Solar Power Satellites could broadcast energy to Earth

We would be much better off spending those billions on terrestrial renewables. A mix of solar, wind, wave, sea current and tidal power could give us all the power we need. Using a variety of sources would mean that not all of them are likely to be offline at the same time.

Is it fair to call Ben Bova a scientist? He's a writer who certainly knows a lot about science, but that doesn't necessarily make him a scientist anymore than anyone who knows a lot about art is an artist.

Spirit of 76

- November 2, 2008 @ 05:11 pm PST

I love the idea, but until they come up with a way to get things into space cheaply, I do not see it happening.

I wish the article would speak about the life cycle of the solar arrays. Heat dissipation? How high would the orbit be? Would the array stay in one spot and transmit for a few hours a day after storing the energy? If it rotated with the planet how would it ensure it was facing the sun all the time?

The article is a nice blub, but I want to be educated abut the technology....

Dennis

- November 3, 2008 @ 05:11 pm PST

Considering the amount the U.S. is spending in Iraq each month, a billion dollars is chump change to prove out a technology people have been wondering about for decades. Can it be done? Does it work? If it does, 100 MW of continuous energy, 24 hours a day for twenty years (expected lifetime of your average power plant), at a par value of US$75 per megawatt (the current energy forward value curves put energy at that value within a few years) works out to around US$1.3 billion. Not much of a payback, but not a money loser, either.

JDRay

- November 6, 2008 @ 06:11 pm PST

'Spirit_of_76' asks "Is it fair to call Ben Bova a scientist? He's a writer who certainly knows a lot about science, but that doesn't necessarily make him a scientist..."

Fair question, superficially, but if WE are to DO science --and that's what REALLY defines a 'scientist'-- we need to go deeper. When I interfaced with Carl Sagan (at U.C. Berkeley on the Viking project in the '70's,) he lamented his (possibly jealous?) colleagues' characterization as a 'mere popularizer, not a REAL scientist' precisely because he translated complex concepts into simpler but accesible terms for those outside our math-speak priesthood.

Similarly, on this precise subject of solar and alternative energy (exactly 25 years ago in San Francisco, at the 100th Anniversary of the AAAS,) I was alternate on a panel with Ben Bova (including none other than Cy Ramo himself) -- and Bova more than held his own as well as the respect of the whole panel, all recognized scientists. Significantly, after Ramo deftly and drolly computed the mortality/morbidity figures for roof-top solar collectors, "given existing ladder technology for necessary monthly cleaning in urban atmospheres," a sincere but non-science-trained questioner asked "Why convert the energy to electricity and beam it down as [dangerous] microwaves? Why not just put giant [parabolic] mirrors in geosynchronous orbit and reflect sunlight to a single point on earth?"

None of us could readily explain without arc-cotangents of the 1/2-degree angle subtended by the sun from earth orbit, but Ben stepped into the breach and shed instant illumination without scorching naivete or burning out enthusiasm. Now retired from medicine, science and technology to fulfill a vow to teach high school, I continue to admire (and emulate) the unique gifts of Asimov, Bova and Clark as parallel to Alpher, Bethe and Gamov in my list of unwitting but witty mentors.

Ask any practicing scientist whether s/he was/is influenced by science fiction... but don't be surprised by the answer.

Brian J. Boyle

- November 25, 2008 @ 02:11 pm PST