Is there anything keeping us from building a gigantic solar array on the moon

[rivan]

Aside from the astronomical initial cost, that is.

I was listening to a segment on NPR where the people being interviewed were discussing making gigantic solar arrays - one was mentioned being 40 square kilometers.

It got me thinking - something that large, displacing that much warming of the earth below could have wide-ranging impacts on weather, ecosystems, etc - we really have no idea. They were talking about making it somewhere in a desert, fairly remote, but still, I started wondering how to bring more energy to the places that need it while minimizing the impact on the planet.

The moon just re-radiates all the sunlight as heat, so why not take it from there? Or just hang one in space, if the moon's not good.

Then use a wireless power transmission system - I've got no idea what's efficient here, but can't you transmit power via laser or microwave? It'd be lossy, probably, but relatively pollution-free, right?

For those of you wondering, no, I wasn't stoned I just had a long, quiet drive over the weekend.

Discuss.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Greenpeace would hijack it and use it as a Goldeneye to nuke whaling ships.

- M4H

 

[amish]

they talk about having a solar array for a moon base, but i think that is about it. the main issue, besides the cost, is that the solar panels are still fragile and the moon get pelted by stuff all the time since it has no atmosphere.

 

[EagleKeeper]

1) Maintenance of it wouild be very expensive.

2) Meteor damage either on the moon or in space will occur fairly frequently.
Technology will have to develop to protect the unit from impacts

3) Material costs & manufacturing

 

[maddogchen]

so...this laser beam shooting power at earth, how would you have it aimed continuously at power relay stations as both the earth is rotating and the moon is travelling?

 

[Zolty]

Hanging it in space seems better just because you don't spend half the time in darkness, the transmission method makes me think of SimCity though, those microwave power plants had wandering beams.

 

[skrilla]

Originally posted by: rivan
Aside from the astronomical initial cost, that is.

That is a huge part of it tho.

I remember I took a class in college about 7-8 years ago and we had a big discussion on something similar to this. We read a few articles about scientists who looked into it. In this particular case it wasn't on the moon, it was more of a giant satellite that would microwave energy to earth.

They all agreed it was feasible. It would have taken over 20 years to build, however - at the time.

That pretty much where it ended because - Who wants to spend an astronomical amount of money for something that we won't even be able to use for over 20 years?


Edit: Here is a link to what I was talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

 

[spidey07]

When you figure out how to convert, transmit, receive, convert that much energy via RF you're plan will be all set.

And also do so safely wihout vaporizing a hole through the earth.

 

[FoBoT]

that doesn't make sense, what kind of power transimission system will be more efficient than the original source of the power? (sunlight streaming from the sun)
every time you convert power, you lose power in the process
every time you transmit power, you lose power in the process

i don't think that will work


:moon:

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
that doesn't make sense, what kind of power transimission system will be more efficient than the original source of the power? (sunlight streaming from the sun)
every time you convert power, you lose power in the process
every time you transmit power, you lose power in the process
i don't think that will work

A space-based array could gather energy from a large area (miles) receiving direct sunlight, unfiltered by Earth's atmosphere.

Then use it to burn your cities to ash unless you pay me . . . (pinky to mouth) one million dollars.

If it ever becomes economically feasible, safety concerns would keep it from being built.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
that doesn't make sense, what kind of power transimission system will be more efficient than the original source of the power? (sunlight streaming from the sun)
every time you convert power, you lose power in the process
every time you transmit power, you lose power in the process

i don't think that will work


:moon:

The point isn't to be more efficient - it's to get the energy from a place that would have less impact on the planet's ecosystem. While talking about solar, collecting enough of it to get us by will possibly/probably have unintended consequences on the ecosystem where the collector's located... so move the collector to a place without an ecosystem.

Originally posted by: maddogchen
so...this laser beam shooting power at earth, how would you have it aimed continuously at power relay stations as both the earth is rotating and the moon is travelling?

Burst transmission. Relay satellites.

Originally posted by: Zolty
Hanging it in space seems better just because you don't spend half the time in darkness, the transmission method makes me think of SimCity though, those microwave power plants had wandering beams.

Good point - a huge collector in space, maybe above a pole, with a relay satellite in geosynchronus orbit above the power station.

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Greenpeace would hijack it and use it as a Goldeneye to nuke whaling ships.

- M4H

I'd be more afriad of PETA.

 

[sygyzy]

Aside from the aforementioned space trash that pummels the moon all the time, how do you transmit power "wirelessly"?

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Aside from the aforementioned space trash that pummels the moon all the time, how do you transmit power "wirelessly"?

Via microwave, apparently, though I'd have thought laser would be a candidate too.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Aside from the aforementioned space trash that pummels the moon all the time, how do you transmit power "wirelessly"?

Via microwave, apparently, though I'd have thought laser would be a candidate too.

Clearly, I can think of nothing original.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/wec.shtml

These are cheap, $35 for a set. Just need them on a bigger scale.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Aside from the aforementioned space trash that pummels the moon all the time, how do you transmit power "wirelessly"?

Via microwave, apparently, though I'd have thought laser would be a candidate too.

Clearly, I can think of nothing original.

Surely it can be done, but for it to be worth building, itd pretty much have to be able to power the entire world, and thats a hell of a lot of energy to beam down from space without melting a hole through the earth. Its one thing to say CO2 causes a temperature rise, but its pretty damn obvious that beaming petawatts of energy through the atmosphere at a single point is going to warm it up.

