Japan building 1GW, $21bn solar power station in space(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Japan building 1GW, $21bn solar power station in space
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aJ529lsdk9HI
96 comments
If you can make a 1GW energy plant for about 1.5 billion terristrially then to pay a 14 fold premium to put the same thing in space... is a pretty brave thing to do.
If Richard Branson (to pick a random spacefaring billionaire) was fronting a few billion dollars of his own money, that might be brave. Spending other people's money on boondoggles that are wildly unlikely to produce a positive return is not brave.
If Richard Branson (to pick a random spacefaring billionaire) was fronting a few billion dollars of his own money, that might be brave. Spending other people's money on boondoggles that are wildly unlikely to produce a positive return is not brave.
If we'd follow that to its conclusion space shuttles wouldn't fly, the moon visit would have never happened, the computer you are writing on would not be connected to the internet, highways wouldn't exist and so on.
Plenty of infrastructure projects have started either as military or pure research projects. Eventually we all benefit, even the countries where the spending did not take place.
Plenty of infrastructure projects have started either as military or pure research projects. Eventually we all benefit, even the countries where the spending did not take place.
moon visit would have never happened
This is my favorite example of this type of argument, because the moon visits should not have happened when they did. A handful of government employees spent a few days on the moon (at an enormous cost to other Americans) at least 40 years before there was any useful reason to get there. The evidence of this is that we haven't gone back.
As for your other examples, your claim is as absurd as saying that if it weren't for Edison we wouldn't have interior lighting or if it weren't for Bell we wouldn't have telephones.
If in 1978, we had diverted 5% of GDP for 10 years to building something like Google, we probably could have done it. But in 1988, it wouldn't have been terribly useful, and by waiting 10 years we got Google anyway at a much lower cost (and without coercively spending other people's money).
This is my favorite example of this type of argument, because the moon visits should not have happened when they did. A handful of government employees spent a few days on the moon (at an enormous cost to other Americans) at least 40 years before there was any useful reason to get there. The evidence of this is that we haven't gone back.
As for your other examples, your claim is as absurd as saying that if it weren't for Edison we wouldn't have interior lighting or if it weren't for Bell we wouldn't have telephones.
If in 1978, we had diverted 5% of GDP for 10 years to building something like Google, we probably could have done it. But in 1988, it wouldn't have been terribly useful, and by waiting 10 years we got Google anyway at a much lower cost (and without coercively spending other people's money).
In 1978 google could not have been built simply because there was not yet a need for a google to be built. The need for a google came in to being by the combined existence of a large pool of accessible data called the world wide web and the frustration with the search engines of the day, notably altavista and inktomi.
Only when those conditions arose was a google possible, and in many ways inevitable.
To compare the invention of electric light and the telephone with the moonshot is to compare apples with oranges about as bad as I've ever seen it.
Compared to the amount of money wasted on various nonsense projects in their time, SDI comes to mind but there are plenty of other examples the moon saga was one of the high points in the history of humankind.
Sure the telephone and the electric light are great inventions, not a day goes by without use of them for a large portion of the people on the planet.
But they did not inspire a generation of kids to follow the path of science the way the moon episode did. We would most definitely be in a completely different world technology wise had that not happened, it probably was one of the best returns on investment in the history of man.
Only when those conditions arose was a google possible, and in many ways inevitable.
To compare the invention of electric light and the telephone with the moonshot is to compare apples with oranges about as bad as I've ever seen it.
Compared to the amount of money wasted on various nonsense projects in their time, SDI comes to mind but there are plenty of other examples the moon saga was one of the high points in the history of humankind.
Sure the telephone and the electric light are great inventions, not a day goes by without use of them for a large portion of the people on the planet.
But they did not inspire a generation of kids to follow the path of science the way the moon episode did. We would most definitely be in a completely different world technology wise had that not happened, it probably was one of the best returns on investment in the history of man.
As far as I can tell, your argument boils down to:
$125B+ (inflation adjusted) was worthwhile for inspiring people about what was possible.
Listen, I don't disagree that there were some benefits of the space program. But $125B+ is a lot of money for Velcro and inspiration. Let's keep a sense of scale here: if you assume YC invests $25k per company, $125B is 5 million startups (and 15 million or so founders). [1]
Just remember that the resources have to come from somewhere, and that if you're going to do it through government, you're spending other people's money to get things that you want. Someone else may not care about technology or the moon, and may prefer to spend that money on social programs or farm subsidies. Once you open the door that government takes the money and spends it, how can you possibly determine whose value system is better?
Also, to tie this back around to where we started, whether you support the idea of spending other people's money on projects that you like or not, my initial point was simply that risking money that isn't yours is not brave, whatever else you want to call it, because the politicians are not personally at risk of any loss. Worthless boondoggles don't even seem to negatively affect their reputation, and may even get them called bold.
[1] Note that I'm not proposing that the government should have invested in 5 million companies, but that an equivalent amount of resources was removed from the economy -- resources that could have built other things that people want.
$125B+ (inflation adjusted) was worthwhile for inspiring people about what was possible.
Listen, I don't disagree that there were some benefits of the space program. But $125B+ is a lot of money for Velcro and inspiration. Let's keep a sense of scale here: if you assume YC invests $25k per company, $125B is 5 million startups (and 15 million or so founders). [1]
Just remember that the resources have to come from somewhere, and that if you're going to do it through government, you're spending other people's money to get things that you want. Someone else may not care about technology or the moon, and may prefer to spend that money on social programs or farm subsidies. Once you open the door that government takes the money and spends it, how can you possibly determine whose value system is better?
Also, to tie this back around to where we started, whether you support the idea of spending other people's money on projects that you like or not, my initial point was simply that risking money that isn't yours is not brave, whatever else you want to call it, because the politicians are not personally at risk of any loss. Worthless boondoggles don't even seem to negatively affect their reputation, and may even get them called bold.
[1] Note that I'm not proposing that the government should have invested in 5 million companies, but that an equivalent amount of resources was removed from the economy -- resources that could have built other things that people want.
