The Camp of Getting Solar Power Off the Ground

One of the difficulties we all have when we start to ponder the power supply of advanced civilizations (such as we may become) is a strong “giggle factor” when it comes to mega-engineering.  When Arthur C Clarke estimated how far in the future a space elevator would be, he decided it was “fifty years after everybody stops laughing.”  When someone says they work with SETI, the first instinct is often to smirk and think “good luck with that”.  When one calculates how long it might take a civilization to cross the galaxy the reaction is often “yeah, but that’s so loooong.”  

It’s hard to wrap one’s mind around ideas that involve expanding current capabilities by many orders of magnitude.  That’s one reason that the Apollo missions were so mind-blowing:  we still hadn’t come to terms with space travel being possible when we went ahead and did it (as newspapers at the time so memorably attested).
But there’s no reason that these things are impossible or even all that hard.  We already have (or will have) interstellar space probes.  We already know how to do human space flight.  We have nuclear reactors, and we’re working hard on artificial biospheres.   There’s no showstopper here except the will and the time.  If humanity can spend $1 trillion blowing stuff up and killing people for years at a time (and it has done this, in 2013 dollars, on many occasions), then logically we could do something inspiring and constructive with a similar amount of effort.  The only defensible skepticism isn’t from doubting the physical feasibility of such projects, it’s the cynical position that we just aren’t the kind of species that would do something like that.
I have a hypothesis, which may be very wrong but strikes me as plausible, that this is the fault of sci-fi camp.  Science fiction is where most people learn their science (think about that) and first seriously explore the ideas of interstellar travel, contact with alien species, and the future of humanity.  And it’s often really bad.  Everyone’s paragon of a bad film isn’t some romantic comedy or action film, it’s a pie-plate-saucer-on-a-string, guy-with-a-rubber-suit, actors-rocking-in-their-chairs-to-simulate-missile-impacts, ham-acting-bumpy-forehead-aliens, corny-dialog sci-fi film.  Most sci-fi requires such a strong degree of suspension of disbelief, and so much of it is low-budget when it needs to be high-budget, that it can seem absurd to take it seriously (see, Trekkies).  
51DTCVHNJNL._SL500_SS500_.jpg
Similarly, the ideas that inspired those books, films, and TV shows can become associated with this  failed seriousness, and thus seem campy themselves.
  
But is this really so far-fetched?  The idea is old.  The technology exists.  If we wanted to do it, we could.  If we really appreciated the true costs of using fossil fuels for energy, it would be an obvious alternative.
130326_ALT_SpaceSolarPower.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg
Pacific Gas & Electric and other companies are working hard to increase alpha, the fraction of sunlight we collect as a species to power our energy use.  Note the title:
This is a “Slate-y” headline (in the sense that it is provocative because it is counter-intuitive and you really want to see how they can justify it; this is something Slate.com is notorious for, especially when the article isn’t actually all that counter-intuitive).    But this headline also protests too much: who is proposing solar collectors in space but isn’t serious?  Why would our instinct be to assume something like that was a joke?  The only people I can think of wouldn’t be serious about such a suggestion are some of the purveyors of science fiction.
Now, I’m a fan of bad sci-fi (seriously), and I believe that it has done more good in popularizing these ideas than harm in making them seem silly, so I’m not complaining.  I’m just trying to locate the source of the giggle factor that hinders serious contemplation of these sorts of projects. 

4 thoughts on “The Camp of Getting Solar Power Off the Ground

  1. JULIA MILLER KREGENOW

    I love that you linked to the Onion Apollo article — it’s really the best distillation of the significance of the pinnacle of human accomplishment to date that I’ve seen. Anyone following that link will have no choice but to share in the awe.

  2. Jason T Wright

    Sharon: I was referring to Biosphere 2

    Erin: Regarding a life-cycle analysis of the space panels, rocket fuel is usually a form of hydrazine or just liquid hydrogen. I’m not sure, but I don’t think either is necessitates use of fossil fuel in their production. Hydrogen can be created through electrolysis of water, which could certainly be done in a green way, and I don’t know how hydrazine is generated but I imagine that it comes about in a similar way to chemical fertilizer, which is energy intensive but needn’t involve fossile fuels.

    I agree that the nervousness of having a powerful laser beaming down from space would be something to worry about. One of the versions of Sim City had a space solar station as the greenest power plant you could build for your city, but it had a risk of losing its station in orbit and burning a swath of destruction through your city. Still, that was better than a nuclear meltdown. :)

  3. Erin

    “If humanity can spend $1 trillion blowing stuff up and killing people for years at a time (and it has done this, in 2013 dollars, on many occasions), then logically we could do something inspiring and constructive with a similar amount of effort.”

    Well put!

    We studied the solar energy-collecting spaceship idea in a graduate level sustainable design course I took a few years ago, taking it seriously. Everyone seemed in favor of the idea, though with some skepticism regarding two things. One was the amount of fossil fuel necessary to construct the station – all those launches. None of us were sure, though, whether that would be prohibitive, since we were a group of designers rather than mathematicians or climatologists. The other was the fear factor. It would take a lot of educational PR to convince people to accept the safety of the idea, especially the conspiracy theorists and those afraid of “big brother.”

Comments are closed.