Is NASA too down on space-based solar power?

This month, NASA cast a shadow on one of the most visionary prospects for freeing the world from fossil fuels: collecting solar energy in space and beaming it to Earth. An agency report found the scheme is feasible by 2050 but would cost between 12 and 80 times as much as ground-based renewable energy sources. Undaunted, many government agencies and companies are pushing ahead with demonstration plans. Some researchers say NASA’s analysis is too pessimistic. “There are assumptions that are just wrong and others that are incredibly conservative,” says Martin Soltau, co-CEO of Space Solar, a development company funded by the U.K. government and industry. “There’s no imagination.” He and others note that NASA itself says slightly rosier assumptions—including a drop in launch costs that many think is within reach—would suddenly make the technology competitive with ground-based renewable energy. Space-based solar power has many charms. For one, there are no clouds in space, and, in the right location, no night. In geostationary orbit, arrays of solar panels can track the Sun and gather energy 24/7, sending it to Earth in microwave beams gentle enough to avoid frying birds and airplanes. With free real estate, the orbiting structures can be made big enough to produce a few gigawatts (GW), rivaling the output of a nuclear or coal-fired power plant. Lifting thousands of tons of material into orbit is the main problem. NASA studied the idea in the 1970s but...
Source: Science of Aging Knowledge Environment - Category: Geriatrics Source Type: research