Potential Energy

Startup to Beam Power from Space

One California utility is taking Solaren Corporation's space-based solar-farm proposal seriously.

Kevin Bullis 04/15/2009

  • 14 Comments
Credit: ©Mafic Studios

A startup is trying to generate power in space for use on Earth--an old idea that's never been tried, mostly because it's too expensive, but also because people are concerned that it will fry birds in flight.

One of the biggest long-term challenges with solar power is that it doesn't work well when it's cloudy, and it stops working altogether at night. Most proposed solutions have to do with storing energy from the sun, but a more exotic way around this problem, first proposed in the late 1960s, involves putting the solar panels in space where the sun is always shining. The power would then be beamed to Earth in the form of some sort of electromagnetic waves, likely lasers or microwaves, to a ground-based station that could then deliver power to customers over existing transmission lines. The government has spent $80 million over decades to investigate this approach, but so far no pilot plants have been built.

Now Solaren Corporation, a startup based in Manhattan Beach, CA, is trying to get the idea off the ground. It's working with the California utility Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), which intends to enter into a power-purchase agreement with the company. If the agreement is approved by regulators, starting in 2016, the utility will purchase 200 megawatts of power from Solaren at an undisclosed price--that is, if the startup can get a system into space and working by then. The company has already selected a site in California for the receiving station; it hasn't said exactly where, but it will be close to a PG&E substation and won't require long-distance transmission lines.

Solaren hasn't released many details about the system. CEO Gary Spirnak says that it's conceptually the same as communications satellite technology: it uses solar panels to generate electricity, which gets sent to Earth in the form of radio waves, which are received by antennas on Earth. In a Q & A published by PG&E, he said that the design is "a significant departure from past efforts," so it will be economically feasible. The first system will reportedly be able to generate 1,000 megawatts--about the size of many conventional power plants. The company will need to raise billions of dollars to construct the plant. Right now, it only has 10 employees.

According to a 2007 report (PDF) from the federal government's National Security Space Office, space-based solar is now technically feasible as a result of advances in solar cells and robotics for construction, among other things. But the designs that it considered would be far too expensive for providing the sort of general-purpose, base-load power that Solaren intends to sell. Instead, the government office recommended that the first systems be developed to beam power to troops at forward military bases, since the military can afford to pay a premium. Right now, such bases have to pay an order of magnitude more for their electricity than most customers do. The power could also be used to make synthetic fuels to offset diesel and jet fuel that can cost $20 a gallon in a war zone.

Even then, the report was skeptical about the economic success of the first space-based power plants. The rocket launches alone could be a big problem: the report estimated that building just one power plant would require 120 launches, while the United States only launches about 15 a year (as of 2007). "Even with the [Department of Defense] as an anchor tenant customer at a price of $1-2 per kilowatt hour . . . when considering the risks of implementing a new unproven space technology and other major business risks, the business case for [space-based solar power] still does not appear to be close in 2007 with current capabilities (primarily launch costs)," the report said.

Solaren claims to have addressed these launch costs with its new design. It reportedly can build its first power plant with only four or five launches.

Another common concern is safety. Will beaming down massive amounts of power harm birds or airplanes that cross the path of a beam? Or what if the beam isn't aimed properly and sends its power into the middle of a city? According to the government report, these concerns are unfounded. In the system that it analyzed, the intensity of the beam would be "approximately [one-sixth] of noon sunlight," with the power absorbed over a wide array of antennas. "Because the microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies are high, they can be beamed at densities substantially lower than that of sunlight and still deliver more energy per area of land usage than terrestrial solar energy," which by comparison only generates electricity about a quarter of the time, the report said. The intensity would be less than the intensity of microwaves allowed by appliance standards to leak out of microwave ovens, the report claims. [Update: This doesn't appear to be accurate. If the energy is really one-sixth the energy from the sun, as exaerospaceace points out below, this would be roughly three times the allowable limit for microwaves. But one-sixth the energy from the sun still doesn't sound too dangerous. Of course, the sun can cause some pretty nasty burns if you stay out in it too long. Best not to stand around under the beam.] If the beam were to wander over a city, the results would be "anticlimactic," the report said.

But even if Solaren can raise the money it needs and convince people that the system is safe, it could still face opposition from other governments around the world--for example, many governments will be concerned that it could be used as a weapon. "The complexity of negotiating any type of international legal and policy agreements necessary for the development of [space-based solar power] will require significant amounts of time (5-10 years)," the report said.

