Space-based solar panels could supply 80% of Europe's renewable energy by 2050

[Shawn Knight]

In a nutshell: Space-based solar power could reduce Europe's renewable energy needs by as much as 80 percent, lower battery use by two-thirds, and cut the overall cost of power for the region by 15 percent – all by the year 2050.

Researchers from King's College London came to that conclusion after running a detailed simulation of Europe's future power grid. The model, which simulated projected energy demand, generation, and storage across 33 countries, utilized specially designed solar panels from NASA that rely on mirror-like reflectors to redirect sunlight from space to designated collector stations on Earth.

It may sound like science fiction at this point, but there's plenty of time – 25 years, to be exact – to turn the dream into reality. And if NASA can actually deliver hardware that lives up to its predicted energy capacity, it could be a big step forward for renewable energy.

Conventional land-based renewable energy is largely inconsistent, often depending on factors such as the weather and the time of day. Ground-based solar panels also take a hit from the atmosphere. A space-based solar supply, on the other hand, would (at least, theoretically) be constant and predictable.

Of course, there are plenty of hurdles to overcome – and not all of them were considered in the study. In addition to cost, operators will need to consider metrics like efficiency, orbital congestion, and other factors that could interrupt transmissions. The orbit around Earth is quickly becoming cluttered – do we really want to put even more satellites into space, and would they be able to dodge all of the other space junk already out there?

Europe is not the only region turning to space for future energy needs. Earlier this year, Japan announced that it was developing a similar space-based solar power program. Their proposed system would use microwaves to send power collected from space to Earth. An early test from an airplane to a ground-based collection center proved successful.

Image credit: Michael Pointer, Planet Volumes

Permalink to story:

Space-based solar panels could supply 80% of Europe's renewable energy by 2050

 

[SRB]

Can't wait to find out how many birds will get cooked by this setup.

 

[Che Cazzo]

Can't wait to find out how many birds will get cooked by this setup.

Cooked birds huh??

Nothing triggers the oil and coal-loving righties like a renewable form of energy and now they are suddenly feigning concern about the poor birds!! (Mr. Turnip thinks wind energy kills whales....LOL!!)

Those are the same people, mind you, who never gave 2 excrements about billions of bird (and any kind of sea life, from whales, to dolphins, sea turtles and pelicans) that died when their beloved oil tankers spilled their guts all over the planet and killed anything you could think of!

Just google "oil spills" and show the hypocrites the number of dead creatures that they never don't gave a*** about! But now suddenly, hey, the poor birds!!!

Heck, any high rise in any US city kills more birds per week than any alleged bird kills from renewable energy in years!!

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Flying cars by 2050 too!

 

[Revolution 11]

So wait, putting a solar panel up in space with a rocket is cheaper than just installing three panels on the ground? Or putting a utility-scale battery?

This makes as much sense as moving the entire human population into giant space stations controlled by Jeff Bezos.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Yeah I don't fully understand why this "space laser" energy system keeps showing up and getting pushed.

If we can't even get around to installing solar panels here on Earth, there is no way we're doing it up in space where doing anything becomes exponentially more difficult and more expensive.

It's like listening to people who don't believe in climate change here on Earth talking about terraforming Mars... like you don't think 8 billion people on Earth can change the climate here but you think 12 people can change the climate of a hostile alien planet 4 million miles away? Whut?

 

[SRB]

Cooked birds huh??

Nothing triggers the oil and coal-loving righties like a renewable form of energy and now they are suddenly feigning concern about the poor birds!! (Mr. Turnip thinks wind energy kills whales....LOL!!)

Those are the same people, mind you, who never gave 2 excrements about billions of bird (and any kind of sea life, from whales, to dolphins, sea turtles and pelicans) that died when their beloved oil tankers spilled their guts all over the planet and killed anything you could think of!

Just google "oil spills" and show the hypocrites the number of dead creatures that they never don't gave a*** about! But now suddenly, hey, the poor birds!!!

Heck, any high rise in any US city kills more birds per week than any alleged bird kills from renewable energy in years!!

My, touchy aren't we? I didn't make any comments on any other energy sources. I just know that one focused solar energy plant spontaneously combusts 6,000 birds a year. And that's within a few hundred feet of the ground. Imagine a beam from space with similar or greater energy.

