Especially state supported ones?
"Today's power shortage's been caused by the decision of the congress to scorch the entire northern half of the korean peninsula. Now to more exciting news, the IPhone 134 has been revealed at the...."
"If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One!" --- Evil, Time Bandits (1981)
80,000 tonnes would be quite a lot more than “several” rocket launches! We’re talking something like 1300 falcon heavy launches, even still that’s only LEO, not anywhere near the altitude for geosynchronous orbit.
I wish someone would crunch the numbers on how much energy it would take to manufacture and launch all that, and see how many years it would take for the satellite to recoup that cost
@@Eclipsed_Archon , TL;DR : seven and a half weeks assuming 1GW power generation and only considering the launch energy under ideal conditions. Let's give it a shot with some rough estimates. The energy it takes to get the satellite into GEOS orbit is equal to the change in potential energy (ΔPE) to get it to the right altitude and change in kinetic energy (ΔKE) to get it to the right orbital velocity. Let's tackle this in two parts. First, ΔPE ..... This is the change in potential energy from a height of 0km to a height of 35,000km. Let's estimating acceleration due to gravity as g(h) = G*Me/(Re+h)^2 where G is Newton's gravitational constant, Me is the mass of the earth, Re is the radius of the earth, and h is altitude. Multiply this by the mass of 80,000 tonnes (assuming this is metric tons) and integrate over h = 0 to 35,000km and we get an estimated ΔPE = 4.23×10^15 Joules. Next, ΔKE ... The system would need to reach GEOS orbital velocity of about 3km/sec. This is a final kinetic energy of (1/2)×(80,000 tonnes)×(3km/sec)^2 which is about 3.6×10^14 Joules. Though, the system starts moving with the earth's surface, which moves at about 0.46 km/sec, so it starts with about 8.464×10^12 Joules of kinetic energy. So, the ΔKE is about 3.5×10^14 Joules. The total energy investment is about 4.58×10^15 Joules. A gigawatt of power is 1×10^9 Joules/second. The system generating 1 GW of power would take about 7.5 weeks for a return on investment in energy input just for getting to launch to GEOS (assuming ideal conditions). Doesn't include energy input towards manufacturing.
Statistics are only as good as their data sources. It's not like someone with a notebook went around to 7 billion people, asking if they had electricity. Like most statistics, the 13% is only a guess and often the guesses are wildly inaccurate. It's similar to statistics on the efficiencies of solar panels. Many of which ignore production processes, transportation, environmental degradation at solar farm sites and disposal of the toxic components.
The maximum beam intensity for microwave Space Solar Power is one-quarter that of noon sunlight - safe for birds and bees to fly directly through. Integral to targeting a beam from 35,786 kilometres is a co-operative receiving site (rectenna) which send out a weak "pilot" beam used to guide the power beam back.
Sounds like we could do a lot in space if we build a space base somewhere. Just move the rocket factory into space and our sci-fi dreams will become reality!
There are talks of this happening on the moon. The idea being that you could potentially construct an equatorial solar belt around the moon so that some part of the array would always be in view of the sun, and emitters would be positioned every-so-often to beam it back to Earth. Better yet, you could use the lunar regolith as a building material so that transit costs would be low, 3D printable designs would be preferred both for worker bots and for the array itself, and then a mass driver could be used for a propellant-free return journey, should anything need to be transported to-or-from the moon
Except that solar is already so expensive it needs government subsidies and STILL has to charge homes 4x the price for power. We already have the best solution: nuclear reactors Why don't we use them? Ask the same people who are up in arms about co2 emissions and you'll notice they're against these too. They're also against wind turbines and solar collection power plants because they kill some birds. Literally nothing is good enough for them. But nuclear is the best we have, and they're completely opposed to it. So I guess if manmade climate change is real, they're the ones to blame when we're baking 50 years from now, because they wouldn't allow nuclear plants which are currently our *best option by a HUGE margin.*
This seems like the perfect secondary use for a space elevator as a collector for the geosynchronous satellites and a means to convey the electricity back down to earths surface by more conventional and efficient means. Either way it's not going to happen very soon though.
We could get some solar power satellites within 20 years (or 5, but that would require dedicated funding). Space elevators, regretfully, are still waiting for the right materials.
Technically we in principal already have the materials to be able to construct a lunar space elevator thanks to the lack of a pesky atmosphere and the month long synchronous rotation bringing the material strengths needed to support it into the range of existing materials. The catch is that you really need space based manufacturing and in situ resource utilization to make it work. Probably would want to capture NEO asteroids to start the process seeing as you need to start construction at the Earth Moon L1 Lagrange point
Fusion looks to be closer than ever so we should be able to use it before we run into energy issues. Or all those nuclear power plants that people keep shutting down.
It's weird how they keep shutting those down, when they know damn well they're the best and safest option to carbon neutral energy for the foreseeable future. I guess getting elected again is more important than doing the hard work of convincing voters that what they fear is actually their safest bet.
@@martingoldfire cook nuclear power plant is based in Michigan right on the shore of the biggest fresh water resource in north America, people here seem to be pretty confident in ti to put it there. Yet people ignore the success and focus on the couple failures.
Everyone needs to stop hating on nuclear power. It's an order of magnitude safer than hydroelectric, even accounting for the old disasters, and modern reactor designs are far safer than those were. It's the best interim power source until we can go fully green.
@@unpaintedleadsyndrome I'm defining _"fully green"_ as _"no environmentally hazardous byproducts at all"_ but, yeah, that's exactly my point. Nuclear waste is a concern, but we have ways to deal with it and, in the mean time, we're not pumping more carbon into the atmosphere.
But at the moment they create nuclear waste and if you include the cost for making sure no one gets harmed over thousands of years then it probably won't be as cheap I guess
My understanding is that the conversion from photon -> panel -> electron -> microwave -> electron, basically negates the savings a space based solar collector gets. So you are still better off dealing with that 30% atmospheric hit, and save the time/cost/effort and just build more ground based solar. Lower latitudes are indeed better to collect, but distributed power storage can still help to shift it around, given enough scale.
Best case scenario it works 50% of the time. So unless electron -> microwave -> electron robs us of >50% GSO is still the better option. And I don't think most places piping electricity from the tropics to nearly the polls is even a consideration. Nuclear may be the best option in the end.
I don’t know about that… earth based solar is average 6 hours of output, and around 20% of the 1000W/Meter of surface area… Space based gets 1300W/meter, and can convert photons 24/7… so… 6 times the time, and 30% more energy available… not to mention space based panels collect a higher percentage OF the photons energy, around 40% due to wavelengths available, and design considerations… I can see it being far more feasible than earth based solar conversion.
That's Musk's assertion, but I strongly disagree. The CASSIOPeiA Solar Power Satellite concept is solid state and has an always-sun-facing attitude. That means it can use %44 efficient CPV cells (39% operating efficiency). Taking the whole solar-dc-microwave-propagation-interception-dc efficiency chain, these cells are equivalent to 27% panels on the ground at noon - better than the best terrestrial PV panels available today. If you then consider the annual case (UK-specific), where large-scale PV only achieves it's capacity for 11% annually, or 2.8% in winter months, then Space Solar is up-to 42 times better than terrestrial solar. Search YT for ISDC 2020 Day 3 (starting 4 hours-in) for a discussion of the UK economic case for Space Solar.
If we could cover an insignificant portion of hot desert first with current technology though... Off the ground, so they also provide shade for whatever wants it. Perhaps storing excess energy as GPE by lifting stuff during the day and tapping it as it falls back down overnight? Let's face it, more than enough sunlight hits the surface of earth.
What about sandstorms tho and other logistical and operational problems of building a powergrid and infanstructure in the middle of the desert. Sand isent exacly stable ground
@@snoden9907 They can be on a rocky bit, deserts aren't all sand. I don't know about sandstorms though. I imagine there would be areas that are sheltered from stuff like that, or that just don't experience them that often, but that may be an issue. Possibly less of an issue than launching hundreds of satellites though...
Also geosynchronous orbit is the prime real-estate of space. Everyone wants it. From GPS to communications satellites (ie: T.V./radio.) And many others.
@@unpaintedleadsyndrome Yeah, geostationary orbit is already pretty full. You're not going to put a satellite every km or something like that. www.space.com/29222-geosynchronous-orbit.html
@@jababo9253 there is nothing in orbital mechanics that prevents you from doing just that. A few hundred satellites on 260000 km of orbit(forgot that it's 2*pi*r) is by no means crowded
Holy cheese... I dreamed about a device almost exactly like the one in the thumbnail a few years ago and wondered if it would work. Thanks for the vid.
For awhile I was sold on SBSP but then I came across Kirk Sorensen's videos on LFTR. LFTR seems like the better near term solution for electricity, industrial heat, water purification and desalination. Just have to make the AEC and IAEA get on board. We can do things fast when the painful need arises. Otherwise the debilitating crawl of bureaucracy will keep us on fossil fuels forever.
