Japan proposes orbital solar farm by 2020.

[Red Iron Crown]

Or geothermal. Being on a fault line with active volcanoes sometimes has some advantages.

[Seret]

The problem with fission power is that it's way too expensive now. With all the safety mechanisms required, new nuclear power plants are no longer economically viable. Even wind and solar are starting to be cheaper.

Apples and oranges. Wind and solar don't compete directly with nuclear. The type of base load plants that are an alternative to nuclear are normally coal or gas, so if you're not building a nuke plant, that's probably what you're building. Nuclear is expensive but it's also the number one choice for low carbon base load. That might change if carbon capture picks up, but that's not for certain.

As for geothermal and tidal, both of those are limited by the available resource. Japan should have a pretty respectable tidal resource in the south, but I've never seen any numbers on how much potential there is.

[Jouni]

Apples and oranges. Wind and solar don't compete directly with nuclear. The type of base load plants that are an alternative to nuclear are normally coal or gas, so if you're not building a nuke plant, that's probably what you're building. Nuclear is expensive but it's also the number one choice for low carbon base load. That might change if carbon capture picks up, but that's not for certain.

In principle, nuclear power might be a good choice. In practice, people don't want to invest in it anymore, because of low returns on investments and high political risks.

We've had one 1600 MW nuclear reactor under construction in Finland since 2005, one of the few in the West. Originally it was supposed to be ready in 2010, for a price of €3 billion. Right now, the best estimate of the costs is €8.5 billion, and the reactor is expected to be operational in 2018-2020.

Two other reactors have been approved, but they're still in the planning stage. One would be built for the same company as the one under construction, but nobody knows what's going to happen to it. The other was going to be built by a consortium of Finnish industries and power companies and the German E.ON, but E.ON and a number of other shareholders dropped out. Right now the only way for them to secure funding appears to be giving Rosatom an almost 50% share of the power plant. (Which would carry huge political risks, given the situation right now.)

People have also been questioning the economic viability of baseload power plants in general. If wind and solar are built in large scale, the market price of electricity is going to be too low for the baseload power plants most of the time. And if the price is high enough for the rest of the time to justify the high investment costs of the baseload power plants, it might also be high enough for really inefficient forms of energy storage.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Jouni

[Idobox]

In principle, nuclear power might be a good choice. In practice, people don't want to invest in it anymore, because of low returns on investments and high political risks.

We've had one 1600 MW nuclear reactor under construction in Finland since 2005, one of the few in the West. Originally it was supposed to be ready in 2010, for a price of €3 billion. Right now, the best estimate of the costs is €8.5 billion, and the reactor is expected to be operational in 2018-2020.

Two other reactors have been approved, but they're still in the planning stage. One would be built for the same company as the one under construction, but nobody knows what's going to happen to it. The other was going to be built by a consortium of Finnish industries and power companies and the German E.ON, but E.ON and a number of other shareholders dropped out. Right now the only way for them to secure funding appears to be giving Rosatom an almost 50% share of the power plant. (Which would carry huge political risks, given the situation right now.)

People have also been questioning the economic viability of baseload power plants in general. If wind and solar are built in large scale, the market price of electricity is going to be too low for the baseload power plants most of the time. And if the price is high enough for the rest of the time to justify the high investment costs of the baseload power plants, it might also be high enough for really inefficient forms of energy storage.

The EPR fiasco is due to the fact nobody has built a nuclear power plant in the West these past 20 years, and we had to pretty much restart the whole industry from scratch. And even "simple" things like welding metallic parts is much more difficult than you would expect.

All in all, EPR, as well as any other PWR is a bad idea. These were developed as a way to produce electricity as a byproduct of plutonium production, and have a large number of issues. Things like ASTRID and FliBe are much more promising and should receive billions in development budget this instant. In particular, the idea of mass produced, small scale, self-contained reactors could completely change the paradigm.

[rkman]

If orbital solar farming would be economically viable the commercial sector would already be all over it.

It would be profitable only for commercial launch companies because those need launches in order to have income, and they make a profit selling launch capability whether the missions/programs for which they launch stuff are economically successful or not.

[MarcusQ]

So how would it compare to a 10km² solar farm?

Seriously, we have no idea what impact it would have on the wildlife or on the ionization of the upper layers of the atmosphere. For all we know, it might cause a huge hole in the ozone layer or some other imbalance.

I somewhat doubt that microwave power would destroy ozone, in addition to the whole ionization thing.

This might have potential tbh. I'm generally optimistic when it comes to technology so perhaps it could be viable when advances in materials get to the point where conversion efficiency is high and they become extremely light.

[SuperBigD60]

I think we need to start by getting some sort of manufacturing plant going on the moon. If we can build and launch our stuff from the moon (which takes less dV than Kerbin, mind you) we could start to make some headway on this and other orbital construction projects.

Of course, setting up a space program from the moon is kind of another can of worms I don't want to get into.

[Rakaydos]

Once they figure out how to capture near earth asteroids, they will make better manufacturing sites than the Moon

So it seems like: Cons- Expensive infrastructure, low output, expensive to reach to maintain. Pros: Safe from ANY earth based disaster, safe from terrorist attack, low maintanance costs.

