Japan: Clean Energy from Space:
Japan plans to develop a satellite fitted with solar panels that would send energy back to the earth, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
The National Space Development Agency, which hopes to launch an experimental version of the satellite between 2005 and 2007, has asked two teams of private companies to submit design proposals by the end of January, the Nihon Keizai financial daily said.

The satellite would be put into orbit by NASDA's H-2A rocket, which had its maiden launch last month, or a similarly sized rocket. It would be able to generate 10 kilowatts to 1megawatts of power, the newspaper said.
NASDA hopes to develop a practical version of a space-based solar-power generation system as early as 2020, the Nihon Keizai said.
lnk and link

1 megawatt wind turbines have been available for over 5 years... solar power from space is a joke. The amount of time, money and energy being thrown at this project should be directed at more efficient energy solutions.

Yeah, sure!

Solar power satellites make a lots of sense. We need to develop all the renewable sources of power we can.

Following is a more current update from NASA:
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS ... 12743.html

Guest , compared to already available renewable technologies , energy from space is a joke. As a previous poster states, 1MW turbines have been available for 5 years and commercially available 5MW ones will be available 2006.

How many many wind turbines , solar panels, hydro projects could you fund for the price of a single space solar panel project?

PB

There *might* be a critical point that will be reached when technology like this starts to become viable. It will take panels the sizes of which are measured in km (or miles), that are able to self-repair and re-route after hits from meteorites and miscellaneous space debris.

It is the stuff of dreams.

It is *exactly* that. It is a dream. Until we can get our own act together down below on Earth.

Well it sounds great much like all the other alternatives including my pet favorite fusion and I do like Iogens cellulose ethanol that seems to hold a lot of promise also.

The *critical* point seems to be lost on people.

** Peak oil is about the loss of cheap energy over a short time frame. **

Plateau as production is ramped up with high market prices. Then off over a CLIFF as the wells run dry.

Peak Oil is a serious issue there needs to be a global effort to improve the utilization of this resource combined with use of alternatives and increased funding for research into future sources of energy such as the microwave satellite technology.

I'd say it's a high probability that humans will stuff up the transition, basically untold suffering before the political inertia gets broken.

Concerned - your 'current favourites' seem rather bizarre when set against your clear interest in the minimization of loss and suffering due to peak oil.

The cellulose-ethanol option specifically requires arable land and so would add a new cash-crop pressure against global food production if it were to develop to a significant scale. The US proponents of the space-solar option 'hope' to launch 'a practical' version in 16 years time. The proponents of fusion power expect no practical power yields for 50 years.

These are distractions from the urgent practical task of identifying, researching and deploying sustainable energies. Don't kid yourself that the status quo funding them has any interest in that practical transition.

Backstop

JD

I think you are already in orbit. How is it up there? See anything neat?

Nobody mentioned terraforming Mars yet? That should be next on the agenda of an aspiring Type 2 Civilization (mastery over resources of the local star system) ...

Where's the doggone edit. Meant to put a smiley at the end ...

I don't think investment has to be an either/or situation. Considering all the other space projects (or just projects in general, like freeways) which produce no energy at all, I think one which pays itself off with clean energy should be pursued. Think of it as R&D which helps to carry its own weight.

The benefits of space projects is not just the energy output. For example, the power beaming technology used in the Japanese project will likely play a role in developing space elevators, which in turn will dramatically reduce costs of putting large structures like space generators into orbit. That could be beneficial cycle.

The space elevator is coming soon. The economics of it are too favorable to ignore. Any country or consortium which can put one up is going to revolutionize the launch business.

Info on the space elevator:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 327-1.html

I think we should look into all options. IT would certainly make more sense then fighting oil wars. Billions wasted on Iraq, and so far, all for nothing.

My favorite is fusion I agree that it does only delay the inevitable as it shifts the resource burden to the next weakest link.

I understand the arable land and water equation. It takes many hundreds of years to create one inch of topsoil and irrigation that uses water from underground water tables takes hundreds of years to replenish.

I am convinced without political change there will be a massive die off, but I think we should go down fighting therefore we should do everything possible to find alternative energies. Hopefully in time we could alter the global political view of continued GROWTH.

*POLITICALLY* the solution of decreased growth and consumption would be an admission that the dominant paradigm of free market capatilsm and *progress* is a mirage as a model of human achievement and development.

Imagine accepting that so called sustainable primitive civilization of small independent communities is superior for the LONG TERM survivability of the human race compared to the impressive lifestyle and achievements of so called modern industrial society.

Honestly put me in the apathy camp, if we survive good if we die off who cares we're just bigger microbes on this planet. Im not going without a fight thats my thoughts

This is a good idea. The fact that the aggregate space-based collection aperture must be huge to have a significant impact is not a drawback; to the contrary: It's one of the main reasons to base solar collectors in space and on other planets. The most obvious idea is for a number of large space-based mirrors made from very thin, flexible cheap material to orient themselves so as to focus the sunlight they intercept at a much smaller number of stations located in space or on the surface of the Moon, which stations would convert the intense incident light to collimated beams directed at stations on the Earth, which would in turn convert it to alternating current or perhaps simply pass along the intense light through some optical medium to other stations on earth for conversion elsewhere. Perhaps the incoming light could directly charge batteries of some kind.

It seems to me that devices needed to convert intense light to a collimated electromagnetic beam, on the one hand, or to a low-frequency alternating current, on the other, could be achieved within a few years starting from current technology.

Moreover, I believe we can make a significant initial impact on world energy demand by mounting collecting mirrors on the Moon so as to cover a large fraction of its surface. This would likely be cheaper than putting them in space.

I'll post some numbers to back up these claims shortly.