Launch costs will have to go to about 5% of current costs to make this economically viable. Also, this will not be a 'fire and forget'system. Extensive maintenance for thruster fuel, and parts replacement will ahve to be scheduled, and if they are put in a geosyncronous orbit, you can forget shooting people up there to work on them. Radiation dosage from the Van Allen belts would kill them before they could finish their work. So now you will need to develop remote control robots of a very high quality.

The costs just keep adding up don't they.......

I think you're being overly pessimistic. Satellites don't have many moving parts, and a good orbit doesn't require much correction. Molniya orbits solve the problem of getting to them, and allow them to sit in the RF receiver's range for quite some time.

Joe Wooten, would you care to explain why none of the Apollo astronauts who ent to the Moon and back didn't die from radiation poisoning in the Van Allen belts? Or perhaps just admit that you're full of hot ari and don't know Jack about that issue?

Launch costs *will* go down, now that we have at least one civilian launch vehcile; it's called "economy of scale," and that's why your Chevy doesn't cost a million dollars, and why the PC you're using cost well under $5000 (and mught be under $500).

Also keep in mind that aluminized Mylar reflectors can be used to make 100 square meters of solar cells collect the power from several square kilometers of surface, by concentrating the Sun's rays on the cells. We don't need to launch as much mass as you imagine, by a couple orders of magnitude.

You can't "convert" RF into usable energy. If you could, all radio station broadcasts could be turned into power. The Apollo astronauts didn't die, because their module was radiation shielded as were their suits. That adds tons of weight and is why a mission to Mars is so risky.

Talk to any spacecraft power engineer and they laugh about prospects of beaming power from space to Earth. Having enough power for normal satellite/payload operation is one of the biggest challenges in designing a space vehicle.

Why not just use geothermal? Cheaper than solar. Cheaper than wind. More stable than either. Cheaper maintenance than either.

If ten percent of the land now open to leasing is eventually developed with similar yields to existing leases, geothermal production would increase 2000%. That is equivalent to roughly 243,000 MW, or roughly enough to power the whole state of California. This is just from the lands in California — the Programmatic Geothermal Environmental Impact Study (PGEIS) also made decisions for 11 other western states. And, while that sounds like a lot of land to give over development, geothermal power only uses a tiny fraction of each lease for power production.

You can convert RF into energy, they have already done it from island to island in Hawaii. The RF frequency used for radios is not strong enough to do this, that is why you just can't hook some wires up and convert radio waves into energy. I've been keeping up on this project through www.spacesolarpower.com and still am very interested in further research, I'm all for it. It make take a bit to send it up, but if the tech is good enough, it will save us in the future.

OK, even if you did build this contraption and got it working, how would you ever defend it during time of war? A foreign nation could knock it out with a missile.

OK, even if you did build this contraption and got it working, how would you ever defend it during time of war? A foreign nation could knock it out with a missile.

No electrical grid can be defended in a time of war when all it takes is a few sappers with home-made explosives to down power poles and electrical stations. However, most countries do not have the technology to reach an orbital power station; if we are at full war with one of the few that can, I think losing a station like this one will be the least of our worries.

Here's the definitive refutation of the "Van Allen radiation stops high orbital huamn space flight" theory: http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Just what we need, large obtrusive things in the sky that they can sell advertising on.

Geothermal is good but limited to areas that have good convection and shallow drilling. The heat depletes locally once you start pumping water through it.

RF transmission of power works and isn't new at all, but the cost of a setup like this is way to expensive to be practical. Here is a pretty good writeup on its history.
http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/wptshinohara.pdf

As for being intrusive.. it is no more intrusive ISS is now....

WOW! IN order for California to really be able to take advantage of this, they better look at their ground based power grid before launching that satellite... if the warm summers are any indication, this year again, high usuage will overheat and warp the ONE main transmission line between northern and southern California. More rolling blackouts, and more fun for consumers who have to plan around these fun events. They could put a satellite around the sun and still be screwed until the grid on the ground, which has to transmit this massive resource, it functioning properly.