BTW Deflecting to what other systems may or may not do without addressing the original point is called a fallacious argument.

Or is you're point is that because other forms of energy damage life differently, and this only cooks birds, that's perfectly ok?

P.S. As for whales, wind farms are doing wonders for them, aren't they?

 

[Godel]

Solar satellites will have to be in geostationary orbit, about 37,000 km above the earth's surface. Imagine the cost of putting a large installation up there as well as the energy losses getting back down to the surface over that distance.

The idea is total BS.

 

[NumberNine]

What happens when this bad boy starts cooking the top of an anvil cloud?

 

[Axeia]

So who are these startup scam artists that keep tricking governments?

Unless there has been some material science advances where we can origami super light weight enormous mirrors I don't see this being viable. And even if those advances are made there's other problems to solve. Can we just make advances in recycling nuclear waste and thorium reactors instead? Seem like much more grounded solutions, excuse the pun.

 

[WaphleStomp]

So, it wouldn't actually be "Space-based solar panels", it'd just be mirrors in space. Why headline the article with "Space-based solar panels" if it's just friggin' mirrors and the solar panels are on the ground?
Doesn't Techspot have a paid editor to check things like this?

 

[MonicaPython2]

I cannot believe that this project can be economically effective.

 

[monkeylove]

As of 2016, the per capita ecological footprint was 2.75 global hectares, but the biocapacity per capita is only 1.63. That means the world population has been in overshoot for at least a decade, and that's where only around 30 percent are part of the middle class.

That means in order to meet basic needs of everyone, the world will need energy and material resources equivalent to at least one more Earth. In order to meet middle class conveniences, where the 70 percent want what the 30 percent have and where the 30 percent are relying on the 70 percent to do so because their own wages and returns on investment are dependent on increasing sales of goods and services to expanding consumer markets, the world will need three more Earths.

Finally, I read that if something is done immediately about carbon emissions, then the effects of those, including on the climate, might diminish after 40 years. If there are delays, the effects might remain for around a century.

Given these, not only is 25 years not plenty of time, but what's planned might not be enough.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

Solar satellites will have to be in geostationary orbit, about 37,000 km above the earth's surface. Imagine the cost of putting a large installation up there as well as the energy losses getting back down to the surface over that distance.

Most of that distance is open space. Almost pure vacuum. No energy loss with focused beam.
Where energy is lost is the atmosphere. And that is the same amount of energy lost regardless if satelite is on low orbit or moon.

The idea is total BS.

But it sounds soooo coool and Sci-Fi.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

So, it wouldn't actually be "Space-based solar panels", it'd just be mirrors in space. Why headline the article with "Space-based solar panels" if it's just friggin' mirrors and the solar panels are on the ground?

I am not saying that it is impossible to do it mirrors.
But is would be much more complicated (both in space and earth) than with solar panels.

 

[toooooot]

So wait, putting a solar panel up in space with a rocket is cheaper than just installing three panels on the ground? Or putting a utility-scale battery?

This makes as much sense as moving the entire human population into giant space stations controlled by Jeff Bezos.

But they ran a simulation, on the computer.

 

[axiomatic13]

Wouldn't this generate a lot of light pollution and cause the nighttime animals to think it's daytime? These things matter.

 

[WaphleStomp]

Seems inefficient; only good during the day, the sun's turned off at night.
[silly sarcasm]

 

[Godel]

Most of that distance is open space. Almost pure vacuum. No energy loss with focused beam.
Where energy is lost is the atmosphere. And that is the same amount of energy lost regardless if satelite is on low orbit or moon.

A tightly focused beam over 37,000 km? That implies a dish reflector of some kind, an added complication to high orbit construction. Refer to my previous "BS' comment.

 

[techstrike]

Great news, lets cook the earth.

I can't wait to see global warming sooner.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

A tightly focused beam over 37,000 km? That implies a dish reflector of some kind, an added complication to high orbit construction. Refer to my previous "BS' comment.

1. LASER or MASER may or may not use dish
2. Non-Focused light is good for doing light on the part of earth where is night.
3. Dish or not, mirrors or panels ... its still be an enormous BS. For the same money you could get much more electricity from panels on Earth surface. Just nobody want it on their backyard.

 

[Q Wales]

Lets hope they can do this without adding to global warming or causing issues with the stratosphere