I know it is 2 years old, sorry for necro, but when I see a question I need to respond. First. Power satelites are similarly potent and they biggest bottleneck is capability to get them up, there are many ways to drastically reduce cost of geting things in orbit, it is just that there is no reason to currently, because it is all for science and maintenance of current satelite grid and current capabilities suffice. I advise you to take a look at skyhooks on example. Second. More diverse economy is more resistant to crisises, so ideally you would want to have as many different power sources as possible in order to evade big issues when some part of market will crumble; rapid inflation in prices of fuel or specific materials necessary for one power source on example.
I wondered, if these systems are taking energy that wouldn't normally get through or atmosphere and beaming it down... Would that have additional heat issues for our atmosphere? I assume it'd be balanced by the lack of fossil fuels etc?
@@colinsmith1495 the science behind power satellites and rectennas allow for power transmission though bands tighter than that of the sun. You'd be able to send exclusively microwaves through the atmosphere, which have far less energy dissipation through the atmosphere than visible light. If you wanted to stop heat from getting to the earth, all youd have to do is place it at the L1 Lagrange point between the sun and earth, rather than in geostationary orbit.
In short, scientists have no idea, and any mathematical nonsense any commenter spouts off is complete bullship. Just like pharmacists have no idea the adverse effects of their pills, 1,5,10 years down the road to both the biochemical systems, the brain or genetically, but they'll sell it to you anyways cause your dumb and you'll pay for it. If you think anyone on earth has any idea how the generation of artificially generated beams of energy is going to interact with the overwhelming chemical soup of the atmosphere, it's weather patterns, and or the adverse effects that it'll have on life forms, their either smarter then anything currently in existence, or a conman selling you statistical nonsense. If you think some dumbass with a degree on UA-cam is gonna give you an actual answer, your on the wrong site my dude.
@@moguldamongrel3054 What do you mean about how some commented doesn't understand how artifically generated beams interract with the atmosphere and the life on it? As for the subtleties, I think you're damn right. At best, it would be similar to small scale unethical experiments on how things like microwaves affect living tissue. At worst, using the power of imaginaaaation, imagine you'd get migratory bird patterns changing to dodge the giant beams of "uncomfortably hot light" which could lead to insect population booms in certain places which could just lead to all kinds of other bizzare schtuff. Nothing that I said, or SciShow said is false, bud. It'd be more accurate to say that the nuances of giant uber-engineering projects like space fountains, space elevators, power satelites, and terwatt sized fusion reactors are so numerous that engineering math can't be trusted for anything other than the most basic and obvious consequences. For certain, regardless of how certain y'are that enginerds on the internet are always wrong, you can BET that thermodynamics will still work. Thousands of acres of chicken wire rectennas will get HOT, or if not hot, warm. Mass estimates for these kinds of launch systems are still largely based on in-situ assembly masses that require human assembly, as most of the NASA technical reports that you can find on the NTRS for "autonymous on orbit assembly" have fairly substantial error margins for exactly how much mass would be needed on each unitary satelite to allow them to assemble themselves. Alternatively, if you just assume that each power satelite would be its own standalone James-Webb looking origami nightmare, then you'd be eating a crap ton of lost mass to having each individual satelite carrying its own power system and RCS star scanner and communications equipment, rather than using larger and more efficient units which could be sent up piecewise one launch at a time. What about this stuff do you take issue with?
@@moguldamongrel3054 I mean sure, but id argue that stupid space lasers that could possibly help the planet is a better research project than not trying it.
"... this fully operational Death Star..." Seriously how is this even a thing? If you can send usable gigawatts to earth on your beam, you have a death ray that you could point anywhere you fancied!
That answer lies in the fact that the beam diverges to a couple kilometers wide. I do wonder how unsafe that would be for, say, birds flying through the beam. But what percentage of that power spread over an area of kilometers is concentrated on the area of a single bird? Idk, gigawatts is a lot, but spread that thin it may not be so unsafe.
@@JeffOf813 you'd only build it to be focusable as much as needed. You can't make a Lazer gun with a flashlight and binoculars, the lenses have to be designed with extreme precision to make something like that, so it wouldn't actually be practical to make this a weapon
@@QarthCEO no, not really. This isn't a new force, it's something that's been understood for centuries. A specific lense will only focus light a certain amount, and you'd need a giant lense right in front of the target to focus the beam back into a dangerous amount from how it spreads out.
The sats would be built 99% from lunar materials for 97% cost-savings. Lunar regolith would be catapulted in small bricks by a mass driver to a collector at L2, then transported to a space-based processing plant at L4 or 5, where the build would take place. The completed sat would be brought downhill (at a leisurely 0-g), to geosynch. They would be maintained by robots and, if necessary, engineers housed at an adjacent station. Low frequency MW is preferred. The rectennas would be an open mesh above ground, beneath which can be farmed or put to other use. A pilot beam from rectenna to sat would keep the MW beam centered.
@@absalomdraconis nuclear fusion whenever that FINALLY gets up and running. By the time we become concerned about running out of resources for nuclear power, we will already have fusion power, and space mining operations.
Heh, ha. You know anyone with several football fields-worth of space-ready mirrors, a fleet of two hundred Falcon Heavy rockets, and an entire first-world country's fuel reserves not being used for anything else?
If a Laser would hold its beam fairly well would not a Maser do the same? The other thought I had was, what if somewhere down the line as starlink (or similar) satellites become ubiquitous could they be used a piggyback solar energy relay points from satellites much further in Geosynchronous orbit. The Geosynchronous Satellites would be aiming at Low Earth Orbit Satellites instead of having to hit ground targets. The lower satellites could then bounce the energy around until it could hit the ground station, exactly the same way they're planning to beam down internet.
The degree to which a beam spreads out with distance depends on the wavelength of the light and the size of the emitter. Lasers have short wavelength and are easy to keep focussed with fairly small emitters. Masers have much longer wavelengths and their beams will spread out much more, unless the emitter is made impossibly large.
The whole point of putting the satellite in geosynchronous orbit is so that it doesn't have to try to hit a moving target. You are suggesting that we have a geosynchronous satellite try to hit a moving target, then that moving target try to relay that power to another moving target on the ground, with all of the associated power loss from the relay. You are making a Rube Goldberg machine with all of these moving parts that are essentially redundant.
Its a nice idea, but tapping the heat of the Earth's interior is probably more practical. Plus Wage power, now there is an underutilised energy source. Or go full SeaQuest and have turbines powered by undersea currents.
It’s actually called a maser. Laser is an acronym for light amplification by stimulated emissions of radiation. And of course maser is the same except the “m” stands for microwave.
The largest issue with this is the fact that the atmosphere that is in the way would be heated immensely, which might be the actual largest issue since we would essentially be baking our planet, which is kinda an issue...
I distinctly remember seeing an episode talking about how the SpaceX satellites were reflecting too much light and disrupting astronomy this would be marvelously worse
Not necessarily. The Starlink array has giant reflective panels on it which is why they glow so brightly (SpaceX has promised future ones would not do this btw). These would have solar panels which are dark and absorb light - and are facing the sun. The back-side of which could easily be painted black to make them ~invisible.
Compared with fossil power (originally stored many millions of years ago) directly releasing 2 GW of power as waste heat (optimistically, for CCGT) for every GW of electricity (plus CO2 meaning more of this waste heat is trapped), or desert solar (20% efficient) changing the local albedo such that more solar energy is absorbed at low altitudes. A microwave rectenna was demonstrated at 90% efficiency in the 1970s (Google Goldstone power beaming demonstration).
Honestly, the first option sounds like an incredibly dumb idea. The cost and area required to produce the energy for one city is nowhere near favorable. Of course, a better solution is staring us right in our faces: Improved battery technology (whenever that FINALLY happens and doesn’t pose a significant danger to the environment) and NUCLEAR.
Just send the concentrated light to a solar collector plant on earth. Those are also large mirror arrays that point to a tower in the middle, typically to heat molten salt. Much more efficient (that other EM conversion again step is very wasteful). Much less expensive. This is practical today, and there are many other potential benefits.
Ah yes, I remember reading that particular short story by Asimov; I didn’t realize he was the one to conceptualize space-based solar panels! There are lots of concepts in iRobot that are decades ahead of their time; its one of my favorite sci-fi novels and very much worth reading. Ignore the movie, that had practically nothing to do with the book.
Those first few science fiction authors came up with a lot of these ideas, I think mostly because the scientists were focused on more near-term ideas that space opened up, or arguing about quantum mechanics.
Will Smith forfeited a surefire Academy Award because in Asimov's robot world, it was impossible for robots to rebel. They just didn't have the programs and had really good antivirus programming. This made for very interesting plots. That the robots in the movie rebelled made the movie ordinary; the scriptwriters were lazy. It was jarring and distracting. Oh well ... Mr. Smith I feel earned an Oscar for a movie in which he played a Mexican Federale. He's a great actor.
That cost would be much lower if/when SpaceX starship gets going and it would open up opportunities for larger systems. Large systems like that tree design could change everything.
