Replies

As a boy, I read a book that espoused the same strategy. Several years ago, my law firm employed a physics Ph.D. as a patent lawyer. I asked him whether this microwave-beaming would work; he snorted "no." Any other physicists out there who care to explain yea or nay on this idea?

It could be done. Going to space is expensive. Solar energy isn't particularly dense (although its a bit more viable in space than on the ground).

Possible, yes. Cost effective, only if you're smokin the good stuff.

Fission works and is cost effective (especially when you don't regulate it to death). France is 80% nuclear.

The problem is the replacement of fossil fuels. Hydrogen is about 7 times less dense than gasoline. There should also be a way to go from nuke to ethanol. Energy, as Blake says, is eternal delight. The $10,000 question is can it be done in a cost effective manner?

Maro,

I used to work for COMSAT and we built antennas all over the world. There are numerous problems with transmitting anything let alone high power signals. First of all the orbitting power station will have to be in geosynchronous orbit and the airspace from the satellite to the earthstation would have to be closely gaurded as it would vaporize anything that passed through. There will be tremendous losses in the atmosphere and heat all the moisture in the air the beam passes through. It would be next to impossible to focus the beam with a foot print much smaller than a city the size of Indianapolis. The earthstation would have to be very remote in which case terrestrial transmission losses would be very high. The radio signal harmonics from a signal with the same power as a nuke plant would make all other radio communication impossible for hundreds of miles and finally the posibility of the sattelite malfunctioning, becoming disoriented and sending a death ray marching across the country may be somewhat worse than just about any nuke accident that could ever happen.

In short I don't really think it is good idea. Maybe we ought to stick with nukes.

Regards,
Boiler Plate

I asked him whether this microwave-beaming would work; he snorted "no"

The answer why is found in the article:

The 240 gigawatts of generating capacity needed to replace the transportation fuel would cost more than US$4.8 trillion for the equipment alone. The 240 gigawatts of solar electric panels would occupy about 3000 square miles, the purchase of which would add to the cost.

Visualize the cost of transporting 3000 square miles of solar cells into orbit. It is cost-prohibitive. The act of launching that many shuttle flights would be an environmental disaster in itself. It only starts looking feasible in the context of having industry in space, with raw materials coming from the asteroid belt. Short answer: not this decade.

Nuclear is the only solution that is demonstratably workable within a twenty-year horizon