Space is really the next frontier, I see the moonshot as a taste of what is to come, generations of people have seen what can be done, now we need to find a way to do it better and more cost effective. The rest is spin-offs, if you think the only things that came out of the space program were velcro and some inspiration then that is very sad indeed.
have a look here for some more perspective on this:
http://www.spacecoalition.com/products.cfm
have a look here for some more perspective on this:
http://www.spacecoalition.com/products.cfm
very sad indeed
Hyperbole is the pepper of interesting conversation, and I think the randomness of mentioning Velcro made that intention pretty clear.
For what it's worth, I'm a proponent of space as well. I just think the Burt Rutan / Richard Branson route is more likely to get people like you and I into space in our lifetimes than a government program, which by its nature sucks resources out of the economy that could be used by people like Rutan who have an actual incentive to make it affordable. NASA has had over 50 years and they've done little to nothing to bring the cost of space access down. The Scaled Composites folks, as I understand it, were able to use very very little of anything that came out of NASA (except Velcro [1]), as it was all geared towards multi-billion dollar budgets.
Like you mentioned about Google being more or less inevitable, I believe Burt Rutan and people like him are inevitable (in a free market) when the time is right and the technical and capital foundation is in place.
(And I'll again point out that we're still missing the only point I really wanted to make here, which is that risking other people's money, particularly when they haven't freely given it to you, shouldn't be called brave even if you personally believe it's somehow worthwhile.)
[1] Velcro is actually a bad example anyway; it was invented long before the space program.
Hyperbole is the pepper of interesting conversation, and I think the randomness of mentioning Velcro made that intention pretty clear.
For what it's worth, I'm a proponent of space as well. I just think the Burt Rutan / Richard Branson route is more likely to get people like you and I into space in our lifetimes than a government program, which by its nature sucks resources out of the economy that could be used by people like Rutan who have an actual incentive to make it affordable. NASA has had over 50 years and they've done little to nothing to bring the cost of space access down. The Scaled Composites folks, as I understand it, were able to use very very little of anything that came out of NASA (except Velcro [1]), as it was all geared towards multi-billion dollar budgets.
Like you mentioned about Google being more or less inevitable, I believe Burt Rutan and people like him are inevitable (in a free market) when the time is right and the technical and capital foundation is in place.
(And I'll again point out that we're still missing the only point I really wanted to make here, which is that risking other people's money, particularly when they haven't freely given it to you, shouldn't be called brave even if you personally believe it's somehow worthwhile.)
[1] Velcro is actually a bad example anyway; it was invented long before the space program.
Good points, and regarding velcro, nature had it long before we did :)
And I agree with you on the bravery when just looking at th e money side of it.
I wasn't really thinking as much about the money alone though your cut & paste made it look like that as on the combination of expense and technical obstacles to overcome.
Especially the latter will have lots of challenges, a project like this will require a fairly advanced degree of space assembly and/or manufacture.
And I agree with you on the bravery when just looking at th e money side of it.
I wasn't really thinking as much about the money alone though your cut & paste made it look like that as on the combination of expense and technical obstacles to overcome.
Especially the latter will have lots of challenges, a project like this will require a fairly advanced degree of space assembly and/or manufacture.
I can't believe you left out Tang.
This is new ground. It always takes more to develop the technology initially than it does in production. Once the technologies have been developed and refined the costs of space solar should come down considerably. Not to mention the added benefits that always come from advanced R&D efforts.
This is akin to companies that claim you should judge them by their EBITDA on an ongoing basis, as if capital expenses aren't real expenses.
To justify the capital cost, it isn't enough to show that you'll make something cheaper than it is now. The capital investment needs to produce technology that is so much cheaper that it can outcompete other options and still provide a return on the capital that exceeds the opportunity cost of tying up the resources. If you can't expect this, then the endeavor is a net misuse of resources.
To justify the capital cost, it isn't enough to show that you'll make something cheaper than it is now. The capital investment needs to produce technology that is so much cheaper that it can outcompete other options and still provide a return on the capital that exceeds the opportunity cost of tying up the resources. If you can't expect this, then the endeavor is a net misuse of resources.
For a moment, ignore the commercial viability of this. Of course, in a free global market, this isn't viable. Think about this strategically.
Japan has roughly 40M barrels of proven oil reserved. They consume 5M barrels of oil a DAY. Without imports, assuming they could even get at all of their oil, they would run out in 8 days. They are the world's 3rd largest consumer of oil, and the world's second largest importer.
Half of their energy consumption is oil, another 15% natural gas (which comes from extracting oil). Coal and Nuclear make up the majority of the rest. Japan's mining is well beyond peak-coal. The vast majority of their oil comes from the middle east. Japan is an island, they are entirely dependent on energy imports. This means that if their trade routes were cut off they'd be hosed. Since the US dominates the world's oceans, that means that Japan has to keep the US happy. Sucks strategically and politically.
Space based power is useful strategically. You can beam it to an island. It is very difficult to cut off, regardless of the size of your foes' navy. You can beam it directly to a fleet in the middle of the pacific. You could use it as a weapon.
Japan has roughly 40M barrels of proven oil reserved. They consume 5M barrels of oil a DAY. Without imports, assuming they could even get at all of their oil, they would run out in 8 days. They are the world's 3rd largest consumer of oil, and the world's second largest importer.
Half of their energy consumption is oil, another 15% natural gas (which comes from extracting oil). Coal and Nuclear make up the majority of the rest. Japan's mining is well beyond peak-coal. The vast majority of their oil comes from the middle east. Japan is an island, they are entirely dependent on energy imports. This means that if their trade routes were cut off they'd be hosed. Since the US dominates the world's oceans, that means that Japan has to keep the US happy. Sucks strategically and politically.
Space based power is useful strategically. You can beam it to an island. It is very difficult to cut off, regardless of the size of your foes' navy. You can beam it directly to a fleet in the middle of the pacific. You could use it as a weapon.
"Since the US dominates the world's oceans, that means that Japan has to keep the US happy. Sucks strategically and politically."
It just means Japan can't get saber-rattly in the US's direction. There isn't a huge impetus for them to do so, so...
It just means Japan can't get saber-rattly in the US's direction. There isn't a huge impetus for them to do so, so...
Agreed, however my only point is that this makes more sense strategically than just commercially. It may not make sense either way, but it could. There are other interests that could cut off Japan if the US didn't choose to step in. This includes China and OPEC.
Is the oil used for electricity? If not, this will not (directly) replace it. Also, you only need one nuclear reactor (of which a powerplant has many) to make up for the energy produced by this thing.
That said, I totally support this way of bringing science fiction a little closer!
> It is very difficult to cut off, regardless of the size of your foes' navy
Would it be that to hit it with a rocket? (Or a stone thrown really hard?) I assume it's quite vulnerable.
That said, I totally support this way of bringing science fiction a little closer!
> It is very difficult to cut off, regardless of the size of your foes' navy
Would it be that to hit it with a rocket? (Or a stone thrown really hard?) I assume it's quite vulnerable.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Japan/Electricity.html - About 60% of Japan's electricity use comes from burning stuff: oil, natural gas, coal, being the big ones. All of this is imported.
Outside transportation, Oil is also used for heating homes.
Nuclear is definitely an option for Japan. They also have to import the uranium, having virtually none on the island, but that is still much easier to import and stock up than other resources. That said, it's probably easier to shoot your proverbial rocket or stone at their nuclear plants than it is to shoot it into space.
Outside transportation, Oil is also used for heating homes.
Nuclear is definitely an option for Japan. They also have to import the uranium, having virtually none on the island, but that is still much easier to import and stock up than other resources. That said, it's probably easier to shoot your proverbial rocket or stone at their nuclear plants than it is to shoot it into space.
Residential solar has a total installed cost around $8/W in the US right now. Prices are probably slightly higher in Japan, maybe $10/W. With the silicon supply problems of the last two years easing and a glut of modules in the last 9 months, prices are dropping faster now than at any time since 2005.
This is proposing a $21/W solution-- not a good idea. By the time it's built, terrestrial solar will likely be 5-10 times cheaper, i.e. around $2-4/W.
This is proposing a $21/W solution-- not a good idea. By the time it's built, terrestrial solar will likely be 5-10 times cheaper, i.e. around $2-4/W.
You're assuming that this is only about supplying electricity at as low a price as possible, which is a very narrow way to look at it. Consider instead the larger picture. This sort of project is going to require a lot of R&D which will both create jobs and lead to additional discoveries. The experience gained can used in future related projects and sold to other countries. If the project is a success then Japan will be the world leader in this sort of technology. So don't just look at the $/W look at the net effect of this investment on Japan's GDP over the next 20 years. From that point of view this is probably a lot better investment than simply buying third party solar panels.
Providing jobs as such isn't a benefit to society. Otherwise, we'd all be better off if we stopped using computers and formed up an army of slide rule calculators.
The benefit from additional discoveries is already factored into the cost of conventional solar. The companies building it have business plans that recognize the development work they're doing, and charge prices accordingly. And that's part of why it's cheap (relative to this proposal) and getting cheaper.
The benefit from additional discoveries is already factored into the cost of conventional solar. The companies building it have business plans that recognize the development work they're doing, and charge prices accordingly. And that's part of why it's cheap (relative to this proposal) and getting cheaper.
Providing jobs as such isn't a benefit to society
Indeed, but the type of jobs generated by these types of projects are hardly pointless ditch digging.
The benefit from additional discoveries is already factored into the cost of conventional solar.
But only if the companies are Japanese. Otherwise Japan is not only helping grow another countries GDP they're also helping them gain a further technology lead. Doing everything 'in house' is probably more inefficient in the short term, but might offer more long term benefits.
Indeed, but the type of jobs generated by these types of projects are hardly pointless ditch digging.
The benefit from additional discoveries is already factored into the cost of conventional solar.
But only if the companies are Japanese. Otherwise Japan is not only helping grow another countries GDP they're also helping them gain a further technology lead. Doing everything 'in house' is probably more inefficient in the short term, but might offer more long term benefits.
You seem to believe that the world economy is a zero-sum game. This is emphatically false.
In this case, certainly the whole world would benefit even if a better solar energy technology (conventional or outer space) were invented. The polio vaccine helped the whole world; the reason that most of the revenue from it came to the USA is that the rest of the world thought that having those shots was more important than giving up their money.
And in economic terms, if tilting the economies of scale makes Japan a better manufacturer of solar power tech, then the law of comparative advantage allows other countries to benefit from supplying the goods that Japan will shift away from as it moves resources to the solar tech.
In this case, certainly the whole world would benefit even if a better solar energy technology (conventional or outer space) were invented. The polio vaccine helped the whole world; the reason that most of the revenue from it came to the USA is that the rest of the world thought that having those shots was more important than giving up their money.
And in economic terms, if tilting the economies of scale makes Japan a better manufacturer of solar power tech, then the law of comparative advantage allows other countries to benefit from supplying the goods that Japan will shift away from as it moves resources to the solar tech.
Suppose I widen my view as you suggest, which seems reasonable-- I think you're right that the price of electricity isn't the only concern.
Then I think that Japan, currently the world's #2 solar market (Germany is #1), should be investing in thin film solar R&D for the reasons you listed.
In thin film, Japan (in the form of Sharp's second generation amorphous silicon panels) is getting its ass kicked by First Solar's CdTe panels. I think that investing in, for example, CIGS or CdTe technology would be a better investment.
Then I think that Japan, currently the world's #2 solar market (Germany is #1), should be investing in thin film solar R&D for the reasons you listed.
In thin film, Japan (in the form of Sharp's second generation amorphous silicon panels) is getting its ass kicked by First Solar's CdTe panels. I think that investing in, for example, CIGS or CdTe technology would be a better investment.