In the end, because of the many obstacles to the technology, the report recommends that the government build a pilot plant to demonstrate the technology, suggesting that only the government has the resources to make it happen. It says that later, once the technology is proven and costs for launches come down, it might become economically viable. Solaren seems to think that it's found ways around these problems. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. For now, it's hard to see the agreement with PG&E as more than clever marketing for the company and the utility.




Credit: ©Mafic Studios


Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

mkogrady

423 Comments

  • 1032 Days Ago
  • 04/15/2009

Alternate Use - Climate Engineering

Space based solar farms could generate a lot of energy and direct it to neutral locations on the planet - specifically ocean surfaces - to provide increased ocean temps and drive additional evaporation. The added rainfall from a spaced based distiller may be needed when we start seeing more fresh water shortages. Best of all, these could run 7 x 24 x 365, or until maintenance forces a shutdown of some type.

A more sinister use might be to heat up waters in the paths where Hurricanes and other major storms develop so when they hit landfall thet're packing much more potential energy. Insurance Companies may want to be major funding sources so no eco-terrorist grab control of these boilers.

Reply

erbium

338 Comments

  • 1031 Days Ago
  • 04/16/2009

More Sinister Use

As everyone who has designed and run their own cities...

You select wonderful green power from solar satellites in various Sim City versions, and don't turn disasters off,

the satellite goes off tracking with the base station and crispifies a few blocks around it.  Good for hours of fun!  :)

Glad some private company is working on this.  Endless govt committees would never get it done.

Reply

erbium

338 Comments

  • 1031 Days Ago
  • 04/16/2009

One More Sinister Use

Looked at that picture in the wheat field!

What does that bring to mind?
CROP CIRCLES!

We can have a space based etch-a-sketch with wheat fields as the palette!  Even more fun than hours with Sim City :)  :)

Reply

mkogrady

423 Comments

  • 1023 Days Ago
  • 04/24/2009

Re: More Sinister Use

Actually - a possible benefit of the space boiler may be added rainfall, captured and stored in reseviors for hydro electric production + fresh water which could be pumped back into underground wells to replenish what we've pumped out already.

A little water stashed in the old-piggy-bank may not be a bad thought.

Reply

exaerospaceace

2 Comments

  • 1031 Days Ago
  • 04/16/2009

power from space

Something is very wrong with the numbers.  The power density is described as comparable to the leakage from a microwave oven, and yet as about one sixth that of sunlight at noon.  Full noon sunlight on a cloudless summer day is about 1 kilowatt per square meter.  A sixth of that is 167 watts per square meter = 16.7 milliwatts/cm^2. 

The radiological health standard for microwave ovens (USA) is:

"A Federal standard limits the amount of microwaves that can leak from an oven throughout its lifetime to 5 milliwatts (mW) of microwave radiation per square centimeter at approximately 2 inches from the oven surface. This limit is far below the level known to harm people. Microwave energy also decreases dramatically as you move away from the source of radiation. A measurement made 20 inches from an oven would be approximately one one-hundredth of value measured at 2 inches."

OK, thanks for the palliative language, but the proposed density is triple the oven limit.  And, unlike spot leakage at a microwave oven door, the proposed density extends for hundreds of meters and does NOT fade in a few feet, else it wouldn't have made it here over the thousands of miles from the satellite.  Standing in the beam will be like parking your butt not on a single oven door or even three of them, but on an array of hundreds of doors packed into the same area as your butt, all leaking at once.

I'd rather burn coal to make electricity, and I don't like coal.

Reply

Kevin Bullis

178 Comments

  • 1031 Days Ago
  • 04/16/2009

Re: power from space

Good point. Your numbers are right. (I've noted this above.)

Reply

gary7

59 Comments

  • 1031 Days Ago
  • 04/16/2009

Re: power from space

You are confusing the specific frequency of a micro-wave oven operating at 2.45 giga hz, which works by dielectric heating of WATER. Since water is a common component of the atmosphere as well as of organic systems, it's not the frequency we would use to transmit power from space, since it would all get absorbed by the atmosphere and never make it to earth. Note that a sunburn is caused by the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, not by the visible portion. If there were no UV rads, we could hang out in the sunlight all day and never get a burn. The same is true of the specific frequency  we would use for transmitting power from sats. It would be one to which both air and flesh are transparent, so the limits implied by micro wave ovens does not apply.

Reply

Advertisement

Silverthorn

11 Comments

  • 1031 Days Ago
  • 04/16/2009

Re: power from space

There's some confusion here.  The power level "comparable to leakage from a microwatt oven" should be for exposure outside of the rectenna and its exclusion area.  The power level at the rectenna would be orders of magnitude higher, but still only about 25% of the power of full sunlight.  That's by design, in the old reference study done by Boeing.  It's weak enough to not fry birds flying through it, but because of an estimated 85% conversion factor at the rectenna, still delivers more electrical watts per square meter than noontime sunlight.

But the Solaren plan is total fantasy.

Reply

Gaetano Marano

246 Comments

  • 1031 Days Ago
  • 04/16/2009

>>> send solar panels in Space costs just 300-1000 TIMES more than deploy them in a desert >>>

.

send solar panels in Space costs just 300-1000 TIMES more than deploy them in a desert, as explained in this “Space Solar Power hoax/illusion DEBUNKED” article:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/038sspdebunked.html

.

Reply

gary7

59 Comments

  • 1031 Days Ago
  • 04/16/2009

Re: >>> send solar panels in Space costs just 300-1000 TIMES more than deploy them in a desert >>>

Power sats as proposed by Glasser in the late 1960s assumed then existing solar cell efficiencies and watts/kg of solar cell mass. Today, solar cell efficiencies are several times better than in the 1960s and watts /kg have improved by about 1000 times, thus the cost/kg of solar cells to geosync orbit have also declined by several thousand times. I expect we need another improvement in watts/kg by a factor of ten, which is well within the capability of our current tech to achieve by 2012.  Plus, with single use rockets, we get an improvement in launch costs by a factor of ten(better than the space truck,,,er,shuttle). That reduces the potential costs /watt installed in space to a reasonable level.

Try keeping up with the tech,,,and for web sites that use pretty colors to accent their non-sense I have only one thing to say,,,that's a really dumb thing to do,,,

Reply

Gaetano Marano

246 Comments

  • 1031 Days Ago
  • 04/16/2009

Re: >>> send solar panels in Space costs just 300-1000 TIMES more than deploy them in a desert >>>

.

the "300-1000" figure is NOT a comparison between the past vs. present solar panels efficncy and/or price, but between the past AND present difference of costs to send EVERYTHING in Space vs. send the SAME THING in a desert or everywhere on the Planet's surface!!!

NO MATTER if you want to send in Space (with a rocket) one ton of solar panels OR food OR water OR hardware OR computers OR books OR another thing, since, it ALWAYS costs 300-1000 TIMES than send (with a truck) one ton of solar panels OR food OR water OR hardware OR computers OR books OR another thing to a desert OR to New York OR to Canada OR to Japan OR to your home!!!

the BIG difference of costs IS between a TODAY'S solar panel send in Space and the SAME solar panel send to a desert!!!

.

Reply

TooMany

125 Comments

  • 1029 Days Ago
  • 04/18/2009

Re: >>> send solar panels in Space costs just 300-1000 TIMES more than deploy them in a desert >>>

Space solar is economically absurd.  Thermal energy can be stored.  Constant solar input is not a necessity.

Reply

sougatapahari

18 Comments

  • 1025 Days Ago
  • 04/22/2009

Why not beam the power to satellites itself ?

I believe that If the same area that is allotted for the receiver of the beamed power down to earth is directly covered with far cheaper solar cells it might give us far greater efficiency in terms of investment.. besides, we haven't even begun utilizing the deserts and the oceans yet.

Where I believe this technology would prove useful is if an array of orbiting station generated the power and beamed it to the other orbiting satellites using lasers... this could save an impressive deal of fuel to get the heavy solar cells into orbit.... Given the electric propulsion technologies.. the energy could also be used for orbit correction maneuvers.

Reply

craig_holm

1 Comment

  • 993 Days Ago
  • 05/24/2009

The real problem with SPS

Deploying photovoltaic panels in geosynchronous orbit is not the primary challenge facing SPS. Building and locating rectenna fields is not the primary challenge.

The primary challenge is the design and demonstration of an efficient and reliable RF link coupling a an SPS transmitter to a receiving array over great distance. This has yet to be accomplished. The discussion can go on and on about frequency and bandwidth, power levels and safety for flora and fauna, but all this is just a lot of self-gratifying blather until some semblance of a microwave power transmission system is built and demonstrated.
Also note that if and when such technology ever sees the light of day, it would work very nicely into the plans for a 21st century smart grid for power distribution.

Reply

Bio

Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Subscribe to the Potential Energy RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement