Another Feather in the Cap of Space-Based Solar Power

Researchers from Aarhus University in Denmark, Vermont Law School, and the CNA Corporation in the US have released two reports which warn that our current means of water-intensive electricity production will result in massive water shortages and become unsustainable by 2040 for the entire planet, and as early as 2020 in some areas.

From the Science Daily article (emphasis mine):

Three years of research show that by the year 2040 there will not be enough water in the world to quench the thirst of the world population and keep the current energy and power solutions going if we continue doing what we are doing today. It is a clash of competing necessities, between drinking water and energy demand...In most countries, electricity is the biggest source of water consumption because the power plants need cooling cycles in order to function. The only energy systems that do not require cooling cycles are wind and solar systems, and therefore one of the primary recommendations issued by these researchers is to replace old power systems with more sustainable wind and solar systems.

Here is a more complete list of solutions from the reports (emphasis mine again):

• Improve energy efficiency
• Better research on alternative cooling cycles
• Registering how much water power plants use
• Massive investments in wind energy
• Massive investments in solar energy
• Abandon fossil fuel facilities in all water stressed places (which means half the planet)

Massive investments in solar power, you say? Ahem.

Things Are Looking Up (or at Least They Should Be)

So, almost a couple months ago, I found myself in the strange position of having to agree with Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer. Yeah, I know. I'm still trying to shake the creepy feeling. In my defense, however, I only agreed to a degree, and drew a clear line exactly where they started acting like the King Trolls they truly are (you'll need to click on the link for further elaboration/clarification).

In that post, I also referenced a very lucid takedown of solar roadways by Thunderf00t. Sorry, solar roadway fans, but they ain't what they're cracked up to be (pun definitely intended). Interestingly, in that video, Thunderf00t estimates that if we cover all of America's roadways in these proposed hexagonal solar panels, the tempered glass component alone will cost close to what I estimate the present price tag for space-based solar power (SBSP) to be ($20 trillion vs. $10-$300 trillion). Now, forgetting for a moment that a recent NASA-funded research project came up with a much lower total than I did, let's just assume the two ideas would cost roughly the same. With the amount of either bill being essentially a wash, and assuming no show-stopping deployment/feasibility issues, we are only left deciding which is a more productive and beneficial concept (i.e.: which gives us more bang in the form of energy for our buck).

To start the decision-making, we should first consider perhaps the most important factor: efficiency. The solar roadway folks claim about a 15-20% efficiency. Nice, but once you remove/polish away the snow/dirt/dust/opaque scratching/etc., get your solar panels above the shadowing/interference caused by cars/trees/buildings/clouds/weather/other atmospheric disturbances/etc., you might just find the biggest issue is transmission difficulties, and even detractors put the worst-case RF/microwave-beaming scenario at about 50% efficiency. What are your most problematic power production levels in space can't even be achieved in the best of situations on good ole terra firma.

Secondly, that efficiency estimate for solar roadways will NOT hold in higher latitudes and/or during the winter due to the fact that the sunlight is less direct and has to travel through greater stretches of scattering atmosphere resulting in further attenuation of its strength, as Thunderf00t points out in his video. In space, however, you need not worry about your distance from the equator or seasonality. The sun shines with equal power all the time, which is nice.

Finally, though I said the cost of either shouldn't weigh into the decision here, I really meant initial investment, because, when the price of maintenance is considered, I don't think there can be any doubt that the wear-and-tear of vehicle traffic will far surpass anything the vacuum of space can throw at properly-designed, autonomous satellite systems. To the best of my knowledge, once SBSP is up in geosynchronous orbit, it will be well beyond most of the corrosion issues faced in low-earth orbit, as well as threats from man-made space junk. If I'm wrong about that, I welcome the schooling, so let me have it. Fair warning, however, I'm not terribly interested in long dissertations about the dangers posed by micrometeorites. I never claimed SBSP was perfect and invulnerable (in fact, systems like the one proposed by John Mankins are biologically-inspired, modular, no-single-point-of-failure designs whereby broken components are replaced, if necessary, rather than repaired...see section "3.3 Concept Description" of the SPS-ALPHA final report), and, I think we can all agree, no power system we make ever will be.