Joe expresses some good points that JPL would agree with. He needs to us a SPELL CHECKER although...

Whether the power works or not, perhaps this big sun shade could be positioned so that it lowers the temperature at one of the poles to allow our disappearing ice shelf to replenish itself.

Typical Californian poorly thought out drivel.
This is another crazy proposal decades at least away from being economically viable. I'm thinking the last thing I want is more junk orbiting the earth. And of course even if it worked someday, why benefit California? Why not beam all this magically produced power to some poor country? I'm guessing so that Pelosi and her cohorts can spend everyone else's money to show how efficient this system is, how "environmentally responsible", no matter how much it wrecks the rest of the economy.I would guess if you let me bankrupt the rest of the country, like she continuously proposes to do, I could have scientists make my little corner of the world have space electricity too! Or maybe we could send all the airheads like Garafalo out to space and let them pedal space bikes for energy. What happened to earthbound viable alternatives?

Are u crazy McKenica? I think you're one of those political nutjobs aren't you? Why did you even mention Pelosi's name? We're talking about Van Allen belts and aluminized mylar reflectors and yet you are going on about Pelosi? This is ScFi. This isn't a place for your crazy, nutjob political rambelings. Phew.

Anyway. It really isn't an economically feasable option. Shall I draw your attention to the "Star Wars" project? No one has said it yet... So I figured I would. Space based anything costs a fortune. And yes, converting RF energy is super awesome, but the technology is years and years away from having the ability to transmit from high orbit all the way back to Earth. And even further off from converting that back into useable electrical energy able to be sent along "faulty" power gird lines (I use DaveM for this, since I know nothing about California's power grid). And yes, there are ways of keeping a better stable orbit, but when it DOES need servicing what is California going to do? Geothermal energy is great, but in the same way that humans thought using oil in the ground would be fine because the Earth isn't using it anymore, I fear that soaking up geothermal energy won't have some unforseen negitive environmental impact. I've read studies about it and although I'd rather trust Samanta Carter (SG1 reference lol), I am still a little uneasy. and McKenica? Seriously? Beam it to a poor country? Are you like insane? I mean like call the mental hospital crazy? Because you seriously sound like it. Wake up and smell the roses (if there are any left if people like you were to get their way). There are no Earthbound viable alternatives! What do you think the whole controversy is? Coal emmisions are raping the environment. The burning of gasoline is obviously unsound. There is no means to properly dispose of left-over nuclear material from nuclear power plants. Many don't know it, but it sits in some big dump in Africa. How do you get wind engery is the wind isn't blowing in all areas of the country? And geothermal is also years off from being possible. Plus why do you think they are sending solar pannels into space? Its the point of this article! Groundbased solar energy collecting is much, MUCH more diminished than space based. No, we cannot continue our current means of energy creation. And nutjobs like you McKenica are not going to be able to do anything about it anymore. But in all seriousness, this program is just as realilistic as the "Star Wars" program was back then. Seven years is way to short a time. 20, maybe, seven no way.

What we really need to do is use certain alternative fuels at certain parts of the world. Wind power would be a great idea for areas with a lot of wind, wave harnessing for coastal areas, and solar power where there's constant sun. You can even harness methane from landfills for cities. These are only some examples, there are enough different types of alternative energy now and in development that can give a good chunk of the planet electricity.

As for geothermal, wtf are you guys talking about? It does NOT permanently extract heat from the planet. It harnesses the heat to make steam, to turn turbines. The geothermal locations on top of lava pools might SOMEDAY cool off but won't be for a long while and it seems to me that no one here knows about HDR. HDR stands for Hot-Dry-Rock (I didn't name it someone else did) and what it does is drill two pipes down a few miles into the earth where the rock is heated to a few thousand degrees. Here the rock is still solid but when water is pumped down one pipe, it instantly vaporizes when it hits the rock. The second pipe channels the steam back up to the surface where the vapor, gasp, turns a turbine. When the water re-condenses, it gets pumped back into the ground. This can be done for a very very very very very very long time without any ill effects to the environment except for the placement of the turbines. Then again any human built anything disrupts the environment.