The weight problem can be solved by using component satellites, having individual craft for each aspect of the collector. Several for the mirrors focused on the few or one for the solar panels. The distance problem can be solved by a relay satellite network. Ones in a lower orbit that can relay the power from the collectors to the planet. A combination of the microwave transmission from the collector satellites and the laser transmission from the relay satellites would solve most of the problems.
It would be easier to make, but you would get more power from space...you can put them in oribt so it always faces the sun and never covered by clouds.
The desert is actually not that dark and reflects a lot of heat back out into space, but 70% of the light energy hitting a solar panel is converted to waste heat that then makes the lower atmosphere above them hotter. The key word here is *albedo.*
I assume by africa you mean the Sahara the main issue is logistic ... how can you take all thoses solars panels to the middle of the desert ? there are really few roads and the maintenance is close to non existant and even less electric poles ect you got the idea
Australian outback would be the most ideal place, friendly nation to most nations on earth it's far away from all the unfriendly nations and has a lot of land and sun
This would be great to augment power. But I'd never want to have a 2-3 year power outage, while waiting for a repair mission of a satellite hit by a meteor or space debris.
Let's be real, even if we have unlimited power from space solar panels, private electric companies would still charge like a hundred bucks a month just for keeping the lights on in a studio apartment.
I love hearing about cool technologies like this (specifically the Dyson-Harrop satellite) but I feel like I've been hearing about them for 20 years and we're finally just now taking the first baby steps toward making them a reality. I really hope we get something majorly beneficial implemented before I'm 60 (another 30 years).
Many of these ideas were thought up by science fiction authors a lifetime before they would be viable. Some of the ideas are even centuries out. But at least with SpaceX, we're reusing our rockets, and high speed internet will soon be available in the most remote parts of the globe. Also, we've flown a helicopter on Mars, collected samples from asteroids, and in a few years, we're going back to the moon to do more than just pick up some rocks. Over the last few decades, our mars rovers have gone from 25 pounds to nearly 2000. The asteroid and lunar missions are also seen as more than just science, but also the first steps of prospecting.
Directly heating up the Earth with extra energy from the sun is orders of magnitude less effect than the greenhouse effect for the same amount of useable energy. And other ground-based methods of generating power produce waste heat, anyway. Solar panels on the ground are dark, but a lot of the light they absorb turns into heat rather than electricity.
@@Br3ttM 99% of the energy on the Earth, comes from the sun. More sun = more heat. The rockets used to lift solar panels to orbit are gonna make greenhouse gases anyways.
@@SpecialEDy It's a cost benefit equation, and we lack all the numbers to say which is better. Yes, this will heat the earth if we do it. Will the energy gained cause less greenhouse gasses to be created than would have been from making that same amount of electricity on earth using fossil fuels? We, as the viewers simply don't have the numbers for that. We'll have to let the actual scientists do that math, rather than debating it without facts.
The current problem with this model is that it's impossibly expensive. In the future, when it's less expensive, the biggest problem with this model will be all the 5G-style conspiracy theorists, who will be shouting at a constant 11 for the next several decades about it.
@@FireThemAll might as well. What's that saying, 2 birds with one stone? You'd have to find a way to balance out the thermal loss though, since putting a surface on the ocean surface would alter water temperatures drastically and irrevocably. So you'd have to find a way to transfer heat whilst still gaining electricity. Maybe transparent panels? Or pull heat from the deserts? Idk I'd take some serious work.
Actually it would be best to use what is natural around the location needing power. If your in the Arctic then solar is great for half the year and wind might make up for the rest of the year when fewer people are there and solar isn’t viable. Then you go to central usa (the plains) and wind would be really great in the more northern and southern parts where weather isn’t as good for solar. Solar would be best in states with tons of sun and few weather events like the desert. Go to states that have tons of water and damns are really great for power. Up in Washington we are almost all hydro power. We actually export power to states around us. Yes we have a natural gas and a nuclear power plant…but only one each. As I said, it’s not about going all in on one or two power sources around the country but about using what is best for that location. On and before you say hydro will not work as water levels drop…nor will most other power sources as all but a select few (wind, solar, and some specific engine like natural gas generators) use water for steam production that then creates power as it is much more efficient.
Nuclear is more responsible for global warming than anything else. *Why do you think they have problems with the wastes?* 10 YEARS TO COOL IT DOWN UNDER 40 FEET OF HEAVY WATER, that can't be transformed back to regular H2O. Want to guess where all the heat is at? Accidents, Bombs, Bomb Test, Normal Operations Of Power Stations. *All Release Man Made Nuclear 🔥 Hot Particles That Can't Be Extinguished!* Into every levels of the environment. Some fly away out of the reactor walls! A security guard got cancer in the ass from the seat he used in the guard shack. At The Entrance Gate To The Factory! The hottest 🔥 particles have a Half-Life Of 4 Billion Years. That's 40 Billion Years Before It's Safe. Longer than the earth. *Trees Dying Where You Are?* Thank Your Nuclear Stars!
@@arguescreamholler did you know that there was a natural occurring nuclear reactor that was discovered years ago? It was not created by humans but warmed that area. So no, human nuclear isn’t the only thing warming the planet (though this site was mined out). On top of that, heat islands and lack of foliage is actually a bigger concern. Asphalt absorbs tons of heat and sunlight (why is it black…black absorbs more energy then every other color) and emits it at night warming up the area which prevents recovery. This has become a major issue with the last few heat waves and it will just get worse. The lack of foliage means plants are unable to absorb the solar energy and that energy is instead converted to heat. Plus plants hold water which allows them to distribute the heat or even dissipate it back into the atmosphere. To say that on energy source is causing all the issues is moronic. Also if not for the nuclear test ban treaty newer reactor designs (like pebble bed reactors) would be able to take nuclear waste and use it as fuel. But we are not allowed to really test them. Well that’s also to do with fear mongers like you who insist nuclear is the worst thing out there.
Probably the best way to do this is to go the infrared laser approach and build it in to a series of shells like startlink? Then you can have a network that gradually grows and increases in capability.
Part of the answer is microwave lasers that combine not being absorbed early by storms and clouds and the focused beam that is the same radius on both ends. either that or combine it with wireless charging receivers and plan the spread so it covers all of the earth all the time and you just have a energy receiver in every device (portable or not) so you just always have power everywhere - no more power grids or dead cell phones unless you go underground.
They did not even mention that wirelessly transmitting energy is less effective currently however has the potential to be even more effective with innovation. We could go from 4%-7% waisted energy from production (with wired) down to possibly 1% wasted energy loss with wireless if we work on the technology more.
@@miketerran4140 They are also not allowed on earth. Any nuke launch is forbidden by the whole international community. But don't doubt that if someone wants to nuke your head, they will do it. Same for this. Using a beam to burn your hair is going to be forbiden, and the only thing preventing anyone to do it is the international response.
@@Norp-i7m we can deal with nuclear waste perfectly safely. You do know that burning fossil fuels releases far more in radioactivity in one year than the nuclear industry has ever done, don't you? Well you should.
Why not? The infrared is transparent to the atmosphere except for greenhouse gases. If you stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, you stop keeping the heat inside. Burning coal also dumps infrared in the atmosphere, plus the extra CO2.
you know there was still co2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution right? 278ppm vs 417ppm now, it's 50% higher now it would still be adding heat to the system. yes, probably less bad, but it's still something that needs to be watched, because it can be overdone
How about a hybrid approach? Sun-synchronous low-altitude satellites beam power via IR laser to geosynchronous "mirror" satellites that then beam it to ground stations in areas with ultra-low cloud cover.
@@tauceti8060 nuclear waste is an easy solution. Breeder reactors and molten salt reactors can use our current waste as fuel. With current Gen 4 designs, the nuclear waste situation is a nonissue. On top of that, Thorium reactors use much less fuel as uranium reactors, are cleaner, and are much more abundant. The amount of thorium and uranium we currently have will give us more than enough time to finalize fusion power and space mining.
@@gorilladisco9108 you are correct, but their are major flaws in energy transmission in these designs, and the current feasibility is nowhere near here.
If we’re in the position to economically launch 80,000 tonnes of solar farms then it shouldn’t be too much to ask that a few copies of JWST be launched.
Joe Scott reiterated one issue that opponents bring up, that this transmission has an efficiency of like 9% (for the laser one?). So, because ground based solar panels have a much higher efficiency than that, it's probably cheaper to just deploy more ground based panels. And, a satellite based panel I would guess has a higher potential of catastrophic loss of a huge portion of this energy collection infrastructure than ground based.
@@DanielSMatthews Nah. The StarShip can carry almost 200 tons into orbit. So delivering the quoted 80,000 tons per satellite would only take 400 launches which is very feasable since SpaceX plan to mass-produce these rockets, launch them like 3 times a day at $2 million a launch and re-use them many times. Even with the existing Saturn V (140 ton payload, $185 million per lauch), it would take 570 launches and $74 billion per satellite. The cost/benefit is another story in this case though.
@@zimelo6957 That has nothing to do with the point I made, perhaps you don't realise how close we actually are to commercial fusion and how far we are away from Musk's plans coming to fruition? Also keep in mind that you would need to repeat the exercise every 20 years even if they did not get damaged in a big solar flare.