Thunderf00t makes a snarky and rather valid point toward the end of his video about existing parking lot solar panels. For good reasons, you don't find them under the cars, where the solar roadway folks would have us put them. Well, I'm just asking that we take that point to its logical conclusion and place our solar panels in the ultimate "above it all" location: 35,000km over our heads.

Let's go, solar roadways folks, before all that money you received gets wasted on R&D for a less practical, less productive idea, donate it to SBSP projects which promise to deliver more energy per dollar invested. Instead of looking down, start looking up, because, like it or not, that's where we're headed, anyway.

My Space Pom-Poms Pale in Comparison

I've been trying to make a strong case for space-based solar power (SBSP) recently, but I got nothing on this guy. Meet the real SBSP cheerleader, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions LLC, John C. Mankins.

Mankins has had a distinguished technology innovation career in and out of NASA, and he has written a book which argues the case for SBSP.

You can get a good idea where Mankins is coming from by watching his TEDx talk. Notice how he dives right in and starts the presentation by mentioning the challenge of overcoming SBSP's present astronomical cost (OK, fine, pun intended).



SBSP has been in the research pipeline for decades, and, only a couple years ago, Mankins spearheaded an effort funded by NASA to address many of the issues raised by previous studies.

From the program's final report:

The vision of delivering solar power to Earth from platforms in space has been known for decades. However, early architectures to accomplish this vision were technically complex and unlikely to prove economically viable. Some of the issues with these earlier solar power satellite (SPS) concepts – particularly involving technical feasibility – were addressed by NASA’s space solar power (SSP) studies and technology research in the mid-to-late 1990s. Despite that progress, ten years ago a number of key technical and economic uncertainties remained. A new SPS concept has been proposed that resolves many, if not all, of those uncertainties: “SPS - ALPHA” (Solar Power Satellite by means of Arbitrarily Large Phased Array).

In other words, this latest SBSP research effort attempts to fix the remaining "technical and economic uncertainties."

SPS-ALPHA incorporates a number of critical new technologies, including: (1) WPT using a retro-directive RF phased array with high-efficiency solid-state amplifiers; (2) high-efficiency multi-bandgap PV solar cells, employed in a concentrator PV (CPV) architecture with integrated thermal management; (3) lightweight structural components, applied in various systems/subsystems; (4) autonomous robotics in a highly structured environment; and, (5) a high degree of autonomy among individual modules. However, no “breakthroughs” are required, and the key innovation is at the architecture level.

I made that last sentence bold text, because I think it's important. We don't have to invent anything new to make SBSP a reality. We have all the tech required in our hands already, and SPS-ALPHA takes it into the fold. The only innovation necessary is how we design it, or how we assemble it, the architecture.

As for the seemingly insurmountable economic issues of SBSP (I personally estimate present costs of satisfying all US energy demands at $10-$300 trillion...yup, trillion), this report will knock yer spaceboots off.

The study concluded that the SPS-ALPHA concept could – with needed technological advances – make possible the economically viable deliver of solar energy to markets on Earth. In particular, it appears that a full-scale SPS-ALPHA, when incorporating selected advances in key component technologies should be capable of delivering power at a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of approximately 9¢/kilowatt-hour...Although no breakthroughs in technology appear to be needed to realize SPS-ALPHA, transformational changes in how space systems are designed are needed. Additional research and development (R&D) will be required for confirmation of this very promising finding.

9¢/kilowatt-hour. Even if the true cost turns out to be double that, wow, just WOW. As Mankins mentions in his TEDx talk, today's US market prices range anywhere from 10¢ to 40¢/kilowatt-hour. No emissions and an eventual cost less than terrestrial production.

That settles it. I gotta buy bigger pom-poms.

