Airbus and Space Solar Power
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Erinn van Wynsberghe
Jan 9, 2023, 6:49:03 PM1/9/23
to Power Satellite Economics, Peter J Schubert
Hi all,
Here is a recent article about Airbus and their plans to build Space Solar Power:
Thanks kindly to Professor Peter Schubert of IUPUI for letting me know.
Cheers,
Erinn
If you're blocked by a paywall:
Will Lockett
Nov 28, 2022
Airbus Just Unlocked The Ultimate Clean Energy
Their power beam demonstrator could spark a renewable revolution.
There are plenty of projects out there aiming to save the world from our self-made climate apocalypse. Consider the multibillion-dollar ITER fusion experiment, which aims to produce carbon-neutral fusion power. But projects like this are moving too slowly, and breakthroughs aren’t happening fast enough. To save the planet and our future, we will require massive amounts of on-demand ultra-low emissions and extremely environmentally friendly energy in the coming decade, which programmes like ITER simply cannot provide. Yet, Airbus recently demonstrated a technology that could do just this by making space-based solar power a reality. So what is space-based solar? And is it the climate saviour we have been looking for?
I covered space-based solar power a little while ago (which you can click here to read). But to ensure we are all up to speed, let’s quickly recap what it is and why it is so damn brilliant.
Standard solar power is fantastic. It is both the cheapest form of energy ever produced, with costs as low as $28 per kWh, and one of the least carbon-intensive, with emissions of only 6 g per kWh produced. As such, you’d think it would be perfect for saving the world. But in reality, solar is flawed.
Firstly, solar power isn’t on-demand, as power vanishes on dark days or at night. This means giant grid-level batteries are needed, and the mining and manufacturing that goes into producing them has a significant environmental impact. Furthermore, this makes powering an entire energy grid from solar alone very difficult, as demand can quickly outstrip supply, leading to blackouts. Moreover, solar farms cause habitat loss, either directly by being built on wild lands or indirectly by being built on farmland and depleting agricultural output, leading to more farmland expansion into previously natural habitats. Finally, solar panels take a lot of energy and some chemicals that aren’t very nice to the environment to manufacture (which can cause heavy metal leaching), which overall means that while their environmental impact is small, it is still significant. So even though solar is far better than coal, gas, and oil, it isn’t good enough.
But we can improve it by changing one thing: where we put it. You see, geostationary satellites get 23 hours and 46 minutes of blazing, unfiltered sunlight each day. This higher-energy sunlight and nearly completely uninterrupted access to light mean that over the course of a year, solar panels in geostationary orbit produce 40 times more energy than those on the ground! So if we can put solar panels up there and beam the energy back down to Earth, we can solve almost all of solar power’s problems. The constant stream of energy means that giant grid-level batteries aren’t needed, as they are in orbit; no habitat has been taken up; and as we need far fewer panels, the environmental impact of building them is also dramatically reduced.
So why haven’t we used space-based solar power if it is so damn good? Well, there are two massive problems: the cost of getting a gigantic solar farm into geostationary orbit and actually getting the energy back to Earth.
Pretty soon, we will solve the first problem with SpaceX’s Starship. Not only can it carry well over 100 tonnes into geostationary orbit for a tiny price of $10 million (way over 90% cheaper than NASA’s equivalent-sized SLS), but it can also use carbon-neutral biofuel and function as one of the cleanest rockets in history. These two factors indicate that putting a massive solar farm into geostationary orbit is feasible, affordable, and even environmentally friendly.
But getting the power back to Earth is a little more tricky. Many have suggested beaming the energy back using microwaves, as these can penetrate through even thick cloud cover, allowing for consistent energy transmission. But these systems would be eye-wateringly expensive and have horrific transmission efficiency over such a long distance, given that geostationary satellites are 36,000 km from the Earth’s surface. So while we can afford to build this orbiting solar farm, the price for its energy would be astronomical, rendering it unattainable.
This is where Airbus comes in. They have been working on a microwave-based energy transmitter with a high enough efficiency and a low enough cost to make space-based solar a reality. Recently, they built a 1:1000 scale model that would beam solar energy from space 36 metres to Earth and power a model city. This charming demonstration proved that their technology is well on its way to reaching those two crucial goals.
Sadly, we don’t know how efficient this scale model of energy transmission was, and Airbus has said it will need further refinement. But Airbus has confidently stated that when put into use, it could make the cost of space-based solar energy equivalent to nuclear power, or about $167.50 per kWh. Such a price would make this planet-saving technology affordable and cheap enough to be rapidly deployed in vast numbers.
So how long will it take for Airbus to refine and implement this technology? Well, Airbus is planning on conducting full-scale prototypes in the early 2030s. These won’t be big enough to power a city, but they will act as a way to develop and prove that a geostationary satellite can efficiently beam energy down to Earth. This means that we could see wide-scale space-based solar power by 2040.
Unfortunately, this is still a little late. But, to mitigate the worst of climate change, the most significant and challenging emissions cuts we will have to make are between 2040, when emissions should be cut by more than 50%, and 2050, when we have to be entirely carbon-neutral. So if space-based solar can experience a boom in the 2040s, it could be the technology that helps us reach this monumental milestone without inadvertently hurting the environment in other ways (via habitat loss, heavy metal leaching, etc.).
I cover many climate-saving technologies on this page, from fusion to new solar chemistries and carbon capture. All of them have their merits and drawbacks, and as such, we need to use a mixture of them to save the planet. But space-based solar has by far the fewest faults and is also one of the closest to becoming a reality. I genuinely think this relatively obscure concept could be one of the most significant and influential technologies we have to offset the Promethean nightmare that is climate change. So, for the sake of you, me, and the entire planet, let’s hope Airbus can get this project off the ground.