@@DanielSMatthews Fusion (with net profit) is always 20 years away, so we could have the 2nd generation of space solar done by the time they acheive it. I'm only talking about the first pilot plant in USA, and they plans are still extremely dubious. www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/road-map-us-fusion-power-plant-comes-clearer-focus-sort For the space solar, we already have all we need. SpaceX moves quick. Their first starship orbital launch is coming up in August (according to regulatory filings, not Elon time), and they are already semi-mass-producing those things. There's a reason why he said UK, USA and Japan are already testing space solar.
We need to be using less energy, and generating that energy locally as needed. That's how we move forward. Consolidating power into global infrastructure will harm far more than it benefits. Only psychopathic consolidators are driving the need for more energy so high that 13% don't have access to reliable energy. Without the mega polluters consolidating wealth and resources for the sake of "owning more when they die", all quality of life would be drastically increased right now. Energy would be all but free to everyone who wants to live, and make new people. Like it should be. Like Telsa was trying to do. The secret isn't in space. It's right here on the ground. And it begins and ends with demonizing the hoarding of more than one needs.
Most in the technology space are trying to make devices more efficient. This typically just means faster computers in the same power envelope, and cars that perform better rather than use less energy, but even those aren't necessarily bad things. Greater efficiency means you can either accomplish the same task with the same amount of energy but in less time, or, you can accomplish the same task in the same amount of time using less energy.
Answer: No. Longer answer: it costs more energy to put those panels up there, energy and effort that is utterly wasted because we can put solar panels on the ground. Even if you claimed that we could orient the array to face the sun, all that means is that we should have to put four times as many panels down and job done. And we can easily replace broken ones on the ground, not so easy in space. Therefore it will not solve our needs because the problem isn't where we put the solar panels, it is that there is money still stuck in the ground that companies have specialised in extracting and selling that stuff, their equipment would be worthless.
@@albertjackinson because it's just designed to soak up grant money that would go a hell of a lot further building regular solar panels here on earth in places that we already know they will work, where gravel trucks won't be driving over them.
You know theres more than one scientist on earth, right? We have the people and resources to focus on multiple possible solutions to humanitys biggest problem. Besides, fusion is still 30 years away, just as it has been the last 60 years.
@@2MeterLP yes I know that. I'm just saying that fusion has great potential to provide clean power for the entire planet and the fuel source for it is practically inexhaustible. Still I think the green energy future will be a multiple approach: wind, solar, hydro, Having said that the biggest advantage that fusion has over solar and wind is its not dependent on the sun shining or the wind blowing. A fusion power plant can work at all times.
I think the way it might work out is if we can build a space elevator platform/relay station on low earth orbit. We can send materials via the elevator to the platform and then use a much smaller rocket to send the solar panels to a higher orbit. Power will be transmitted to the platform via lasers and then from the platform down to ground base via superconducting cables.
I liked the video but I kinda wished they talked a little more about potential risks and problems. For example, how many satellites and/or structures would be need to power a nation, how much space (land) would that use, would these satellites drastically increase space trash pollution, would they cause problems for telescopes or space missions, how would the satellites be dealt with if they can't be repaired, etc. I think there are more concerns then just cost and commit to this technology and that we might be trying to over engineer a solution to our energy problems.
An idea is that we could put the solar panels in an orbit that would have them always in front of the Earth so as to act as a shade to cut down on one of the symptoms of global warming. (Same idea as Kurgazat had for their Venus video, but not as severe.)
Like the "Microwave Energy" power plant from SimCity 2000, that beams down energy from space, but sometimes the beam strays and fries part of your city
I totally forgot those. Now I'm on board with the space laser plan.
Or Helios One from Fallout New Vegas
@@conlinbryant5037 I'll buy that toy gun for 40 caps
That's called "culling the herd" to those in the know.
Sounds like a great plot for your typical sci-fi movie
The specific Isaac Asimov story referenced here is Reason. It's a short story, contained in I, Robot.
Note: I, Robot is nothing like the movie, and is instead a collection of somewhat interconnected short stories. It's very good, go read it!
His foundation series is beautiful too.
@@brtuh5865 - Towards the end of his life, he wrote several bridge novels that connected the Robot novels, the Settler novellas, and Foundation into a single Future History. It is truly amazing.
Thank you for this comment, and to those who relied with additional input - I have been umming and ahhing over where to start with Asimov and somewhat put off with the popular perception of I Robot, so thanks to all of you I will give it a go. As a lifelong nerd I feel incomplete without a dive into one of the revered masters of SciFi.
If I recall correctly, didn't Asimov talk about solar collector on the moon instead of satellite?
You obviously meant the movie is nothing like the book :-)
I guess I, Robot as a title was more iconic than The Caves of Steel...
And oddly enough, even though he did not come up with the concept Sci Fi writer Arthur C Clarke popularized geosynchronous orbits in a paper..hence the term Clarke Orbits….science fiction writers still helping to forge our future.
+
@@tarttooth6022 =
@@user-fy5sg9rg7d ÷
@@thehumanistisin9924 •
@@robertharris6092 ¥
Giant orbital lasers. This is so much Bond villain style, I love it!
I bet Kyle Hill would like one for his [FACILITY]
No way this is researched for energy production, instead of weaponisation.
The GDI would like a word with you
a giant "Laser" on the moon.. we'll call it the "Alan Parsons Project"
@@Alex-qx7jn
Ahem. SimCity 2000 and 3000 has Microwave Powerplants, which used orbiting satellites to gather solar energy in orbit and project energy into the station's dish. Miss, and the ground burns from received energy.
"Entire array of lasers pointed at earth"..what ever could go wrong?
Bezos and Musk will decimate us.
You may fire when ready...
Yep. And to work the would probably need some kind of ground control to update aim. How secure would that be to hackers? Especially state supported ones?
"Today's power shortage's been caused by the decision of the congress to scorch the entire northern half of the korean peninsula. Now to more exciting news, the IPhone 134 has been revealed at the...."
Don't worry, I'm sure it will be government ran.
"What is it with humans and lasers!?"
"It is not just us - cats like them too!"
- Humans are space orks
"If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One!"
--- Evil, Time Bandits (1981)
Dr.Evil: I wana build a giant " Laser " on the " Moon! "
You sir, are a scholar and a poet
80,000 tonnes would be quite a lot more than “several” rocket launches! We’re talking something like 1300 falcon heavy launches, even still that’s only LEO, not anywhere near the altitude for geosynchronous orbit.
I wish someone would crunch the numbers on how much energy it would take to manufacture and launch all that, and see how many years it would take for the satellite to recoup that cost
@@Eclipsed_Archon , TL;DR : seven and a half weeks assuming 1GW power generation and only considering the launch energy under ideal conditions.
Let's give it a shot with some rough estimates. The energy it takes to get the satellite into GEOS orbit is equal to the change in potential energy (ΔPE) to get it to the right altitude and change in kinetic energy (ΔKE) to get it to the right orbital velocity. Let's tackle this in two parts.
First, ΔPE ..... This is the change in potential energy from a height of 0km to a height of 35,000km. Let's estimating acceleration due to gravity as g(h) = G*Me/(Re+h)^2 where G is Newton's gravitational constant, Me is the mass of the earth, Re is the radius of the earth, and h is altitude. Multiply this by the mass of 80,000 tonnes (assuming this is metric tons) and integrate over h = 0 to 35,000km and we get an estimated ΔPE = 4.23×10^15 Joules.
Next, ΔKE ... The system would need to reach GEOS orbital velocity of about 3km/sec. This is a final kinetic energy of (1/2)×(80,000 tonnes)×(3km/sec)^2 which is about 3.6×10^14 Joules. Though, the system starts moving with the earth's surface, which moves at about 0.46 km/sec, so it starts with about 8.464×10^12 Joules of kinetic energy. So, the ΔKE is about 3.5×10^14 Joules.
The total energy investment is about 4.58×10^15 Joules.
A gigawatt of power is 1×10^9 Joules/second. The system generating 1 GW of power would take about 7.5 weeks for a return on investment in energy input just for getting to launch to GEOS (assuming ideal conditions). Doesn't include energy input towards manufacturing.
@@drderpphd fair play sir. Fair play 👨🏻🎓
@@drderpphd thank you for taking the time to do math ☺️ I love reading physics problems, it makes my brain meld in a good way
@@drderpphd that's a WAY shorter timeframe than I expected ngl. That makes it sound feasible somehow
Well. My little hand crank radio doesn't seem so neat anymore.
Lol
😂😂
Or my digital watches
Nothing can replace my funky gizmos
I read "Critter Land Hank" in my speed reading mind. That would have been neat still... I think. 🤔
Anyone else surprised that 87% of people apparently DO have access to reliable electricity? That’s honestly much better than I would have guessed.
i'm fairly sure a can of gasoline and a generator qualifies for this which we all know is not what we understand under reliable :D
Statistics are only as good as their data sources. It's not like someone with a notebook went around to 7 billion people, asking if they had electricity. Like most statistics, the 13% is only a guess and often the guesses are wildly inaccurate.