Just thought I'd set people straight on that, if any one had bothered to check geothermal before they'd know that no heat is actually taken out.

Ah but see thats the point that most don't udnerstand and where the main criticism comes from. Energy cannot be created or destroied. It is in anything. Using heat takes heat and removes that heat. Its physics 101. Using it in anyfassion, to boil water, turn turbines, the heat that vaporises the water IS taken away. It doesn't matter how little, it still is taken away. Again thats physics 101. It is converting heat into electricity. And it may not take that much heat, we do not know the environmental impact, PERIOD. We can only hypothesize. I say whatever, it can't be worse than fossil fuels (well hopefully not). Then again we thought ethanol was better and yet it is WORSE than gasoline. So yeah use geothermal energy, but I just worry. We should be cautious, but again Americans are rarely, if ever, cautious.

Bottom line is, we have a fast approaching "Tipping Point" where the number of human beings on this Planet is going to exceed the the Planets' ability to sustain us. Population is, if you really think about it, at the core of all our "Environmental Problems".....Or it can be stated as "Stress" on the delicate balance of our "Habitat". We only have a certain amount of Real Estate here. Be it actual "Livable Area", food supply, or our "Environmental Footprint".....Use any or all of the P.C. euphemisms we so regularly apply to make the abuse of our Home sound less backwards and ridiculous than it actually is.....population, rather overpopulation, is behind all of "It". Everybody has certain basic needs in this World. And if they are not met, we perish. And most of all, our population growth is going in one direction. That simple fact leads to the necessity of greater means of food production, building supplies, heat, refrigeration, light, fuel for transportation - "Energy" - the list goes on and on. The "Demand" grows greater and greater with each passing day. And the "Supply" remains the same. Fixed.
However, you bring up the idea of some sort of "Population Control" and "Civil Rights" activists scream bloody murder!! So, where is the Line? The Line in the Sand where an individuals' Right to procreate infringes on a society's state of well-being?? I am using a very round about way to get to my point....I know this. I just feel that the root of the problem desperately needs to be voiced...put to word.
As far as "Energy Production" goes, if you think about it: Every single form of energy on this planet
in existence, at one time or another was created by our Sun. It CANNOT be denied that without
Sunlight, there would be no form of life on this planet, even on the microbial level. This planet
would be devoid of any and every form of life without energy from the Sun.
Don't take my word for it for Lord sakes!! Go study on it yourself. You will, however, come to the same conclusions I have.
We NEED to completely give up on the R&D of "Fossil Fuels". That road has a very absolute Dead End, just beyond the horizon. Out of our immediate line of sight, but not out of the realm of our ability to predict. Unfortunately, "Out of sight, out of mind" is our credo. To Hell and gone with
prediction! After all, how often do we really repeat our own mistakes? As individuals, or as Humanity as a whole? Right? Right........
The solution in part, lies in our ability to "Localize" our Energy resources and production. Where there is wind, harness wind energy. Where there is more direct sunlight, build Solar Panels. And
so on.......Semantics.
But most importantly, why not take at least half of the money we use to harness "Fossil Fuels" and
make the mechanisms that use that form of energy more efficient, and put that money into the
R&D of "Solar Power"? Solar Power will be around for as long as we will need it. And as for the people who speak out against it due to the "Cost" ( Think of the money that went into the idea of "Liquid Coal"? I mean, Come On!! ) ; Well, as far as the Research and Development of Solar Energy is concerned, we are still in the "Stone-age" there. We have not even came up with the proverbial "Wheel" yet.....With a few years and a few billion dollars, I have no doubt we could
come up with the technology that would render the carbon-producing, combustion engine impotent. We've spent 1/1000th on a cent on Solar R&D for every One Million dollars spent on Fossil Fuel R&D! So, how can we say something will not work without ever making any serious effort to explore it? I'm sure there are those reading this thinking, "How do we know spending Billions will lead to anny kind of new Energy Source? How can I make that claim?" Well, as they say, "Necessity is the Mother of Invention". And since the first Human Being harnessed the ability to create fire, we have been making incredible progress in the science of combustion. So, I would take the "Chance" on Solar R&D, if it were up to me....
But I don't see it happening. Not at this stage anyway. No, we will not change our school of
thought until the price of gas rises to 10 dollars per gallon or more, and we've pretty much doomed ourselves to the ravages of "Global Warming". We will moan and complain, bitch about the "Government" and our "Leaders". But history has shown time and again that we do not change our ways until it is physically impossible to continue on. I can only hope the generations that follow are able to somehow salvage this Planet and its fragile ecosystem, and that one day, we will actually learn from our mistakes and forge a "New" history. The same old story of corruption, greed, Human Pride and Gluttony leading to a breakdown of Society has been told far too many times.