Nov 28, 2022
Airbus Just Unlocked The Ultimate Clean Energy
Their power beam demonstrator could spark a renewable revolution.
There are plenty of projects out there aiming to save the world from our self-made climate apocalypse. Consider the multibillion-dollar ITER fusion experiment, which aims to produce carbon-neutral fusion power. But projects like this are moving too slowly, and breakthroughs aren’t happening fast enough. To save the planet and our future, we will require massive amounts of on-demand ultra-low emissions and extremely environmentally friendly energy in the coming decade, which programmes like ITER simply cannot provide. Yet, Airbus recently demonstrated a technology that could do just this by making space-based solar power a reality. So what is space-based solar? And is it the climate saviour we have been looking for?
I covered space-based solar power a little while ago (which you can click here to read). But to ensure we are all up to speed, let’s quickly recap what it is and why it is so damn brilliant.
Standard solar power is fantastic. It is both the cheapest form of energy ever produced, with costs as low as $28 per kWh, and one of the least carbon-intensive, with emissions of only 6 g per kWh produced. As such, you’d think it would be perfect for saving the world. But in reality, solar is flawed.
Firstly, solar power isn’t on-demand, as power vanishes on dark days or at night. This means giant grid-level batteries are needed, and the mining and manufacturing that goes into producing them has a significant environmental impact. Furthermore, this makes powering an entire energy grid from solar alone very difficult, as demand can quickly outstrip supply, leading to blackouts. Moreover, solar farms cause habitat loss, either directly by being built on wild lands or indirectly by being built on farmland and depleting agricultural output, leading to more farmland expansion into previously natural habitats. Finally, solar panels take a lot of energy and some chemicals that aren’t very nice to the environment to manufacture (which can cause heavy metal leaching), which overall means that while their environmental impact is small, it is still significant. So even though solar is far better than coal, gas, and oil, it isn’t good enough.
But we can improve it by changing one thing: where we put it. You see, geostationary satellites get 23 hours and 46 minutes of blazing, unfiltered sunlight each day. This higher-energy sunlight and nearly completely uninterrupted access to light mean that over the course of a year, solar panels in geostationary orbit produce 40 times more energy than those on the ground! So if we can put solar panels up there and beam the energy back down to Earth, we can solve almost all of solar power’s problems. The constant stream of energy means that giant grid-level batteries aren’t needed, as they are in orbit; no habitat has been taken up; and as we need far fewer panels, the environmental impact of building them is also dramatically reduced.
So why haven’t we used space-based solar power if it is so damn good? Well, there are two massive problems: the cost of getting a gigantic solar farm into geostationary orbit and actually getting the energy back to Earth.
Pretty soon, we will solve the first problem with SpaceX’s Starship. Not only can it carry well over 100 tonnes into geostationary orbit for a tiny price of $10 million (way over 90% cheaper than NASA’s equivalent-sized SLS), but it can also use carbon-neutral biofuel and function as one of the cleanest rockets in history. These two factors indicate that putting a massive solar farm into geostationary orbit is feasible, affordable, and even environmentally friendly.
But getting the power back to Earth is a little more tricky. Many have suggested beaming the energy back using microwaves, as these can penetrate through even thick cloud cover, allowing for consistent energy transmission. But these systems would be eye-wateringly expensive and have horrific transmission efficiency over such a long distance, given that geostationary satellites are 36,000 km from the Earth’s surface. So while we can afford to build this orbiting solar farm, the price for its energy would be astronomical, rendering it unattainable.
This is where Airbus comes in. They have been working on a microwave-based energy transmitter with a high enough efficiency and a low enough cost to make space-based solar a reality. Recently, they built a 1:1000 scale model that would beam solar energy from space 36 metres to Earth and power a model city. This charming demonstration proved that their technology is well on its way to reaching those two crucial goals.
Sadly, we don’t know how efficient this scale model of energy transmission was, and Airbus has said it will need further refinement. But Airbus has confidently stated that when put into use, it could make the cost of space-based solar energy equivalent to nuclear power, or about $167.50 per kWh. Such a price would make this planet-saving technology affordable and cheap enough to be rapidly deployed in vast numbers.
So how long will it take for Airbus to refine and implement this technology? Well, Airbus is planning on conducting full-scale prototypes in the early 2030s. These won’t be big enough to power a city, but they will act as a way to develop and prove that a geostationary satellite can efficiently beam energy down to Earth. This means that we could see wide-scale space-based solar power by 2040.
Unfortunately, this is still a little late. But, to mitigate the worst of climate change, the most significant and challenging emissions cuts we will have to make are between 2040, when emissions should be cut by more than 50%, and 2050, when we have to be entirely carbon-neutral. So if space-based solar can experience a boom in the 2040s, it could be the technology that helps us reach this monumental milestone without inadvertently hurting the environment in other ways (via habitat loss, heavy metal leaching, etc.).
I cover many climate-saving technologies on this page, from fusion to new solar chemistries and carbon capture. All of them have their merits and drawbacks, and as such, we need to use a mixture of them to save the planet. But space-based solar has by far the fewest faults and is also one of the closest to becoming a reality. I genuinely think this relatively obscure concept could be one of the most significant and influential technologies we have to offset the Promethean nightmare that is climate change. So, for the sake of you, me, and the entire planet, let’s hope Airbus can get this project off the ground.
Erinn van Wynsberghe
President & CEO
VanWyn Inc.
President & CEO
VanWyn Inc.
USA: 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810,Chicago, IL 60601
CANADA: 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 105, Hamilton, ON L8P 0A1
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages