All you need to know about space based solar power

Solar power is a nice idea. Except for the issue with the clouds. And the nights. So, how about we instead put solar panels up in space and then beam the energy down? This futuristic idea is known as “Space Based Solar Power”. It’s been around since the 1960s, but in recent years several nations have launched projects to make it reality. I think they’re not kidding. Space-Based Solar Power is about to become a real thing. But how is it supposed to work? Is it a good idea to beam energy down from space? What are the pros and cons? That’s what we’ll talk about today.

🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜

00:00 Intro
00:41 Who is working on it?
04:24 How does it work?
09:08 Pros
10:07 Cons
13:12 Summary
13:54 Learn More about Solar Power With Brilliant

#science #tech #quizwithit

[adrianflo]

Remarking on the difference of advantage and "not being a disadvantage" is primarily the reason i watch Sabine. Just analyses it ever so slightly more and precise than everyone else.

[danielhuber]

In the early 1990s, I worked on space power beaming for the US DOE. There were two approaches microwave and laser array power transmission that were built and tested. I worked on the laser array collector panels. The entire transmission included laser array with wavelengths in the red and specifically tuned solar cell arrays to match the lasers. Earth based demonstated efficiencies of the system included laser diodes array efficiency better than 50% and monochromatic solar cell collector efficiency around 65% for a combined efficiency greater than 32%. Microwave power transmission systems were also demonstrated with conversion to microwave power at up to 65% and lower microwave receiver conversions.

[nostromog]

The first thing I thought when I heard that the British proposal ground station has a surface of 87km2 was to think about what if we just take those 87km2 and fill them with solar panels? This would amount to ~17GW nominal, i.e. 6 times more than their proposed 2GW (at ~200W/m2 and the standard 10^6 m2/km2). The production in a typical weather would be (UK has ~1400 hours of Sun per year, Spain has ~3000) from 20 to 40 TWh. This is the power of ~15 power plants, and the production of 2 nuclear power plants in a good year. Also, the estimated cost of ~16billion£ enables us to build a couple of those Earth-bound power plants at least.

[jamesfunk]

In the 1990s, a SimCity game, IIRC, had a scenario in which the player had to help a city recover from several fires. The premise was something caused the microwave beam from a space based solar satellite to miss the receiving antenna.

[GamingDemiurge]

I agree with you Sabine. Looks not feasible with current technology and infrastructure. But someone is gonna make some juicy money making useless prototypes.

[maxwellblackwell]

I had this idea when I was 16. My astronomy teacher (who graduated mit with an aeronautical engineering degree) told me it wasn't practical for many hundreds of years unless we get a massive leap in technology. He explained why perfectly. This was around 2005.

[tayzonday]

Aren’t wind and hydroelectric power technically just kinetic derivatives of solar power’s entropy? They would not happen without the sun. Places like the UK can just access “solar power” through a different vector.

[cmilkau]

Lol, proof by citation. I remember a group of authors doing that when researching for my graduation thesis. They referred an earlier paper as a building block, which somehow managed to refer to the later paper as a building block (both appeared within a few months of each other). Now this wasn't without value as those building blocks can be provided later independently, however claiming "achievement" of a technology is a bit of a stretch (no, it's an outright lie) in that situation. Funny enough, one of the two technologies was achieved independently about the same time and the other turned out to be if no other use, so these papers are basically redundant now.

[Matz]

Good overview. One quick point: The receiving antennas can be wire mesh, from what I know. They don't have to be solid. Which means you can still grow your crops UNDER the antenna, as long as you don't run your tractor into the poles that keep the mesh up.

[MehmetSurmeli]

I burst into laughter many times, particularly that particle physicists spin-off joke was hilarious. I love your sarcastic cool intelligent humour.

[robwhythe]

As a safety engineer, I was waiting for the time you raise the issue of what do you do when the energy beam goes astray from the target area and burns down anything nearby. It never came. The discussion was entirely on whether it can be made to work effectively and efficiently, assuming everything works properly. As an engineer with a background in transport generally, and aviation in particular, I am always looking for things that can go wrong and making sure there is at least one redundant system to take over when (not if) it does.

And, for historical purposes, I remember one of the short stories in "I Robot" by Isaac Asimov, based around such an energy beam which had to be tightly controlled and not allowed to go astray. It involved the robots assigned to target the beam developing their own religious understanding of why they were there and what they were supposed to be doing...

[Reinturtle]

I love how about the most complicated part, the transport of energy, they basically say "I'm sure we'll figure it out later" 🤣🤣🤣

[thevaf]

Engineer: "...and we'll use microwaves or lasers to transmit the energey back to the surface of the planet."
General: "yes yes, to achieve net zero. Please take my money and give me your laser cannon..ahem..space power plant."

[zappababe]

When naming something just to get a cool acronym, there actually is a word to describe this - it's known as a "backromyn" which I think is very apt!

[sophiophile]

I think you meant rectifying antennae, not receiving- as in it also converts the induced AC by the EM radiation into DC power.

[dgkimpton]

I think it's highly unlikely to be an efficient solution (which almost guarantees someone will build it) but placing the ground arrays out in the ocean or on an uninhabited atol somewhere could alleviate a lot of the NotInMyBackyard concerns (ignoring, of course, the minor issue of the extreme cabling challenge). We could probably better invest in some new reactor types though.

[EriKingOfTheWorld]

You forgot the most important point Sabine; governments will now have a giant space weapon that can be beamed anywhere at any time. Even "accidentally" or without our knowledge.

[Brakiri]

I think the real military application would be concentrated microwave beams destroying ground targets. The first orbital energy weapon. Reminds me of the orbital particle cannon used in the X-files.

[danielmcwhirter]

One of your videos on greenhouse effect said infrared photons have a thirty meter mean length of travel in the atmosphere before scattering or absorption. Thus I was shocked that my infrared thermometer measured the sun at about 450 F and clear blue sky straight up as low as -8 F. The temperature of blue sky warms quickly to the teens as I scan away from vertical. Low clouds (a few thousand feet up) measure just a bit lower than ground (64 F versus 68 F) atmosphere. Cirrus clouds and contrails' overcast ran around 40 F.

[nikjs]

Engineers: thanks for the funding, but we have a problem, it's possible for the satellite to miss aiming at the ground receiver and hit another spot on the ground.
Pentagon: you don't seem to understand why we funded you...