It's similar to statistics on the efficiencies of solar panels. Many of which ignore production processes, transportation, environmental degradation at solar farm sites and disposal of the toxic components.
frequent black and brown outs since plugging EVs into the grid isn't reliable but it was before that.
Don't imagine many countries will be keen for what could be a death ray floating over their heads.
The maximum beam intensity for microwave Space Solar Power is one-quarter that of noon sunlight - safe for birds and bees to fly directly through. Integral to targeting a beam from 35,786 kilometres is a co-operative receiving site (rectenna) which send out a weak "pilot" beam used to guide the power beam back.
We know, the Americans, Chinese, and Russians will totally try not to develop stronger lasers to burn enemy governments
Sounds like we could do a lot in space if we build a space base somewhere. Just move the rocket factory into space and our sci-fi dreams will become reality!
There are talks of this happening on the moon. The idea being that you could potentially construct an equatorial solar belt around the moon so that some part of the array would always be in view of the sun, and emitters would be positioned every-so-often to beam it back to Earth. Better yet, you could use the lunar regolith as a building material so that transit costs would be low, 3D printable designs would be preferred both for worker bots and for the array itself, and then a mass driver could be used for a propellant-free return journey, should anything need to be transported to-or-from the moon
Except that solar is already so expensive it needs government subsidies and STILL has to charge homes 4x the price for power.
We already have the best solution: nuclear reactors
Why don't we use them? Ask the same people who are up in arms about co2 emissions and you'll notice they're against these too. They're also against wind turbines and solar collection power plants because they kill some birds.
Literally nothing is good enough for them. But nuclear is the best we have, and they're completely opposed to it.
So I guess if manmade climate change is real, they're the ones to blame when we're baking 50 years from now, because they wouldn't allow nuclear plants which are currently our *best option by a HUGE margin.*
This reminds me of that one Futurama episode.
This seems like the perfect secondary use for a space elevator as a collector for the geosynchronous satellites and a means to convey the electricity back down to earths surface by more conventional and efficient means. Either way it's not going to happen very soon though.
We could get some solar power satellites within 20 years (or 5, but that would require dedicated funding). Space elevators, regretfully, are still waiting for the right materials.
Technically we in principal already have the materials to be able to construct a lunar space elevator thanks to the lack of a pesky atmosphere and the month long synchronous rotation bringing the material strengths needed to support it into the range of existing materials. The catch is that you really need space based manufacturing and in situ resource utilization to make it work. Probably would want to capture NEO asteroids to start the process seeing as you need to start construction at the Earth Moon L1 Lagrange point
Fusion looks to be closer than ever so we should be able to use it before we run into energy issues. Or all those nuclear power plants that people keep shutting down.
It's weird how they keep shutting those down, when they know damn well they're the best and safest option to carbon neutral energy for the foreseeable future. I guess getting elected again is more important than doing the hard work of convincing voters that what they fear is actually their safest bet.
@@martingoldfire cook nuclear power plant is based in Michigan right on the shore of the biggest fresh water resource in north America, people here seem to be pretty confident in ti to put it there. Yet people ignore the success and focus on the couple failures.
This was another fantastic show. Isaac Arthur also covered this topic. I encourage others to watch it. I believe it was called power satellites.
Everyone needs to stop hating on nuclear power. It's an order of magnitude safer than hydroelectric, even accounting for the old disasters, and modern reactor designs are far safer than those were. It's the best interim power source until we can go fully green.
If you define green as no carbon emissions... nuclear IS green.
@@unpaintedleadsyndrome I'm defining _"fully green"_ as _"no environmentally hazardous byproducts at all"_ but, yeah, that's exactly my point.
Nuclear waste is a concern, but we have ways to deal with it and, in the mean time, we're not pumping more carbon into the atmosphere.
The gen 4 coming out won't have waste. In fact it will be able to use waste as fuel that we already have.
@@3ron There we go, then!
I'm honestly pretty sure the nuclear phobia is being pushed by the coal and oil lobbies to keep it from pushing them out.
But at the moment they create nuclear waste and if you include the cost for making sure no one gets harmed over thousands of years then it probably won't be as cheap I guess
My understanding is that the conversion from photon -> panel -> electron -> microwave -> electron, basically negates the savings a space based solar collector gets. So you are still better off dealing with that 30% atmospheric hit, and save the time/cost/effort and just build more ground based solar. Lower latitudes are indeed better to collect, but distributed power storage can still help to shift it around, given enough scale.
Best case scenario it works 50% of the time. So unless electron -> microwave -> electron robs us of >50% GSO is still the better option. And I don't think most places piping electricity from the tropics to nearly the polls is even a consideration. Nuclear may be the best option in the end.
Isaac Arthur did a great VERY detailed video including relevant estimations in size and efficiency ua-cam.com/video/eBCbdThIJNE/v-deo.html
I don’t know about that… earth based solar is average 6 hours of output, and around 20% of the 1000W/Meter of surface area…
Space based gets 1300W/meter, and can convert photons 24/7… so… 6 times the time, and 30% more energy available… not to mention space based panels collect a higher percentage OF the photons energy, around 40% due to wavelengths available, and design considerations…
I can see it being far more feasible than earth based solar conversion.
That's Musk's assertion, but I strongly disagree. The CASSIOPeiA Solar Power Satellite concept is solid state and has an always-sun-facing attitude. That means it can use %44 efficient CPV cells (39% operating efficiency). Taking the whole solar-dc-microwave-propagation-interception-dc efficiency chain, these cells are equivalent to 27% panels on the ground at noon - better than the best terrestrial PV panels available today.
If you then consider the annual case (UK-specific), where large-scale PV only achieves it's capacity for 11% annually, or 2.8% in winter months, then Space Solar is up-to 42 times better than terrestrial solar.
Search YT for ISDC 2020 Day 3 (starting 4 hours-in) for a discussion of the UK economic case for Space Solar.
If we could cover an insignificant portion of hot desert first with current technology though... Off the ground, so they also provide shade for whatever wants it. Perhaps storing excess energy as GPE by lifting stuff during the day and tapping it as it falls back down overnight? Let's face it, more than enough sunlight hits the surface of earth.
What about sandstorms tho and other logistical and operational problems of building a powergrid and infanstructure in the middle of the desert. Sand isent exacly stable ground
@@snoden9907 They can be on a rocky bit, deserts aren't all sand. I don't know about sandstorms though. I imagine there would be areas that are sheltered from stuff like that, or that just don't experience them that often, but that may be an issue. Possibly less of an issue than launching hundreds of satellites though...
Not to mention the fear of any space debris ruining this plan
Also geosynchronous orbit is the prime real-estate of space. Everyone wants it. From GPS to communications satellites (ie: T.V./radio.) And many others.
@@zidaryn Plenty of real estate to go around, GSO has 130000+ km to place satellites in
@@TML0677 I'd actually be willing to bet the reason the US military is interested is to power drones.
@@unpaintedleadsyndrome Yeah, geostationary orbit is already pretty full. You're not going to put a satellite every km or something like that. www.space.com/29222-geosynchronous-orbit.html
@@jababo9253 there is nothing in orbital mechanics that prevents you from doing just that. A few hundred satellites on 260000 km of orbit(forgot that it's 2*pi*r) is by no means crowded
Holy cheese... I dreamed about a device almost exactly like the one in the thumbnail a few years ago and wondered if it would work. Thanks for the vid.
So I guess Dr Evil wasn't too far off with his idea of "lasers"....
We need small modular molten salt fission reactors
For awhile I was sold on SBSP but then I came across Kirk Sorensen's videos on LFTR. LFTR seems like the better near term solution for electricity, industrial heat, water purification and desalination. Just have to make the AEC and IAEA get on board. We can do things fast when the painful need arises. Otherwise the debilitating crawl of bureaucracy will keep us on fossil fuels forever.
Wouldnt a modern breeder reactor be more efficient? It would even be able to use old used fuel rods as fuel.
I know it is 2 years old, sorry for necro, but when I see a question I need to respond.
First. Power satelites are similarly potent and they biggest bottleneck is capability to get them up, there are many ways to drastically reduce cost of geting things in orbit, it is just that there is no reason to currently, because it is all for science and maintenance of current satelite grid and current capabilities suffice. I advise you to take a look at skyhooks on example.
Second. More diverse economy is more resistant to crisises, so ideally you would want to have as many different power sources as possible in order to evade big issues when some part of market will crumble; rapid inflation in prices of fuel or specific materials necessary for one power source on example.
hope we can make projects like this be a reality soon...
I wondered, if these systems are taking energy that wouldn't normally get through or atmosphere and beaming it down... Would that have additional heat issues for our atmosphere? I assume it'd be balanced by the lack of fossil fuels etc?
@@colinsmith1495 the science behind power satellites and rectennas allow for power transmission though bands tighter than that of the sun. You'd be able to send exclusively microwaves through the atmosphere, which have far less energy dissipation through the atmosphere than visible light. If you wanted to stop heat from getting to the earth, all youd have to do is place it at the L1 Lagrange point between the sun and earth, rather than in geostationary orbit.
In short, scientists have no idea, and any mathematical nonsense any commenter spouts off is complete bullship. Just like pharmacists have no idea the adverse effects of their pills, 1,5,10 years down the road to both the biochemical systems, the brain or genetically, but they'll sell it to you anyways cause your dumb and you'll pay for it.
If you think anyone on earth has any idea how the generation of artificially generated beams of energy is going to interact with the overwhelming chemical soup of the atmosphere, it's weather patterns, and or the adverse effects that it'll have on life forms, their either smarter then anything currently in existence, or a conman selling you statistical nonsense.
If you think some dumbass with a degree on UA-cam is gonna give you an actual answer, your on the wrong site my dude.
@@moguldamongrel3054 What do you mean about how some commented doesn't understand how artifically generated beams interract with the atmosphere and the life on it? As for the subtleties, I think you're damn right. At best, it would be similar to small scale unethical experiments on how things like microwaves affect living tissue. At worst, using the power of imaginaaaation, imagine you'd get migratory bird patterns changing to dodge the giant beams of "uncomfortably hot light" which could lead to insect population booms in certain places which could just lead to all kinds of other bizzare schtuff.
Nothing that I said, or SciShow said is false, bud. It'd be more accurate to say that the nuances of giant uber-engineering projects like space fountains, space elevators, power satelites, and terwatt sized fusion reactors are so numerous that engineering math can't be trusted for anything other than the most basic and obvious consequences.
For certain, regardless of how certain y'are that enginerds on the internet are always wrong, you can BET that thermodynamics will still work. Thousands of acres of chicken wire rectennas will get HOT, or if not hot, warm. Mass estimates for these kinds of launch systems are still largely based on in-situ assembly masses that require human assembly, as most of the NASA technical reports that you can find on the NTRS for "autonymous on orbit assembly" have fairly substantial error margins for exactly how much mass would be needed on each unitary satelite to allow them to assemble themselves.
Alternatively, if you just assume that each power satelite would be its own standalone James-Webb looking origami nightmare, then you'd be eating a crap ton of lost mass to having each individual satelite carrying its own power system and RCS star scanner and communications equipment, rather than using larger and more efficient units which could be sent up piecewise one launch at a time.
What about this stuff do you take issue with?
@@Zachthesloth humans are like people who know smart words, and have big tools but are so dumb they'd do something dumb.
@@moguldamongrel3054 I mean sure, but id argue that stupid space lasers that could possibly help the planet is a better research project than not trying it.
Wrote a paper about this my freshman year of college (2011) and for some reason this is the first I am seeing of it without having to look into it.
"... this fully operational Death Star..."
Seriously how is this even a thing? If you can send usable gigawatts to earth on your beam, you have a death ray that you could point anywhere you fancied!
That answer lies in the fact that the beam diverges to a couple kilometers wide. I do wonder how unsafe that would be for, say, birds flying through the beam. But what percentage of that power spread over an area of kilometers is concentrated on the area of a single bird? Idk, gigawatts is a lot, but spread that thin it may not be so unsafe.
I mean... they do call it a beam... so I assume it could be focused... that would a good excuse to build such a thing...
@@JeffOf813 you'd only build it to be focusable as much as needed. You can't make a Lazer gun with a flashlight and binoculars, the lenses have to be designed with extreme precision to make something like that, so it wouldn't actually be practical to make this a weapon
@@bengoodwin2141 The same thing was literally said about atomic forces.
@@QarthCEO no, not really. This isn't a new force, it's something that's been understood for centuries. A specific lense will only focus light a certain amount, and you'd need a giant lense right in front of the target to focus the beam back into a dangerous amount from how it spreads out.
The sats would be built 99% from lunar materials for 97% cost-savings. Lunar regolith would be catapulted in small bricks by a mass driver to a collector at L2, then transported to a space-based processing plant at L4 or 5, where the build would take place. The completed sat would be brought downhill (at a leisurely 0-g), to geosynch. They would be maintained by robots and, if necessary, engineers housed at an adjacent station. Low frequency MW is preferred. The rectennas would be an open mesh above ground, beneath which can be farmed or put to other use. A pilot beam from rectenna to sat would keep the MW beam centered.
Or we could just build more nuclear power plants
This sort of thing is best considered as what would be used to _replace_ nuclear power plants.
@@absalomdraconis nuclear fusion whenever that FINALLY gets up and running. By the time we become concerned about running out of resources for nuclear power, we will already have fusion power, and space mining operations.
This and the other scishow you did recently on solar collectors near the sun are both very promising! Let's do it already!
Heh, ha. You know anyone with several football fields-worth of space-ready mirrors, a fleet of two hundred Falcon Heavy rockets, and an entire first-world country's fuel reserves not being used for anything else?
The spacecraft to service the planned one in the 1970's was discussed in Found & Explained.
If a Laser would hold its beam fairly well would not a Maser do the same?
The other thought I had was, what if somewhere down the line as starlink (or similar) satellites become ubiquitous could they be used a piggyback solar energy relay points from satellites much further in Geosynchronous orbit. The Geosynchronous Satellites would be aiming at Low Earth Orbit Satellites instead of having to hit ground targets. The lower satellites could then bounce the energy around until it could hit the ground station, exactly the same way they're planning to beam down internet.
The degree to which a beam spreads out with distance depends on the wavelength of the light and the size of the emitter. Lasers have short wavelength and are easy to keep focussed with fairly small emitters. Masers have much longer wavelengths and their beams will spread out much more, unless the emitter is made impossibly large.
The whole point of putting the satellite in geosynchronous orbit is so that it doesn't have to try to hit a moving target. You are suggesting that we have a geosynchronous satellite try to hit a moving target, then that moving target try to relay that power to another moving target on the ground, with all of the associated power loss from the relay. You are making a Rube Goldberg machine with all of these moving parts that are essentially redundant.
The dual axis trackers in the shot 1:08 are the ones my company sells. They are Sun-action trackers made in Korea.
Its a nice idea, but tapping the heat of the Earth's interior is probably more practical. Plus Wage power, now there is an underutilised energy source.
Or go full SeaQuest and have turbines powered by undersea currents.
I think it is worth noting that microwave lasers are a thing.
It’s actually called a maser. Laser is an acronym for light amplification by stimulated emissions of radiation. And of course maser is the same except the “m” stands for microwave.
The graphics in this video looked fabulous!
Anyone that's been watching Issac Arthur has known about this for years.
YES, LET THEM FUQIN KNOW
For the love of God lol
I see I found another person of culture
The largest issue with this is the fact that the atmosphere that is in the way would be heated immensely, which might be the actual largest issue since we would essentially be baking our planet, which is kinda an issue...
Not with the microwave system, they choose their frequencies because they _don't_ meaningfully interact with the atmosphere.
There is far more power than needed available on Earth's surface, so this concept may never be needed.
Exactly, we just need better energy storage solutions and we'll be fine without space power stations.
I distinctly remember seeing an episode talking about how the SpaceX satellites were reflecting too much light and disrupting astronomy this would be marvelously worse
Not necessarily. The Starlink array has giant reflective panels on it which is why they glow so brightly (SpaceX has promised future ones would not do this btw). These would have solar panels which are dark and absorb light - and are facing the sun. The back-side of which could easily be painted black to make them ~invisible.
The constellation idea. Definitely. The geosynchronous on it should be fine
Shooting giant microwave beams kilometers wide into an already warming atmosphere doesn't exactly seem like the most prudent plan.
Direct heating is a far smaller effect of producing power than the greenhouse effect.
Compared with fossil power (originally stored many millions of years ago) directly releasing 2 GW of power as waste heat (optimistically, for CCGT) for every GW of electricity (plus CO2 meaning more of this waste heat is trapped), or desert solar (20% efficient) changing the local albedo such that more solar energy is absorbed at low altitudes. A microwave rectenna was demonstrated at 90% efficiency in the 1970s (Google Goldstone power beaming demonstration).
Honestly, the first option sounds like an incredibly dumb idea. The cost and area required to produce the energy for one city is nowhere near favorable.
Of course, a better solution is staring us right in our faces: Improved battery technology (whenever that FINALLY happens and doesn’t pose a significant danger to the environment) and NUCLEAR.
Just send the concentrated light to a solar collector plant on earth. Those are also large mirror arrays that point to a tower in the middle, typically to heat molten salt. Much more efficient (that other EM conversion again step is very wasteful). Much less expensive. This is practical today, and there are many other potential benefits.
Ah yes, I remember reading that particular short story by Asimov; I didn’t realize he was the one to conceptualize space-based solar panels! There are lots of concepts in iRobot that are decades ahead of their time; its one of my favorite sci-fi novels and very much worth reading. Ignore the movie, that had practically nothing to do with the book.
Those first few science fiction authors came up with a lot of these ideas, I think mostly because the scientists were focused on more near-term ideas that space opened up, or arguing about quantum mechanics.