[SuperBigD60]

Also, to put this into perspective, I seem to remember some Japanese company a couple years ago planning a space elevator for some remote future date.

They seem to treat speculative, future engineering proposals as genuine business plans, or at least they talk about them as seriously as US businesses talk about what they're going to do for the next fiscal year.

[lajoswinkler]

So, so stupid. They should continue developing 4th generation fission power plants and leave this stupid stuff for manga.

[SargeRho]

How is space based power stupid? Loads of relatively affordable power - I think in fact, over its lifetime cheaper than a nuke plant per kwh, and almost no pollution.

[NovaSilisko]

It's far better to invest all the money needed for a space-based solar solution into other forms of clean energy, like more efficient ground-based solar, tidal, geothermal, wind, improvements to nuclear, etc.

Even if launch costs are reduced by multiple orders of magnitude from today, the cost for such a thing would still be enormous simply due to all the work needed. I really don't think it's worth it.

[lajoswinkler]

How is space based power stupid? Loads of relatively affordable power - I think in fact, over its lifetime cheaper than a nuke plant per kwh, and almost no pollution.

First of all, it's not relatively affordable. It's insanely expensive compared to our common sources.

The difference of joules per square metre in orbit and in best ground conditions is not very large. It might look fancy and everything, but this is a pipedream. It's nothing new, it's something the media digs out every decade and people just show how short memory the society has.

For the price of such installations in orbit, we could make much more solar power down on Earth.

It's far better to invest all the money needed for a space-based solar solution into other forms of clean energy, like more efficient ground-based solar, tidal, geothermal, wind, improvements to nuclear, etc.

Even if launch costs are reduced by multiple orders of magnitude from today, the cost for such a thing would still be enormous simply due to all the work needed. I really don't think it's worth it.

Exactly. I don't even need to calculate the costs. I just know they're insane.

They should invest in nuclear energy because base load is what Japan needs. Wind and solar are for peaks and applicable in certain areas and cases, but for peaks only. We can't use anything like that for the base load. Japan doesn't have notable fossil fuel sources, and it invests a great deal of money in high technology. Too bad their society hasn't co-evolved.

Edited May 10, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[The Jedi Master]

Turn up the power of the beam enough, and this is essentially a giant space laser. And one that would make the hydrogen bomb look like a firecraker. Imagine if an accident happened, and it took out a city. Not in my Low Earth Orbit!

[m4v]

People seem to live 15 years in the past regarding photovoltaic technology. A photovoltaic plant nowadays is cheaper than a nuclear plant of the same power, and they are only getting better. There are issues, like solar insolation not being constant but that's a workable technological issue, the point is that PV are competitive today in places with good insolation.

Sorry guys, you'll all have to give up your dream of a nuclear powered future (and your fusion fart unicorn if you're hoping in one too) solar power is clean and safe, and is coming to stay.

Edited May 10, 2014 by m4v

[NASAFanboy]

Well, you'll have to do the costs. People seem to live 15 years in the past regarding photovoltaic technology. A photovoltaic plant nowadays is cheaper than a nuclear plant of the same power, and they are only getting better. There are issues, like solar insolation not being constant but that's a workable technological issue, the point is that PV are competitive today in places with good insolation.

Except you can construct a massive nuclear power plant that streches less than 2 miles in main structure (I.e coolant towers, reactors, equipment, control stations, maintaince stations) and it could power the United States, or almost an extremely large portion of it. With solar power, you will need a patch of land that is much, much larger, even with the more efficient models of today and the future. Sure, a photovoltaic plant on the ground nowadays is cheaper than a nuclear reactor, but it takes up much more space without generating as much power, and in a future were humanity begins to heavily populate the Earth, taking up dozens of miles for a single plant will not be feasible, nor will maintaining a plant miles and miles of solar panels. And that's just the United States. Also, multiple cloudy days? Your power grid will go down the crapper unles you store that energy, which requires even more facilities.

The current Japanese plan is foolhardy. The solar power plant will power 500,000 homes. One nuclear reactor could power as much homes at twenty times lesser the cost. While I do personally support the solar power plant and will not attempt to actively stop it (More space infrastructure is good space infrastructure, even if it's horribly impractical.), there are dozens of better ways one could spend the money. Like researching fusion and improving the current fission plants.

[m4v]

Except you can construct a massive nuclear power plant that streches less than 2 miles in main structure (I.e coolant towers, reactors, equipment, control stations, maintaince stations) and it could power the United States, or almost an extremely large portion of it.

I wonder what would be the cost of the decommission of such nuclear power plant, because that is a cost that mostly nobody factors in when proposing to build one, and when they do, is usually off by an order of magnitude.

With solar power, you will need a patch of land that is much, much larger, even with the more efficient models of today and the future. Sure, a photovoltaic plant on the ground nowadays is cheaper than a nuclear reactor, but it takes up much more space without generating as much power, and in a future were humanity begins to heavily populate the Earth, taking up dozens of miles for a single plant will not be feasible,

I don't know how you can project that humanity will populate the planet so bad that you will run out of cheap land for PV, even if that were to happen, that is for a very far far future, today there's plenty of land.

nor will maintaining a plant miles and miles of solar panels. And that's just the United States. Also, multiple cloudy days? Your power grid will go down the crapper unles you store that energy, which requires even more facilities.

maintenance costs of a solar power plant are negligible compared with the initial investment, and what about cloudy days? if you have a solar plant that covers "miles and miles" of land cloudy days aren't an issue, when is cloudy in one place, is clear in other, a strong power grid makes it up. Edited May 10, 2014 by m4v

[DaveofDefeat]

Eh, I think this idea will float around for a few years, then once everybody forgets about Fukushima they'll build another nuclear power plant and shelve the space solar farm idea along with their orbital elevator idea.

[SargeRho]

Exactly. I don't even need to calculate the costs. I just know they're insane.

Hear that? That's the sound of your credibility imploding into a singularity.

An orbital solar power plant has the advantage of very, very low maintenance costs over its lifetime. Huge one-time construction cost, and then not insanely much afterwards.

[NovaSilisko]

An orbital solar power plant has the advantage of very, very low maintenance costs over its lifetime. Huge one-time construction cost, and then not insanely much afterwards.

Well, every single instance of in-space maintenance ever attempted has shown that it's not by any standard "very, very low cost" and is pretty much always a tremendous pain in the rear. That pain goes up by an order of magnitude if you stick the thing in geostationary orbit...

The scale of these things would mean debris is a constant problem, which would mean constant repair/part replacement missions, which would mean a neverending stream of launches, each costing - even in the most optimistic of scenarios - millions of dollars. Good for the launch providers, horrifying for the integrity of the project. Ground-based solar power just requires a pickup truck full of equipment and a few workers.

On a related note, you can't exactly have a fast response if the beam transmitter gets nailed by an undetected piece of debris. Launch preparations take time, and even if you had a maintenance spacecraft on 24/7 alert (extremely unlikely...), ready to launch at any moment, it would take the better part of a day to rendezvous and repair the damage. Depending on the severity, it could be much, much longer.

I will concede there's less debris at geostationary altitudes but it's still going to be a major issues as the collectors need to be quite large for the idea to really work on a large scale.

Edit: Another side note, something of this scale at geosynch would become a large debris source in itself from the unending slow trickle of micrometeoroid hits. Each of those hits knocks off more debris, which will remain crossing GEO altitudes for centuries, if not millennia. Other operators of satellites in those orbits might not feel comfortable with that.

Edited May 10, 2014 by NovaSilisko

[Rakaydos]

Turn up the power of the beam enough, and this is essentially a giant space laser. And one that would make the hydrogen bomb look like a firecraker. Imagine if an accident happened, and it took out a city. Not in my Low Earth Orbit!

Turn up the power of your car engine, and you have a fuel air bomb! And one that makes a hydrogen bomb look like a firecracker. Imagine if an accident happened, and it took out a city. Not in my neiborhood!

If you read the article, the beam couldnt even warm a decent cup of coffee.

[Rakaydos]

I will concede there's less debris at geostationary altitudes but it's still going to be a major issues as the collectors need to be quite large for the idea to really work on a large scale.

Edit: Another side note, something of this scale at geosynch would become a large debris source in itself from the unending slow trickle of micrometeoroid hits. Each of those hits knocks off more debris, which will remain crossing GEO altitudes for centuries, if not millennia. Other operators of satellites in those orbits might not feel comfortable with that.

It's not that much larger than the ISS, and in a less crowded orbit. I'm just not seeing it as an issue.

[NovaSilisko]

It's not that much larger than the ISS, and in a less crowded orbit. I'm just not seeing it as an issue.

Well, for example, the article states one design is 20x the size of the ISS:

The 2 km x 2 km central solar panel unit would break the record for largest manmade satellite set by the International Space Station which is 1/10th of a km long.

[Jouni]

People seem to live 15 years in the past regarding photovoltaic technology. A photovoltaic plant nowadays is cheaper than a nuclear plant of the same power, and they are only getting better. There are issues, like solar insolation not being constant but that's a workable technological issue, the point is that PV are competitive today in places with good insolation.

That's still too optimistic. Solar and wind can be competitive with coal and nuclear, if you compare the costs to the average capacity, but comparing average capacities is misleading. If you need power now, the average capacity is not going to help.

The fundamental problem with large-scale deployment of solar and wind is that they are incompatible with the current infrastructure consisting of baseload power plants, load following power plants, and peaking power plants. When the conditions are favorable, cheap solar and wind drive coal and nuclear out of the market. That creates all kinds of trouble, as the baseload power plants have not been designed to reduce the power output quickly. Building lots of traditional load following power plants, such as hydro and gas turbines, isn't really feasible either. The entire power infrastructure has to be redesigned around long-distance transmission lines and large-scale power storage, which is going to be expensive.

[Red Iron Crown]

Japan is probably a poor candidate for solar as its ratio of land area to population is quite low. While it may be suitable in larger countries with swaths of cheap land to cover in panels, Japan has very little undeveloped land, and what is undeveloped may be too mountainous to be suitable.