> require a lot of R&D which will both create jobs and lead to additional discoveries
If it's government funded/subsidized it's more likely to divert capital from more productive R&D and uses in the economy.
If it's government funded/subsidized it's more likely to divert capital from more productive R&D and uses in the economy.
Finally, someone who sees the benefits beyond the almighty dollar. An up-vote for you!
Dollars are just a means to quantify value. To say one believes in benefits beyond a dollar value is to say one believes in benefits that cannot be quantified - which is usually a dangerous ways to approach government spending.
I upvoted you, because you're generally correct, so much so that it's worth saying.
However, it is an oversimplification. As stated, it doesn't account for externalized costs, that is, costs of the product that are not borne by the seller.
For example, the energy industry has historically benefited because part of the cost of their product -- that is, the damage done by pollution -- is not paid for in the sale of the energy, but is borne by the public at large. Thus, the cost of pollution has gone into the coffers of the energy suppliers (and their stockholders). This is the inequity that legislation such as cap-and-trade try to alleviate (not that I'm a fan of this legislation by any means, the gov't is just as bad).
However, it is an oversimplification. As stated, it doesn't account for externalized costs, that is, costs of the product that are not borne by the seller.
For example, the energy industry has historically benefited because part of the cost of their product -- that is, the damage done by pollution -- is not paid for in the sale of the energy, but is borne by the public at large. Thus, the cost of pollution has gone into the coffers of the energy suppliers (and their stockholders). This is the inequity that legislation such as cap-and-trade try to alleviate (not that I'm a fan of this legislation by any means, the gov't is just as bad).
... also often you don't know or even can't estimate how much dollars something can bring in in long term. If you are starting new unique venture you can't really estimate potential gains.
But from history of man kind seems that investing in new things and even exotic research is in the long run extraordinarily beneficial.
Gains from gathering resources and building ITER (or GPS, or orbital power plant) earlier not later can give humanity much greater benefit than it would gain from instantiating 5 mln startups with 1/5mlnth of the used resources.
I'd even say that no value can be created by human activity (by means other than resource exploitation) if it does not involve inventing or applying new technology.
But from history of man kind seems that investing in new things and even exotic research is in the long run extraordinarily beneficial.
Gains from gathering resources and building ITER (or GPS, or orbital power plant) earlier not later can give humanity much greater benefit than it would gain from instantiating 5 mln startups with 1/5mlnth of the used resources.
I'd even say that no value can be created by human activity (by means other than resource exploitation) if it does not involve inventing or applying new technology.
This is proposing a $21/W solution
How did you get this number?
I'm thinking $21 billion / (30 years * 1GW) is a little less than $80/MWh [1], which between two and three times the market price [2].
The way to look at this is that the electricity produced is expected to refund one third to half of the investment. I'd imagine the IP created will be worth a lot more.
1. http://www06.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2421+billion+%2F+%28...
2. http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energyprices.ht...
How did you get this number?
I'm thinking $21 billion / (30 years * 1GW) is a little less than $80/MWh [1], which between two and three times the market price [2].
The way to look at this is that the electricity produced is expected to refund one third to half of the investment. I'd imagine the IP created will be worth a lot more.
1. http://www06.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2421+billion+%2F+%28...
2. http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energyprices.ht...
To make my calculation clear:
21 * 10^9 dollars / 1 * 10^9 W = 21 $/W
Those are just watts at peak power, which are probably roughly 10x average power produced by panels, at least on the earth.
But perhaps I was too hasty in that the major hit against solar panel production is the earth obscuring the sun at night. On the other hand, I would expect cells in space to heat up substantially, given that they have no air to conduct away the heat.
If I could, I'd edit my comment to clarify that my comparison was not fair-- I was comparing two systems with different capacity factors as if they were the same.
21 * 10^9 dollars / 1 * 10^9 W = 21 $/W
Those are just watts at peak power, which are probably roughly 10x average power produced by panels, at least on the earth.
But perhaps I was too hasty in that the major hit against solar panel production is the earth obscuring the sun at night. On the other hand, I would expect cells in space to heat up substantially, given that they have no air to conduct away the heat.
If I could, I'd edit my comment to clarify that my comparison was not fair-- I was comparing two systems with different capacity factors as if they were the same.
Japan also strikes me as the type of place where residential solar couldn't come close to providing enough power.
Their population is very dense, especially in urban areas.
Their population is very dense, especially in urban areas.
Was SimCity 2000 never translated into Japanese or something?
Refernce to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimCity_2000#Scenarios_Vol._I:_...
Silicon Valley: The high-tech society of the 2010 Silicon valley is hit hard when its futuristic power source goes awry - microwave beams transferring solar energy from an orbital satellite miss their intended receiver and instead incinerate many businesses and people in the area.
Silicon Valley: The high-tech society of the 2010 Silicon valley is hit hard when its futuristic power source goes awry - microwave beams transferring solar energy from an orbital satellite miss their intended receiver and instead incinerate many businesses and people in the area.
This seems like a cool hi-tech venture. But the opportunity cost is way too high.
For Japan, I think $21 billion investment in windmills in the ocean would lead to more energy than creating a solar power station in space that sends back electricity in the form of microwaves.
For Japan, I think $21 billion investment in windmills in the ocean would lead to more energy than creating a solar power station in space that sends back electricity in the form of microwaves.
Yes, but the windmills don't get you a 1GW energy weapon in space.
I'm assuming it is geosynchronous, you could only blast down to your own country with it, any place else the angle to the atmosphere would be too oblique to have any chance of reaching the ground.
It's an ideal country sized energy suicide weapon though.
Sort of a satellite born seppuku.
It's an ideal country sized energy suicide weapon though.
Sort of a satellite born seppuku.
> It's an ideal country sized energy suicide weapon though.
You couldn't do anything to a country. You could damage a small area if you concentrated it.