Interesting side-bit: I made a similar proposal to Boeing (while I worked there) back in the late 90's.

Interesting rambling, branded72. Somewhere deep within your rant, I'm sure there were some good points, but I got bored halfway through, as well as Easily distracted by your Inexplicable Capitalization.

You all are overlooking some key facts, which generally happens when you pull out the jump to conclusion mats instead of the thinking caps and PAY ATTENTION. If you get your news from anywhere beyond SciFi, you'll know the contract is between PG&E and Solaren Corp, two non-government companies. PG&E is currently SEEKING approval from California state regulators, but they haven't gotten it yet.

In other words, you have two companies using their own funds to explore a potentially viable power source to deal with today's energy issues. Will they potentially get government funding? Yes. But as of right now, NOBODY in the government has announced they are backing this project. So boohoo and gripe all you want; at least somebody's exploring our options on how to bail your butts out before this energy problem becomes an ACTUAL energy crisis.

every dreamer or inventor has been laughed at, ridiculed and accused of being a weirdo a crackpot or a renegade at some point. "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for"?

Those cheaters! I didn't unlock that in SimCity until 2030!

Can any one say Tesla, look him up, :-)

Why not cut costs by avoiding all that needless radiation shielding to protect the maintenance astronauts? A little exposure to space bourne radiation could do a body good--just ask Reed Richards...

(...and remember--you'll only have a 1 in 4 chance of coming out of it looking like Ben Grimm. Not bad odds at all!)

Brandon72 - Sorry dude, but you bought into a big bar of POPULATION MYTH!! That whole, the world's population is getting to large to be sustained is a load they keep feeding us that is full and from the bull.

Here, it's simple. Yes, if we keep growing and the current levels AND... the world becomes GLOBALIZED like "they" plan it, then YES, you are correct. But, otherwise, we can already feed the world, hell, the govt. is still subsidizing farmers NOT to farm more food. Thousands are dying from AIDs and companies have the drugs to stave it off and yet it's not "Profitable" to just mass produce it and give it away. We have enough retail to cloth the whole world hundreds of times over, enough homes sitting Reposed and Deliquent to house everybody, we have enough cars to have every one individual riding, and enough money for everyone to live for free. We have enough land for everyone to have a number of acres... just go take a drive (or GoogleMap it) from Texas to Georgia, then scoot up to Virginia, back acros Kentucky to Colorado, and up to the Dakotas, and you'll see it. It's level, sustainable, and fine. And that's just in the US. BUT... if your talking about everyone living like Bill Gates... then there's a proble.

They could still lose power at the first meteor strike hitting one or more of their satellites, even micrometeors could damage enough to affect power. Also, how many countries could launch missiles at a satelite if they really wanted to (sorry to be a pessimist, but I'm a realist and there are still many problems in the world)? That would cause enough problems if they don't have backup land lines.

I don't think just California people should be able to use it, if your going to harness it from space then direct onto earth and let everyone use it... from all of the USA