Spending Lotsa Money, or Experimenting More with the Climate

A couple days ago, I used the Moon landing anniversary as an excuse to post a patriotic, hoorahrah, pom-pom-waving rallying cry for space-based solar power. Well, I think it was patriotic, anyway. Fifty-some years ago, we decided, as a nation, to spend a lot of time, money, and effort to accomplish what seemed like to us at the time a vital, if not dire, space-faring goal that could not have come about any other way (i.e.: without the full resources and commitment of the American people and the federal government).

I am asking that we do the same again, not for hundreds of billions this time (the cost of the Apollo program in today's dollars), but many trillions. I estimate the cost of satisfying all of America's power needs (not just electricity!) to be anywhere from $10-300 trillion. Yup, ten to three hundred trillion dollars.

Now, when you recover from collapsing onto the floor, let me give you some reasons why you still need to take space-based solar seriously, despite the sticker shock.

Firstly, climate change, unlike communism, truly threatens our civilization and maybe even our very existence. As bad as Stalin was, something tells me even had his flawed vision of running a nation or the world triumphed, we'd have been much worse off, but not teetering on the brink of self-destruction due to Marxist policies alone. So we need to do something again, this time for a true threat, and it needs to be impactful.

Secondly, we appear hell-bent on answering the final frontier's call. Are we doing this merely to impress any aliens we might meet? Or to benefit from the things space has to offer such as a virtually limitless, 24-7-365 power source?

And, lastly, conservative denier think tanks won't come right out and say it, but they are scheming to profit from a problem they won't admit exists. We are pretty sure dumping sulfur into the stratosphere would cool the planet, but we have no firm sense of what other effects it would have. We have no idea what the true costs of that action would be. And the worst part is it does nothing to reduce our emissions. It's a Band-Aid, not a cure, and a Band-Aid that could cause other sicknesses.

Nothing meaningful we do to combat climate change will be inexpensive. NOTHING. Cheap, quick fixes will most likely make things better in the short term, but worse in the long run, if for no other reason than they kick the can down the road, as with lacing the atmosphere with aerosols. Space-based solar, though monstrously expensive, is a real solution. We know the costs, what to expect, and that it will work as intended. It would reduce our emissions dramatically, and it has the added benefit of coinciding with our space-faring goals. And as launch costs decrease so will the jaw-dropping price tag.

Not Because They Are Easy, but Because They Are Hard

"And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

-John F. Kennedy

Top-down inspiration got us to the Moon before the USSR, proving to the world that we were the ones with the superior nuclear warhead delivery system. That was the true goal of the Apollo program, if you care to evaluate it dispassionately and logically, as Neil deGrasse Tyson does.

"Notwithstanding the sanitized memories so many of us have of the Apollo era, Americans were not first on the Moon because we're explorers by nature or because our country is committed to the pursuit of knowledge. We got to the Moon first because the United States was out to beat the Soviet Union, to win the Cold War any way we could."

We were motivated predominantly by aspirations of becoming the greater global power; the ones demonstrating the superior economy, government, and technology. Now, you may have philosophical problems with such militaristic nationalism, and you may feel the "Red Threat" was a classic case of us chasing ghosts that led to more problems than benefits. America's paranoid, Cold War-era imperialism rearing its ugly head, and all that. I won't argue. All I ask is you consider that, at one time, we had the ability to recognize a threat, real or imaginary, come together as a nation, pool our energies into a successful, unifying effort, and triumph like no other country, kingdom, empire, etc., has ever triumphed before, despite the unknown dangers and daunting obstacles.

Only America, which created what is arguably the most influential secular legal document the world has ever produced, the US Constitution, with its codification of individual human rights, separation of powers, and of church and state, and so on, has sent humans to another world.

We are the only ones.

Think about that for a moment, because it should not be taken lightly. If I ever succumb to fleeting moments of foolish national pride, they are due to achievements like that. We have our problems, no doubt, but we can accomplish astounding and wonderful things when we set our minds collectively to the effort. And we have at least some right to be proud, because of these victories and despite our flaws.

OK, I'll set down the red, white, and blue pom-poms now, and explain why I picked them up and waved them about so frantically, if my injection of bold text into that famous Moon speech above didn't provide a large enough hint.

