Two things are stupid about this idea. 1) 21 Billion dollars for a one gigawatt station. Why not try building the solar cells on earth instead of out in space at $3/watt that's 7 gigawatts. 2) While current worries about anthropogenic global warming are nonsense. Setting up multiple large scale solar power plants to continuously beam extra energy from the sun to the Earth just might do the trick.
http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/

1) You get unfiltered energy from space, there are no limits on collector size. 2) The center of the Earth is a ball of fire, the Sun rains energy down on our heads -- it matters more what atmosphere we have to retain or not retain that energy.

Nothing new about this concept Dr. Peter Glaser first proposed the idea (collecting energy in space and microwaving it bact) in the '60s. NASA and the Department of Energy conducted tests in the '80s and '90s using ground stations (not satellites) and determined that the energy loss of distance was acceptable.

The biggest hurdle has always been that there was little or no experience assembling structures that size in space. Assembling the Space Station and advances in robotics have eased some of those concerns.

The Japanese are doing what they do well taking all the research work done in the US (see the history of the transistor) and putting it to practical use. Guess where the earthbound jobs for this project will be.

And uhh Paul the reason to build the station in space is...there are no cloudy days in space.

Can anyone say "Goldeneye"?

I would hate to be in an airplane that accidently flies thru that microwave beam, and I would hate for it's targetting routines to accidently drift away from the ground based collector and drift over my house... or me.

"Ahead of its time?
This is PowerSat, from the 1960s!

We'd have this now if Democrats hadn't killed the space program, as they ALWAYS do.

I'm pretty sure I read the Indians were getting close to launching something like this about a year ago.

OK, so they get this thing working. Now a country is getting their electric from space. There are tons of small meteors or small asteroid flying around up there. What if one of them hits the solar station and knocks out power to the whole country, or part of the country that is powered by the station? I can’t really see the repair people/ astronauts, running out to the repair truck/ space ship, and driving off/ flying off, to fix the problem by dinner time. So, how long would people be in the dark before the problem is fixed?

It’s just another rich people toy. If this was put in place, only rich people would be able to afford to get electric from it. They would charge tons of money each month to use it, just to re-coop the cost of implementing it. But, they can say their homes are solar powered from space. :)

lot of nay sayers, not surprising coming from internet nerds..

so what if they proposed it, u can propose anything they are actually getting it done. why send sputnik into space? why do anything according to ur logic

theyre land is limited so they need to use space, simple as that or are u to thick

any space mission is a good one

dumb idea.

I dont care if they was to spend billions in it...its not my money...but I think that money would be better spent on nuclear power plants...much more bang for the buck.

Why build it in empty space? There is plenty of open areas on the Earth (Sahara and Gobi deserts are two) that can hold these collectors and not need to transmit back. On the other hand, why not use the Moon? It has several thousands of square miles that are always facing the Sun (or more then 80% daylit), and it is more stabe. Getting that power to Earth remains the other prolem. But I rather spend the money on Earth based areas. See what Sandia Labs is doing in the American desert now.

Raymond -- the atmosphere is a filter on Earth. In space you can harvest in addition to a more intense sunlight, unfiltered UV rays which are quite powerful. You can also choose where to beam, to any station for local distribution. The problem with a desert installation: the huge distances the power would have to travel through inefficient power lines, and all the heat losses incurred. It's more efficient to have one generating station and be able to send it to the location of your choosing, on demand. This is the technology of the future if fusion cannot be harnessed. Even then, solar of this variety will have massive potential -- temporary army bases in the middle of th desert for example, or moon bases, both powered from the same orbiting stations.

first, the moon? any part of the moon spends 14 days in sunlight and 14 days in darkness.

Deserts? Sand, night, etc. In space, this can be placed in 24/7 intense sunlight.

People worried about a meteor strike and power going out? There wouldn't be just 1 of these for a whole country, but multiple and multiple recieving stations.

What happens if a plane flies through the beam, or beam goes off target to your house? Not much, you gradually get warmer. This has been looked at for 40 years, it's the construction that has held it back. The field intensity isn't going to be large enough to be a death ray like some people fear. You wouldn't want to live or even hang out in the beam, but it's not going to be deadly.

One of the main benefits of this would be that burning of fossil fuels will become less appealing. With cheap electricity available, coal mines and oil fields will not be cost effective.

The cost? That's for the first one, each additional built, with techniques and technologies learned on the first, will be cheaper.

On e of the proposed uses is to use it beaming energy to an ocean based receiving farm, that uses the power directly for electrolysis of seawater. The hydrogen produced then could be used for vehicles, etc. Anywhere electricity isn't convenient.

Alright, so I'm on board with taking this energy show up into space and giving up the resources to build it properly. The problem here? We might just possibly be forgetting that a huge, cool-looking, space solar panel is not necessarily a more advanced solar panel. And by the way, it doesn't even look all that cool, does it?

My multi-billion futuristic star laser is bigger than yours.

Well, to those who say there would be multiple up there, sure, but there are thousands of small meteorites entering Earth's atmosphere and breaking up annually, aren't there? Do you know how hard it would be to maintain these? to repair them? I think its an amazing idea, if - only if - they can bypass that problem. But then again, obviously they'd have thought about this, they wouldnt be dumping billions of dollars into it otherwise.

Why not trying to live with what we have?

The article does say this is aimed at becoming operational in 3 DECADES. By then I'm sure we'll have much more efficient solar panels, and the ability to clear small objects and debris (meteorites, dust, old parts from satellites/spacecraft, etc...) from orbit making this a very good idea.