Will Smith forfeited a surefire Academy Award because in Asimov's robot world, it was impossible for robots to rebel. They just didn't have the programs and had really good antivirus programming. This made for very interesting plots. That the robots in the movie rebelled made the movie ordinary; the scriptwriters were lazy. It was jarring and distracting. Oh well ... Mr. Smith I feel earned an Oscar for a movie in which he played a Mexican Federale. He's a great actor.
That's a nice orbital bombardment laser you've got there.
🤣
That second idea is just a heat ray in space
I always thought power storage and distribution was the bigger problem with renewable energy sources.
That cost would be much lower if/when SpaceX starship gets going and it would open up opportunities for larger systems. Large systems like that tree design could change everything.
The weight problem can be solved by using component satellites, having individual craft for each aspect of the collector. Several for the mirrors focused on the few or one for the solar panels. The distance problem can be solved by a relay satellite network. Ones in a lower orbit that can relay the power from the collectors to the planet. A combination of the microwave transmission from the collector satellites and the laser transmission from the relay satellites would solve most of the problems.
Do you guys think it’d be easier to just build them in the Middle East/Africa?
It would be easier to make, but you would get more power from space...you can put them in oribt so it always faces the sun and never covered by clouds.
No, way too hostile there. Might as well try north korea
The desert is actually not that dark and reflects a lot of heat back out into space, but 70% of the light energy hitting a solar panel is converted to waste heat that then makes the lower atmosphere above them hotter. The key word here is *albedo.*
I assume by africa you mean the Sahara the main issue is logistic ... how can you take all thoses solars panels to the middle of the desert ? there are really few roads and the maintenance is close to non existant and even less electric poles ect you got the idea
Australian outback would be the most ideal place, friendly nation to most nations on earth it's far away from all the unfriendly nations and has a lot of land and sun
cracking solution
This would be great to augment power. But I'd never want to have a 2-3 year power outage, while waiting for a repair mission of a satellite hit by a meteor or space debris.
Having many smaller solar collectors rather than few large ones would be better for that. You could handle losing some.
Placing solar panels on Uranus will great large amounts of moonlight that can be harnessed for its energy.
Let's be real, even if we have unlimited power from space solar panels, private electric companies would still charge like a hundred bucks a month just for keeping the lights on in a studio apartment.
I love hearing about cool technologies like this (specifically the Dyson-Harrop satellite) but I feel like I've been hearing about them for 20 years and we're finally just now taking the first baby steps toward making them a reality. I really hope we get something majorly beneficial implemented before I'm 60 (another 30 years).
Many of these ideas were thought up by science fiction authors a lifetime before they would be viable. Some of the ideas are even centuries out.
But at least with SpaceX, we're reusing our rockets, and high speed internet will soon be available in the most remote parts of the globe. Also, we've flown a helicopter on Mars, collected samples from asteroids, and in a few years, we're going back to the moon to do more than just pick up some rocks. Over the last few decades, our mars rovers have gone from 25 pounds to nearly 2000. The asteroid and lunar missions are also seen as more than just science, but also the first steps of prospecting.
Beaming extra sunlight onto Earth, would heat up the earth...
Hopefully less than trapping it in exponentially accelerating climate change.
Directly heating up the Earth with extra energy from the sun is orders of magnitude less effect than the greenhouse effect for the same amount of useable energy. And other ground-based methods of generating power produce waste heat, anyway. Solar panels on the ground are dark, but a lot of the light they absorb turns into heat rather than electricity.
@@Br3ttM 99% of the energy on the Earth, comes from the sun. More sun = more heat.
The rockets used to lift solar panels to orbit are gonna make greenhouse gases anyways.
It's a terrible idea.
@@SpecialEDy It's a cost benefit equation, and we lack all the numbers to say which is better. Yes, this will heat the earth if we do it. Will the energy gained cause less greenhouse gasses to be created than would have been from making that same amount of electricity on earth using fossil fuels? We, as the viewers simply don't have the numbers for that. We'll have to let the actual scientists do that math, rather than debating it without facts.
Spooky pentagram looking formation 🤣🤣🤣
The current problem with this model is that it's impossibly expensive. In the future, when it's less expensive, the biggest problem with this model will be all the 5G-style conspiracy theorists, who will be shouting at a constant 11 for the next several decades about it.
It would be cheaper just to make solar panel connectable modules that can float, and put them on the surface of the ocean.
@@moguldamongrel3054 maybe the builders could also put some kind of filter at the bottom to collect microplastics or other pollutants 🤔
@@FireThemAll might as well. What's that saying, 2 birds with one stone? You'd have to find a way to balance out the thermal loss though, since putting a surface on the ocean surface would alter water temperatures drastically and irrevocably. So you'd have to find a way to transfer heat whilst still gaining electricity. Maybe transparent panels? Or pull heat from the deserts? Idk I'd take some serious work.
Orbital power been saying this since I've been in high school...
So space lasers?! (Marjorie Talyor Green will be quaking).
Great info about upcoming space tech.
The first 1000 people to use the link will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium Membership: skl.sh/scishowspace07211
Wouldn't the microwaves cook any flying organisms in the area, and heat up the local atmosphere?
I feel like this gets into the changing weather type of technology
Better to use solar on homes and nuclear power plants to fill the gaps.
LFTR!
WoOT
Actually it would be best to use what is natural around the location needing power. If your in the Arctic then solar is great for half the year and wind might make up for the rest of the year when fewer people are there and solar isn’t viable. Then you go to central usa (the plains) and wind would be really great in the more northern and southern parts where weather isn’t as good for solar. Solar would be best in states with tons of sun and few weather events like the desert. Go to states that have tons of water and damns are really great for power. Up in Washington we are almost all hydro power. We actually export power to states around us. Yes we have a natural gas and a nuclear power plant…but only one each.
As I said, it’s not about going all in on one or two power sources around the country but about using what is best for that location. On and before you say hydro will not work as water levels drop…nor will most other power sources as all but a select few (wind, solar, and some specific engine like natural gas generators) use water for steam production that then creates power as it is much more efficient.
Nuclear is more responsible for global warming than anything else.
*Why do you think they have problems with the wastes?*
10 YEARS TO COOL IT DOWN UNDER 40 FEET OF HEAVY WATER, that can't be transformed back to regular H2O.
Want to guess where all the heat is at?
Accidents, Bombs, Bomb Test, Normal Operations Of Power Stations.
*All Release Man Made Nuclear 🔥 Hot Particles That Can't Be Extinguished!*
Into every levels of the environment.
Some fly away out of the reactor walls!
A security guard got cancer in the ass from the seat he used in the guard shack. At The Entrance Gate To The Factory!
The hottest 🔥 particles have a Half-Life Of 4 Billion Years.
That's 40 Billion Years Before It's Safe.
Longer than the earth.
*Trees Dying Where You Are?*
Thank Your Nuclear Stars!
@@arguescreamholler did you know that there was a natural occurring nuclear reactor that was discovered years ago? It was not created by humans but warmed that area. So no, human nuclear isn’t the only thing warming the planet (though this site was mined out).
On top of that, heat islands and lack of foliage is actually a bigger concern. Asphalt absorbs tons of heat and sunlight (why is it black…black absorbs more energy then every other color) and emits it at night warming up the area which prevents recovery. This has become a major issue with the last few heat waves and it will just get worse. The lack of foliage means plants are unable to absorb the solar energy and that energy is instead converted to heat. Plus plants hold water which allows them to distribute the heat or even dissipate it back into the atmosphere. To say that on energy source is causing all the issues is moronic. Also if not for the nuclear test ban treaty newer reactor designs (like pebble bed reactors) would be able to take nuclear waste and use it as fuel. But we are not allowed to really test them. Well that’s also to do with fear mongers like you who insist nuclear is the worst thing out there.
@@Chris-cv1ll
Show where I said ONLY?
Probably the best way to do this is to go the infrared laser approach and build it in to a series of shells like startlink? Then you can have a network that gradually grows and increases in capability.
Nuclear reactors are cheaper, safer, and generate more power than anything else.
Why not both?
Yeah,but they also produce radioactive waste.
I have watched a lot of gundam series to know where this is going
Or we could just use nuclear.
Or we can use them all. You don't have to choose one.
Part of the answer is microwave lasers that combine not being absorbed early by storms and clouds and the focused beam that is the same radius on both ends. either that or combine it with wireless charging receivers and plan the spread so it covers all of the earth all the time and you just have a energy receiver in every device (portable or not) so you just always have power everywhere - no more power grids or dead cell phones unless you go underground.
This is THE way to solve ALL out problems. Ever expanding dyson swarms with colony’s intermixed. All the way to the next star, then repeat.
They did not even mention that wirelessly transmitting energy is less effective currently however has the potential to be even more effective with innovation. We could go from 4%-7% waisted energy from production (with wired) down to possibly 1% wasted energy loss with wireless if we work on the technology more.
Nothing like lasers pointing down upon the population.