In stark contrast to JFK's enthusiastic call to charge blindly and eagerly into a challenging difficulty fraught with unknown perils and lacking any solutions, deniers offer us bottom-up despair. They do not even want public discourse regarding or mention of a problem unless proven fixes and technologies can be provided immediately.

"The purpose of our analysis and policy proposals is to create the political and economic conditions that foster the needed technologies. But there is no assurance that this will happen, and much time and money may be invested in futile and wasteful efforts...Our climate-change debates confuse more than they clarify...The central truth for public policy is: We have no solution."

There ya have it, folks. Deniers choose not to do things because they are hard. And they also apparently prefer those things don't get discussed. Just fucking swell that. Following such "reasoning," we can't contemplate or debate cancer, AIDS, poverty, hunger, etc., unless we have a cure ready to go, because we will only confuse matters. Ya got that?



But, fine, I'll play their silly little demanding game here for a moment, and offer my preferred solution which, unlike going to the Moon forty or fifty years ago, requires no new technology be invented: space-based solar power (SBSP).

Now, the reason I brought up JFK's speech (above and beyond the anniversary) is because I'm not interested in listening to bellyaching about the price tag or difficulty of doing it now (hence the bold text). Just not interested in changing denier diapers over something that can be nullified by determined national or international effort. That's whiny, defeatist crap which directly contradicts lessons we learned from the Apollo program, even in the face of SBSP numbers like anywhere from $3 billion/gigawatt to $100 billion/gigawatt (I added $80 billion to that higher launch estimate for material/R&D/labor and huge, kilometer-wide, ground-based receiver station construction costs). With total US power consumption (not just electricity!) in 2005 at 3.34 terawatts, that could mean a total SBSP bill of $10-300 trillion, which is a hefty sum considering our GDP, but, again, we are satisfying total US power needs, not just electricity. The electricity-only bill would be less, obviously. Also, in contrast, we presently pay $2 trillion each year for our current total energy needs, and the fossil fuel externalities that hardly ever get factored in. And, since those externalized fees shouldered by the American people instead of energy companies only consider health impacts, what are the additional annual costs of extreme weather events, rising seas, freshwater scarcity, and so on? And should a reasonable person expect those expenditures to go up or down in the coming years, hmmmm?

Just like with the Apollo program, we will certainly need to develop cost-cutting measures. Unlike Apollo, however, we will not be pulling as many rabbits out of our hats, or, perhaps more importantly, chasing ghosts. We know we are confronting a real environmental and security threat, not a contrived "Red Threat." So go cry somewhere else about the check we'll need to write and/or silly obstacles like opposition to microwave beaming, getting the ITU to agree to geosynchronous orbit, or what have you.

Every effort to reduce emissions by a significant amount while preserving our modern civilization will include some sticker shock and technical/political hurdles.

Every.

One.

And, unless I'm screwing up the math here, the carbon footprint of all those launches is arguably manageable, despite what you may think at first. At 30 tons CO2/launch, and assuming a head-spinning, worst-case maximum of approximately 150,000 launches to orbit ~3 terawatts worth of solar satellites, we still only get about 5Mt CO2 emitted. Not bad, because, remember, if all countries managed to put solar collectors up there, we will not only start dramatically reducing our energy production emissions, but, assuming much greater electric car usage as a consequence, our transportation GHGs as well. Eliminating 39% of 31Gt CO2/year is an annual reduction of 12Gt. The Earth would go from 31 to 19Gt CO2/yr. That's an accomplishment that would make Kennedy and Khrushchev proud. And, again, it would be marshaled in response to a more concrete and dangerous threat than those imagined on both sides during the Cold War. If spending hundreds of billions (in today's dollars) proving to the world you have better nuke-delivery tech than your perceived enemy is worth it, then a few trillion dollars spent confronting the greatest known existential threat to human civilization is more than worth it.

Besides, I've already mentioned that Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute is my copilot, and he often sticks his neck out defending SBSP, and you and I, mere mortals, are not allowed to disagree with Seth.

So there. :)