If the capture area is 4km, then anything on the ground larger than 2km x 2km would not even notice you doing anything (since it gets basically that much sun anyway). And with the losses (I estimate only 25% of energy is captured). You can radiate an area 1km x 1km without anyone noticing (which is about a city block).
To do damage you'd have to a go a lot smaller. It would take a very long time to do anything to something even city sized.
You couldn't do anything to a country. You could damage a small area if you concentrated it.
If the capture area is 4km, then anything on the ground larger than 2km x 2km would not even notice you doing anything (since it gets basically that much sun anyway). And with the losses (I estimate only 25% of energy is captured). You can radiate an area 1km x 1km without anyone noticing (which is about a city block).
To do damage you'd have to a go a lot smaller. It would take a very long time to do anything to something even city sized.
Well, you could also target your immediate neighbors. I bet most of the richest and most industrialized eastern china would be right inside the viable target area.
Also, think anti-ballistic missile defences -- no need for adaptive optics and all that jazz when you can swat the missiles with lasers from their most vulnerable position, right at the top of their trajectory.
Also, think anti-ballistic missile defences -- no need for adaptive optics and all that jazz when you can swat the missiles with lasers from their most vulnerable position, right at the top of their trajectory.
One gigawatt is a tremendous amount of energy, but what microwave radiation would do against an incoming ICBM is an open question. It's all about how concentrated the beam will be and how fast you can direct it (ICBMs move pretty fast and even at the top of their trajectory they are hard to pinpoint because they do not exactly carry homing beacons).
Also, in all of the following keep in mind that we're talking about a re-entry vehicle here which has extensive heat shielding anyway just to survive its inevitable contact with the atmosphere.
It is more about energy density if this could be used as a weapon against an ICBM or not, the receiver of the energy would presumably be a fairly large patch of ground with a 'safe zone' around it in case of minor misalignment.
If you'd want your gigawatt to be concentrated in an area of 100x100 m under 'normal 'conditions you will not be able to quickly reconfigure to something on the order of a hotspot as produced by a battle laser (this is not a laser!).
In normal operating conditions and assuming they can beam as tight as 1,000,000,000 Watts per 100x100m patch (which remains to be seen) you'd have about 100KW / square meter, or about 10 W / square centimeter assuming absolutely perfect (so lossless) transmission and 0 reflection.
Microwave absorption of the ICBM would then be the deciding factor if anything happened to it or not, 10W / square centimeter seems a lot but it really isn't, the question is how long the beam could be focused on the incoming ICBM and how steady it could be held.
With lasers this appears to be possible, see this http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=817 but it was an aircraft at subsonic speeds vs a stationary ground target.
Shooting stuff down that moves very fast is not that easy, especially not if your normal mode of operation is for energy transmission instead of destruction.
Also, in all of the following keep in mind that we're talking about a re-entry vehicle here which has extensive heat shielding anyway just to survive its inevitable contact with the atmosphere.
It is more about energy density if this could be used as a weapon against an ICBM or not, the receiver of the energy would presumably be a fairly large patch of ground with a 'safe zone' around it in case of minor misalignment.
If you'd want your gigawatt to be concentrated in an area of 100x100 m under 'normal 'conditions you will not be able to quickly reconfigure to something on the order of a hotspot as produced by a battle laser (this is not a laser!).
In normal operating conditions and assuming they can beam as tight as 1,000,000,000 Watts per 100x100m patch (which remains to be seen) you'd have about 100KW / square meter, or about 10 W / square centimeter assuming absolutely perfect (so lossless) transmission and 0 reflection.
Microwave absorption of the ICBM would then be the deciding factor if anything happened to it or not, 10W / square centimeter seems a lot but it really isn't, the question is how long the beam could be focused on the incoming ICBM and how steady it could be held.
With lasers this appears to be possible, see this http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=817 but it was an aircraft at subsonic speeds vs a stationary ground target.
Shooting stuff down that moves very fast is not that easy, especially not if your normal mode of operation is for energy transmission instead of destruction.
Who was talking about shooting icbm's with microwaves? If you have a gigawatt power generation platform in space, putting a couple of free-electron lasers up there is hardly more than an afterthought. With a big enough laser, you can stop having to worry about the heat shielding/reflectivity of the target, and just trust that the second you hit something, it's surface is going to ionize (= blow up). And as for hitting the targets up there, at the apex of their trajectory ICBM's are 1) ballistic 2) slow compared to the other parts of their flight. While hitting is still not exactly easy, other than hitting them on the launch pads it's the easiest way to do the (hard) task.
Why would it blow up? Nuclear bombs don't blow up when they get hot.
All that would happen is you would make a hole in it, but since it's on a ballistic it would keep on going. (Ballistic means gravity is controlling it, it's not powered.)
Even if you blew it up, at best you would spread nuclear material all over the target area.
You need to hit these things during the boost phase, where a: you can stop it from going ballistic and make it fall back into the launching country, and b: you have something volatile to blow up (the fuel).
Also, it's easier. When it's at the apex it's moving horizontally very quickly, and it's at it's closest to you. Which is the most difficulty when it comes to aiming (since the angle of the shot is moving the fastest at that point).
When it's moving vertically toward you is much easier to aim, since you barely have to move the laser.
All that would happen is you would make a hole in it, but since it's on a ballistic it would keep on going. (Ballistic means gravity is controlling it, it's not powered.)
Even if you blew it up, at best you would spread nuclear material all over the target area.
You need to hit these things during the boost phase, where a: you can stop it from going ballistic and make it fall back into the launching country, and b: you have something volatile to blow up (the fuel).
Also, it's easier. When it's at the apex it's moving horizontally very quickly, and it's at it's closest to you. Which is the most difficulty when it comes to aiming (since the angle of the shot is moving the fastest at that point).
When it's moving vertically toward you is much easier to aim, since you barely have to move the laser.
I'm not saying the bomb will go nuclear when heated.