It's probably a much better, not to mention more economically feasible idea for even the distant future, to blanket the sahara with solar panels, or send free floating turbines out to sea. That way if anything goes wrong, it can be replaced piece by piece, rather than a catastrophic power station satellite plummeting down to earth.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Aside from the aforementioned space trash that pummels the moon all the time, how do you transmit power "wirelessly"?

Via microwave, apparently, though I'd have thought laser would be a candidate too.

Clearly, I can think of nothing original.

Surely it can be done, but for it to be worth building, itd pretty much have to be able to power the entire world, and thats a hell of a lot of energy to beam down from space without melting a hole through the earth. Its one thing to say CO2 causes a temperature rise, but its pretty damn obvious that beaming petawatts of energy through the atmosphere at a single point is going to warm it up.

It's probably a much better, not to mention more economically feasible idea for even the distant future, to blanket the sahara with solar panels, or send free floating turbines out to sea. That way if anything goes wrong, it can be replaced piece by piece, rather than a catastrophic power station satellite plummeting down to earth.

The whole point is to get our energy from sources outside our own ecosystem. A solar array blanketing the sahara would almost certainly have a significant impact on the weather of the region, possibly the globe.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

The sad part is... I think the overall costs for this project would be smaller than the cast of the Second Iraqi War... just goes to show where the priorities lie.

 

[funboy6942]

We have never landed on the moon, it was faked, therefore it would cost too much to actually figure out how to really land on it, and set up the device you mention.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Aside from the aforementioned space trash that pummels the moon all the time, how do you transmit power "wirelessly"?

Via microwave, apparently, though I'd have thought laser would be a candidate too.

Clearly, I can think of nothing original.

Surely it can be done, but for it to be worth building, itd pretty much have to be able to power the entire world, and thats a hell of a lot of energy to beam down from space without melting a hole through the earth. Its one thing to say CO2 causes a temperature rise, but its pretty damn obvious that beaming petawatts of energy through the atmosphere at a single point is going to warm it up.

It's probably a much better, not to mention more economically feasible idea for even the distant future, to blanket the sahara with solar panels, or send free floating turbines out to sea. That way if anything goes wrong, it can be replaced piece by piece, rather than a catastrophic power station satellite plummeting down to earth.

The whole point is to get our energy from sources outside our own ecosystem. A solar array blanketing the sahara would almost certainly have a significant impact on the weather of the region, possibly the globe.

I guarantee that microwaving massive amounts of power down through space will have a significant impact on the weather of the region, and possibly the globe. You might be able to focus a beam, but unless its shielded from the water vapor in the air, it will heat up and do the same. Theres just no way to insulate it.

 

[CKent]

Interesting. Biggest initial hurdle would be transport - as I recall it costs thousands of dollars per pound to launch things from the earth into space.

 

[Tech Addict]

If a space elevator was feasible, could not solve the transport issue? What about running cabling and have the concentrator for the array the the end of the space elevator.

Not that I have any expertise on any of these areas.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: rivan
The whole point is to get our energy from sources outside our own ecosystem. A solar array blanketing the sahara would almost certainly have a significant impact on the weather of the region, possibly the globe.

As I understand it, the Sahara was once a large, temperate forest. Once desertification began in one region, it began building momentum, drying up the entire region. Hell, maybe covering it with solar panels would reduce the amount of hurricanes we get - less roasted air streaming off Africa might mean less water evaporating to fuel hurricanes.
Or it could create the worst hurricanes we've ever seen. I think that might be best left to advanced supercomputers to try to figure out.
And of course, there's the problem of blowing sand.

Originally posted by: BD2003
I guarantee that microwaving massive amounts of power down through space will have a significant impact on the weather of the region, and possibly the globe. You might be able to focus a beam, but unless its shielded from the water vapor in the air, it will heat up and do the same. Theres just no way to insulate it.

They should set up a videocamera there at the beam - it'd be like a bug zapper. For birds. Every so often one would just fly over and there'd be a flash of light and a pleasant smell of roast bird.

I think it would make more sense to put solar panels on every human-made structure first. That way the power is where it's needed, and the panels are already being placed on something that is displacing part of the ecosystem.

The concern with solar and wind power though is its pulsating nature. Imagine a city filled with buildings covered in solar panels. Sun comes out - HUGE surge of power. Cloud comes over - then suddenly the conventional power plants are straining. They need some way to even it out.
So I wonder - how about large "batteries" of water. They'd also be expensive, but they should work: enourmous reservoirs of water. Wind turbines, or even solar-heated Stirling Engines, could pump water up to the reservoir. From there, it could flow through hydroelectric turbines.
It might not be especially efficient, but it would be a means of producing consistent power output.

How many of these reservoirs would be needed, and how much they'd cost, is something I really don't know. We'd need a lot though, dispersed around the country. Definitely not cheap, either, but they could be built to last a very long time.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: skrilla
That pretty much where it ended because - Who wants to spend an astronomical amount of money for something that we won't even be able to use for over 20 years?

Boston?

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: funboy42
We have never landed on the moon, it was faked, therefore it would cost too much to actually figure out how to really land on it, and set up the device you mention.

but the moon is really just a light bulb behind the sky screen, it isn't like it is really a place you can go at all