My tin foil hat will protect me
@@zomfgeclipse Nah just surround yourself with chakra crystals bro. Don't be ridiculous.
Yes: nukes. Hundreds of them pointing right now at you. And I can tell you that they will do more damage than heating up the ambience.
@@BlueFrenzy and yet nukes aren't allowed in space. Crazy.
@@miketerran4140 They are also not allowed on earth. Any nuke launch is forbidden by the whole international community. But don't doubt that if someone wants to nuke your head, they will do it. Same for this. Using a beam to burn your hair is going to be forbiden, and the only thing preventing anyone to do it is the international response.
“scientists arguing with eachother”
scientist bill: send a high power beam at bob
bob: send a microwave beam at bill’s dog
Make some Nuclear reactors, its the only freaking way.
You might want to rethink that idea: ua-cam.com/video/ZwY2E0hjGuU/v-deo.html
@@Norp-i7m we can deal with nuclear waste perfectly safely. You do know that burning fossil fuels releases far more in radioactivity in one year than the nuclear industry has ever done, don't you? Well you should.
@@marvintpandroid2213 fusion should be the way to go not waste producing fission.
@@tauceti8060 we don't have the time to mess about waiting for new technologies. We need to invest in what we know works now.
I had a dream about his last week, you all read my mind and answered my wavelength question for getting through the atmosphere. thanks guys
Yes omnipotent one; the world exists to serve your needs. Let us know if you want anything else.
@@JackSparrow-re4ql well if you're asking i'd like you all to stop fighting thanks.
yeah, i dont think dumping more infrared into earth is a good way to tackle climate change
As opposed to... dumping more CO2 into the air? Climate change was most notably increased when that started happening.
Why not? The infrared is transparent to the atmosphere except for greenhouse gases. If you stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, you stop keeping the heat inside. Burning coal also dumps infrared in the atmosphere, plus the extra CO2.
you know there was still co2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution right? 278ppm vs 417ppm now, it's 50% higher now
it would still be adding heat to the system. yes, probably less bad, but it's still something that needs to be watched, because it can be overdone
How about a hybrid approach? Sun-synchronous low-altitude satellites beam power via IR laser to geosynchronous "mirror" satellites that then beam it to ground stations in areas with ultra-low cloud cover.
Or you could, you know, just make a few nuclear reactors for a fraction of the cost that provide the same amount of energy.
Exactly.
Too much nuclear waste to deal with with this option and uranium isn't infinite.
@@tauceti8060 nuclear waste is an easy solution. Breeder reactors and molten salt reactors can use our current waste as fuel. With current Gen 4 designs, the nuclear waste situation is a nonissue. On top of that, Thorium reactors use much less fuel as uranium reactors, are cleaner, and are much more abundant. The amount of thorium and uranium we currently have will give us more than enough time to finalize fusion power and space mining.
The capability to harvest energy from space is another step for us to become spacefaring civilization.
@@gorilladisco9108 you are correct, but their are major flaws in energy transmission in these designs, and the current feasibility is nowhere near here.
Yes, let's make earth bigger so it catches more sunlight and heat earth up even faster. Brilliant!
I expected more from you.
If we used IR beams, we'd have an even worse time photographing the stars, than we do with starlink!
I'm sure we can figure something out.
@@albertjackinson : Yeah, use microwave frequencies.
If we’re in the position to economically launch 80,000 tonnes of solar farms then it shouldn’t be too much to ask that a few copies of JWST be launched.
Joe Scott reiterated one issue that opponents bring up, that this transmission has an efficiency of like 9% (for the laser one?). So, because ground based solar panels have a much higher efficiency than that, it's probably cheaper to just deploy more ground based panels. And, a satellite based panel I would guess has a higher potential of catastrophic loss of a huge portion of this energy collection infrastructure than ground based.
Death ray, Tesla would be so proud! Geothermal is the way to go.
Any bond villain would be so proud! I demand that twirlable mustaches be mandatory for all space laser operators!
Whether Microwave or Lasers, all pointed at the earth , sure sounds like the opening of a disaster movie to me!
Nuclear *cough cough*
Fusion will be commercialised before we even have the capability to get that much stuff into orbit.
@@DanielSMatthews Nah. The StarShip can carry almost 200 tons into orbit. So delivering the quoted 80,000 tons per satellite would only take 400 launches which is very feasable since SpaceX plan to mass-produce these rockets, launch them like 3 times a day at $2 million a launch and re-use them many times.
Even with the existing Saturn V (140 ton payload, $185 million per lauch), it would take 570 launches and $74 billion per satellite. The cost/benefit is another story in this case though.
@@zimelo6957 That has nothing to do with the point I made, perhaps you don't realise how close we actually are to commercial fusion and how far we are away from Musk's plans coming to fruition? Also keep in mind that you would need to repeat the exercise every 20 years even if they did not get damaged in a big solar flare.
@@DanielSMatthews Fusion (with net profit) is always 20 years away, so we could have the 2nd generation of space solar done by the time they acheive it. I'm only talking about the first pilot plant in USA, and they plans are still extremely dubious. www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/road-map-us-fusion-power-plant-comes-clearer-focus-sort
For the space solar, we already have all we need.
SpaceX moves quick. Their first starship orbital launch is coming up in August (according to regulatory filings, not Elon time), and they are already semi-mass-producing those things.
There's a reason why he said UK, USA and Japan are already testing space solar.
@@zimelo6957 Like I said, you have no idea, go and research what Jeff Bezos just invested in. :-)
Was just thinking about this a few days ago, great video 👌
We need to be using less energy, and generating that energy locally as needed. That's how we move forward. Consolidating power into global infrastructure will harm far more than it benefits. Only psychopathic consolidators are driving the need for more energy so high that 13% don't have access to reliable energy. Without the mega polluters consolidating wealth and resources for the sake of "owning more when they die", all quality of life would be drastically increased right now. Energy would be all but free to everyone who wants to live, and make new people. Like it should be. Like Telsa was trying to do. The secret isn't in space. It's right here on the ground. And it begins and ends with demonizing the hoarding of more than one needs.
Most in the technology space are trying to make devices more efficient. This typically just means faster computers in the same power envelope, and cars that perform better rather than use less energy, but even those aren't necessarily bad things. Greater efficiency means you can either accomplish the same task with the same amount of energy but in less time, or, you can accomplish the same task in the same amount of time using less energy.
Good idea
Answer: No.
Longer answer: it costs more energy to put those panels up there, energy and effort that is utterly wasted because we can put solar panels on the ground. Even if you claimed that we could orient the array to face the sun, all that means is that we should have to put four times as many panels down and job done. And we can easily replace broken ones on the ground, not so easy in space. Therefore it will not solve our needs because the problem isn't where we put the solar panels, it is that there is money still stuck in the ground that companies have specialised in extracting and selling that stuff, their equipment would be worthless.
I don't know who is your favorite person in the universe, but mine is by far Hank Green.
This sounds alot like the solar freaking roadways scam.
Why is that?
@@albertjackinson because it's just designed to soak up grant money that would go a hell of a lot further building regular solar panels here on earth in places that we already know they will work, where gravel trucks won't be driving over them.
L1 has the space for this!
The Sci-Fi Universe is kinda already here folks.
It's just the Geniuses
They should just focus on fusion.
You know theres more than one scientist on earth, right? We have the people and resources to focus on multiple possible solutions to humanitys biggest problem. Besides, fusion is still 30 years away, just as it has been the last 60 years.
@@2MeterLP yes I know that. I'm just saying that fusion has great potential to provide clean power for the entire planet and the fuel source for it is practically inexhaustible. Still I think the green energy future will be a multiple approach: wind, solar, hydro,
Having said that the biggest advantage that fusion has over solar and wind is its not dependent on the sun shining or the wind blowing. A fusion power plant can work at all times.
I think the way it might work out is if we can build a space elevator platform/relay station on low earth orbit. We can send materials via the elevator to the platform and then use a much smaller rocket to send the solar panels to a higher orbit. Power will be transmitted to the platform via lasers and then from the platform down to ground base via superconducting cables.
It's called a Dyson Sphere duh 🤡✨
A dyson sphere is around the sun 🤡
That was interesting af
All I could think of during this was the energy beaming down and some human flying through it, sailing through it, etc.
Whoa! These started to show up in my feed again!! I forgot I had subscribed!!
Ah! You mean an orbital space death ray! Sounds like fun! :P
I liked the video but I kinda wished they talked a little more about potential risks and problems. For example, how many satellites and/or structures would be need to power a nation, how much space (land) would that use, would these satellites drastically increase space trash pollution, would they cause problems for telescopes or space missions, how would the satellites be dealt with if they can't be repaired, etc. I think there are more concerns then just cost and commit to this technology and that we might be trying to over engineer a solution to our energy problems.
An idea is that we could put the solar panels in an orbit that would have them always in front of the Earth so as to act as a shade to cut down on one of the symptoms of global warming.
(Same idea as Kurgazat had for their Venus video, but not as severe.)
Asteroid mining and space giant mirrors must be in to-do bucket list in far future, Earthly problems are more important :)