A high-powered laser won't just heat stuff up. If you can pump enough energy to small enough surface area in small enough time, the outer layer of the object being hit will be ionized. The laser will pump even more energy to this cloud of electrons and ions. For all intents and purposes, this cloud can be called an explosion.
Yes, I'm saying that when you hit a piece of garden-variety steel with a strong-enough laser, it will blow up and disintegrate into small pieces.
And even if the missile is moving very fast horizontally at the apex the movement is entirely predictable, even minutes into the future. All you need is two rangings, then you can just point the laser at where the missile is going to pass trough.
A high-powered laser won't just heat stuff up. If you can pump enough energy to small enough surface area in small enough time, the outer layer of the object being hit will be ionized. The laser will pump even more energy to this cloud of electrons and ions. For all intents and purposes, this cloud can be called an explosion.
Yes, I'm saying that when you hit a piece of garden-variety steel with a strong-enough laser, it will blow up and disintegrate into small pieces.
And even if the missile is moving very fast horizontally at the apex the movement is entirely predictable, even minutes into the future. All you need is two rangings, then you can just point the laser at where the missile is going to pass trough.
My point about the apex is not prediction, but dwell time. You have to move the laser very fast, and very accurately to match the motion of the missile.
And anyway, you can predict the motion as soon as the motor is finished, you don't have to wait for the apex.
It's very difficult to aim the laser that well - even if you know exactly where it's going to be. Even if you were perfect in location and control, random atmospheric effects would mess it up.
The only practical way is via feedback loop, and when the angle is changing so fast it's very very hard to do.
You want a place where the angle doesn't change much, and all you need to do is adjust it based on feedback.
As far as destroying the missile - you need to pump enough energy into it to vaporise the entire thing. Normally an explosion will fracture the object near it. That cloud won't. You are moving very fast in air (even at the apex), and any ions will be blown away, plus they are only moving away from the missile, and not toward it, so they will not damage it. (They are moving away because they came from it, when they vaporized they bounced off the surface and away from the missile.)
You have to vaporise the entire thing layer by layer. And the energy in the cloud will not help you - since it's moving away from the missile it won't heat it, in fact it will insulate it (until it's blown away by the air) because all the energy of the laser will heat the cloud, and do nothing to the missile.
It's too easy to defend against a laser anyway. A small amount of water in the nose, released when it detects a laser will produce a cloud of water that will absorb all the laser's energy.
And anyway, you can predict the motion as soon as the motor is finished, you don't have to wait for the apex.
It's very difficult to aim the laser that well - even if you know exactly where it's going to be. Even if you were perfect in location and control, random atmospheric effects would mess it up.
The only practical way is via feedback loop, and when the angle is changing so fast it's very very hard to do.
You want a place where the angle doesn't change much, and all you need to do is adjust it based on feedback.
As far as destroying the missile - you need to pump enough energy into it to vaporise the entire thing. Normally an explosion will fracture the object near it. That cloud won't. You are moving very fast in air (even at the apex), and any ions will be blown away, plus they are only moving away from the missile, and not toward it, so they will not damage it. (They are moving away because they came from it, when they vaporized they bounced off the surface and away from the missile.)
You have to vaporise the entire thing layer by layer. And the energy in the cloud will not help you - since it's moving away from the missile it won't heat it, in fact it will insulate it (until it's blown away by the air) because all the energy of the laser will heat the cloud, and do nothing to the missile.
It's too easy to defend against a laser anyway. A small amount of water in the nose, released when it detects a laser will produce a cloud of water that will absorb all the laser's energy.
> random atmospheric effects would mess it up.
Not in a space based laser aiming at an ICBM at it's apex, it would be about 500 to 700 km depending on the trajectory, and doing about 14,000 km / h.
Not in a space based laser aiming at an ICBM at it's apex, it would be about 500 to 700 km depending on the trajectory, and doing about 14,000 km / h.
You make this sound a little easier than it is, really, but you are right that if you do want to hit them the top of the trajectory is one of the best times to try to do it.
Unfortunately the people that launch these things are well aware of that, which is why if they are launched they are not launched 'one-by-one' to allow you to recharge your lasers between shots.
Another slight problem with the strategy is that any attacker capable of launching an ICBM at a country would probably also have the capability to hit that platform, and wich a 1GW radiated output it provides you with a really nice fat target.
Unfortunately the people that launch these things are well aware of that, which is why if they are launched they are not launched 'one-by-one' to allow you to recharge your lasers between shots.
Another slight problem with the strategy is that any attacker capable of launching an ICBM at a country would probably also have the capability to hit that platform, and wich a 1GW radiated output it provides you with a really nice fat target.
I imagine something like this, but more powerful and in space!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LThD0FMvTFU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LThD0FMvTFU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser
Other advantages: Windmills are vulnerable to disruption by anyone with a zodiac and some semtex, not to mention they have transmission issues of their own.
A space-based solution has a far higher cost to threaten; you basically need to have ASAT weaponry and that's (at least for now) somewhat out of the reach of non-state actors. Not to mention a space-solar satellite would have enough onboard power for some fairly aggressive countermeasures.
Edit: grammar
A space-based solution has a far higher cost to threaten; you basically need to have ASAT weaponry and that's (at least for now) somewhat out of the reach of non-state actors. Not to mention a space-solar satellite would have enough onboard power for some fairly aggressive countermeasures.
Edit: grammar
But why the fuck would you want to blow down a windmill? Apart from the visuals and the twanging as the blades hit the ground.
Who knows. For a country with Japan's neighbors and no navy I'm sure it's not a potential vulnerability they're eager to create.
which can be easily destroyed with cheap missle
Ah but the thing would be so big that the space debris problem would have to be dealt with first or it would not be practical. And what better way to deal with space debris than to make the system capable of directing microwave and laser energy weapons (powered initially by RTGs hooked up to supercapacitors) at fast moving objects coming toward it from any angle?
The region around Japan is extremely earthquake and tsunami prone, so I doubt windmills could be stable in the seas around Japan.
The Japanese space program is not employed because it is cost competitive with terrestrial options. It is a mechanism to transfer wealth from the public at large to defense contractors.
In both of these respects, it is exactly identical to NASA.
In both of these respects, it is exactly identical to NASA.
I wonder what their Velcro and Tang will be?
Giant Hello Kitty robots which shoot heart-shaped laser beams from their eyes.
And yes, in Japan that is considered a practical spinoff.
And yes, in Japan that is considered a practical spinoff.
The cost is less than the U.S. government's bailout of Bear Stearns...for the cost of our bailout of AIG, America could have built 8 of these stations.
If I were debating buying a laptop with a NASA advocate:
Me: Hmm, I wonder if I should spend $1,200 on a cheapish Dell or $3,000 on a Mac.
NASA: You should spend $300,000 on a NASA laptop.
Me: What kind of laptop costs $300,000?!
NASA: The kind built with space-age technology by defense contractors in redundant factories conveniently placed in every congressional district in America.
Me: But... $300,000!?
NASA: Its cheap for the price. You get a revolutionary new cooling system, suitable for working outside the atmosphere.
Me: But... I don't need to use it outside the atmosphere.
NASA: No, it has to be used in space.
Me: But all I need is a laptop.
NASA: No, a laptop -- to be used in space. Besides, once we're done with it, you can keep the cooling system.
Me: But if I needed the cooling system, I would have paid you to do R&D on a cooling system. I don't need R&D on a cooling system. If I did, I could get it a lot cheaper. What I need is a laptop.
NASA: A laptop... which can be used in space.
Me: Space is not a requirement! Space is something you add to the project because you wouldn't exist without space! Space doesn't add value! Space merely costs! Costs lots of money!
NASA: That's hurtful. Besides, the NASA laptop is cheaper than Social Security.
Me: I don't care what it is cheaper than! The frame of reference is not "other wasteful government programs"! It is "a laptop"!
NASA: A laptop, in space.
Me: Hmm, I wonder if I should spend $1,200 on a cheapish Dell or $3,000 on a Mac.
NASA: You should spend $300,000 on a NASA laptop.
Me: What kind of laptop costs $300,000?!
NASA: The kind built with space-age technology by defense contractors in redundant factories conveniently placed in every congressional district in America.
Me: But... $300,000!?
NASA: Its cheap for the price. You get a revolutionary new cooling system, suitable for working outside the atmosphere.
Me: But... I don't need to use it outside the atmosphere.
NASA: No, it has to be used in space.
Me: But all I need is a laptop.
NASA: No, a laptop -- to be used in space. Besides, once we're done with it, you can keep the cooling system.
Me: But if I needed the cooling system, I would have paid you to do R&D on a cooling system. I don't need R&D on a cooling system. If I did, I could get it a lot cheaper. What I need is a laptop.
NASA: A laptop... which can be used in space.
Me: Space is not a requirement! Space is something you add to the project because you wouldn't exist without space! Space doesn't add value! Space merely costs! Costs lots of money!
NASA: That's hurtful. Besides, the NASA laptop is cheaper than Social Security.
Me: I don't care what it is cheaper than! The frame of reference is not "other wasteful government programs"! It is "a laptop"!
NASA: A laptop, in space.
For the record, NASA uses Thinkpads.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/TORU_dock...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/TORU_dock...
and quite a bit of them at that!
To be fare, NASA is about space so if they are selling a laptop it is of course one which is designed to work in space. So, I am either confused or your irony has not come across.
The cost of bailing out several of the big "banks" was approximately nothing because they paid back their loans with interest.
PS: AIG has already payed back 9 billion of it's 80 billion loan, and expects to make another 25 billion payment fairly soon. Granted it's selling off assets to do this, but it's profit of $1.8 billion in the second quarter gives you some idea how many assets the company has. http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/companies/aig/index.htm...
PS: AIG has already payed back 9 billion of it's 80 billion loan, and expects to make another 25 billion payment fairly soon. Granted it's selling off assets to do this, but it's profit of $1.8 billion in the second quarter gives you some idea how many assets the company has. http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/companies/aig/index.htm...
> The cost of bailing out several of the big "banks" was approximately nothing because they paid back their loans with interest.
The "cost" was the risk assumed by the taxpayers.
The "cost" was the risk assumed by the taxpayers.
No, the "cost" is the risk currently assumed by the taxpayers plus opertunity cost and any defaulted loans. As they pay back the loans the risk keeps dropping. The upper bound on risk might be the total amount loaned, but you can't talk about the bailout as the total loan amount once they start to pay back most of the money.
PS: The actual cost estimate of the bailut was probably upto 10% of the amount of money loaned. It's quite possible we will make money from this at which point talking about the cost based on the total loan amount would be silly.
PS: The actual cost estimate of the bailut was probably upto 10% of the amount of money loaned. It's quite possible we will make money from this at which point talking about the cost based on the total loan amount would be silly.
> opertunity cost
The opportunity cost was enormous. The bailouts were a disaster for American capitalism. We now have a huge tattoo that reads "WARNING: Crony Capitalist Country. Proceed with caution".
Don't ignore the very difficult to quantify effects of the bailouts on the credit markets. The whole lesson will surely make the US a less credit worthy market and raise more questions about the dollar.
The opportunity cost was enormous. The bailouts were a disaster for American capitalism. We now have a huge tattoo that reads "WARNING: Crony Capitalist Country. Proceed with caution".
Don't ignore the very difficult to quantify effects of the bailouts on the credit markets. The whole lesson will surely make the US a less credit worthy market and raise more questions about the dollar.
We've also increased the value of "owning" congresscritters. Before, they were good for arranging contracts and screwing competitors. Now they're also a line of credit.
If the government is willing to bail out companies that fail then it reduces risks, so you should be more willing to invest in those companies.
You're assuming that the govt will bail out investors. GM proves that it won't. It can't even be relied on to guarantee that lenders keep their place in line.
Yes, exactly. That is the problem. Capital destroying companies are attracting capital due to government interference, when really they should be liquidated and bought up by competent managers.
The real cost is the near certainty we'll get an even bigger blow up five to ten years down the road. Thousands of people who should now be looking for a new career are still in finance. Moral hazard's a bitch. The system NEEDED many jaw dropping bankruptcies and liquidations.
They got a pretty good deal in general too. Speaking from the perspective of a shareholder of M&I bank. They recently diluted their stock by a large percentage to pay back the loans in addition to giving preferred shareholders a dividend (those are the shares the government holds)
Windmills don't necessarily produce power when you want it. (In parts of the US, the "good wind" is at night.)
I don't know the timing of space-based solar power, but if it matches demand, that's a big deal, especially if it isn't as weather sensitive as ground-based solar. (I don't know if clouds and the like are more transparent to sunlight or microwaves.)
I don't know the timing of space-based solar power, but if it matches demand, that's a big deal, especially if it isn't as weather sensitive as ground-based solar. (I don't know if clouds and the like are more transparent to sunlight or microwaves.)
There's a lot of rather convincing literature out there on the potential of tidal power. The energies are enormous and the technology is straightforward. It's not like photovoltaics where we're waiting on improvements in cost. It's simple turbines.
Tidal power ends up attracting a lot of conspiracy theories. Why are we bombarded with news and policies about wind and solar when on paper huge tidal generation capacity is probably viable right now? There could be something there, I don't know.
Tidal power ends up attracting a lot of conspiracy theories. Why are we bombarded with news and policies about wind and solar when on paper huge tidal generation capacity is probably viable right now? There could be something there, I don't know.
Nobody would say nothing about the Dyson Sphere? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
It's like the first step. Right?
It's like the first step. Right?
For powering up an army of Evangelions in defense of Tokyo-3 against the attack of Angels?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelion_(mecha)
Wouldn't any gained efficiency be wiped out by having to transmit the power via microwaves? And couldn't you build a vastly larger solar panel array on earth for the same price?
What happens when a plane flies underneath the beam?
What happens when a plane flies underneath the beam?
The plane would be in the beam path for only a short time: 900 Km/hour is 250 meters / second, if the beam were to be sent down very tightly the effect would be stronger but the duration would be correspondingly shorter.
A 100 meter diameter beam would take 0.4 seconds to cross, the energy density would be 12.75 W / square centimeter.
The kind of effect would also be quite dependant on the wavelength used, longer wavelengths would be harder to 'tight beam' than shorter ones.
A typical microwave oven 'beams' 1KW or so across an area about 15 cm radius, that's roughly 1.3 W / square centimeter.
How tight the beam is really is the crucial question to answer here, 35000 km up the beam will be very tight right under the point of emission, near the surface of the planet (an airliner flying 10 Km up) it would be much more dispersed.
A 100 meter diameter beam would take 0.4 seconds to cross, the energy density would be 12.75 W / square centimeter.
The kind of effect would also be quite dependant on the wavelength used, longer wavelengths would be harder to 'tight beam' than shorter ones.
A typical microwave oven 'beams' 1KW or so across an area about 15 cm radius, that's roughly 1.3 W / square centimeter.
How tight the beam is really is the crucial question to answer here, 35000 km up the beam will be very tight right under the point of emission, near the surface of the planet (an airliner flying 10 Km up) it would be much more dispersed.
Bad luck for the guy having his house under the solar panels. He will have no sunlight even if there are no clouds on the sky ;)
The guy living in the middle of the ocean?
4 sq km 36.000 km out in space is a very very tiny shadow.
That's a ~4 sq km shadow (spread out because of light scattering).
or for all intents and purposes none at all. i could be wrong but given the relative sizes of the sun, the solar array, and the distances involved, the amount of sunlight that is blocked by the array from any observer's point of view on earth would be negligible.
for example planes flying at 35k feet don't cast visible shadows.
for example planes flying at 35k feet don't cast visible shadows.
I don't think the distance really matters in the amount of blocked sunlight. The sun is very far away compared to the satellite. The atmosphere scatters the light so it would cast a more diffuse shadow than if it was closer to earth.
I've seen helicopters in films with shadows (due to the helicopter with the camera inside). But yes, that's not at 35k feet, but more like 200 feet.
That strikes me as similar to "bad luck to the guy having his house under the moon". Eclipses require everything to line up just right, even if the object in space is huge.
If the satellite is geosynchronous, the shadow is moving at over a thousand km/h.
On days with clouds it won't matter at all. And on days without clouds it will be a tiny cloud at that distance, one that moves relative to the sun/earth line of sight because it would have to be geostationary, so it will rotate with the earth.
Which means the time of 'transit' would be the time the image of the sun takes to move a single solar diameter across the sky, and only for those people who are in the line-of-sight, so it would be a different group of people almost every time this happens, at most twice every year.
No such 'guy' would exist.
Which means the time of 'transit' would be the time the image of the sun takes to move a single solar diameter across the sky, and only for those people who are in the line-of-sight, so it would be a different group of people almost every time this happens, at most twice every year.
No such 'guy' would exist.
Am I the only one that immediately thought "This is what happens when a nation's raised watching gundam ^_^ " when I read this?
"beaming the electricity from space through the ionosphere"
What could possibly go wrong?
What could possibly go wrong?
I hope they remember what (almost) happened to the Ringworld.
I'd like to chip in my own "this is silly" perspective. You see, Japan has a history with futuristic flops:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_computer
It is extremely ambitious, the article puts a possible date of operation around 2030, which is about 5-7 years after ITER should come on line.
If you can make a 1GW (1000 MW) energy plant for about 1.5 billion terristrially then to pay a 14 fold premium to put the same thing in space (but renewable) as well as a whole bunch of very serious problems to overcome (microwave radiation can be 'tight' beamed but that 'tight' is not as sharply delineated as you'd want to for an application like this, there are serious technical issues there) is a pretty brave thing to do.
I hope they will succeed with this, and that if they do not that we will gain lots of useful knowledge.