India, Space Solar Power, Reusable Launch Vehicles, and a Partnership Opportunity?
Posted by Coyote on July 2, 2007
In a recent posting on The Statesmen website, author Stanley Theodore briefly describes India’s intent to pursue space-based solar power in an article titled ”Solar Energy In Space to Power India.”
The article implies that India has identified the need for cheap, reliable, frequently reusable spacelift as the principle technical challenge that must be overcome. The article states:
“Mr Saraswath [India's Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) chief controller for research and development] said Reusable Launch Vehicles are needed to make [space-based solar power] cost effective.”
Solving the spacelift problem has been identified almost universally in all studies as the principle impediment to all activities in space—this also seems to be the case regarding space-based solar power—now with some independent confirmation from India.
But what is really interesting in Stanley Theodore’s article is the same expression of concern to pursue space-based solar power to “meet ever growing energy requriements” while recognizing that ”the era of conventional fuels is ending.”
This same sentiment was expressed directly by the President of India, Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, on 20 April 2007, before a forum arranged by Boston Univeristy when he stated: (Read the press release from asia.spaceref.com)
“[C]ivilization will run out of fossil fuels in this Century. However, Solar energy is clean and inexhaustible. However solar flux on earth is available for just 6-8 hours every day whereas incident radiation on space solar power station would be 24 hrs every day. What better vision can there be for the future of space exploration, than participating in a global mission for perennial supply of renewable energy from space, he asked.”
To what degree does this signal a policy alignment between India and the goals of this study? To what degree does this suggest a partnership with India is ready for the making?
July 2, 2007 at 8:21 pm
All energy importing countries are aligned in their desire to transcend fossil fuels. But they need to do so at a cost that’s cheaper than fossil fuels (including the damage from fossil fuels that we are willing to ameliorate) or else they are non-economic.
India should be looked at broadly as a country to invest heavily in diplomatically, economically and militarily. India is an important counterbalance to a surging India and resurgent Russia. The US population growth is not as fast as many of the other large countries so we will likely fall from third most populous to fourth, fifth or sixth as Indonesia, Brazil and Pakistan grow.
That partnership with India should include joint space development, but it probably doesn’t make sense to try to integrate efforts and avoid duplication until spending is in the billions per year except as a more general effort born by those outside the project.
One way that the executive branch tries to bind future Congresses is to make bilateral or multilateral deals and treaties to support spending. This has resulted in billions in international spending on space development. There are flaws with this approach: the spending continues after the research has proven to be a dead end, and the coordination costs eat up a portion of or swamp any benefit.
Perhaps a jointly funded and administered international prize would get the public relations support and the benefits of joint coordination without incurring the costs until after the research bears sufficient fruit.
July 4, 2007 at 5:24 pm
India is an important counterbalance to a surging India and resurgent Russia.
I think you mean China and Russia..?
The US population growth is not as fast as many of the other large countries so we will likely fall from third most populous to fourth, fifth or sixth as Indonesia, Brazil and Pakistan grow.
I doubt Pakistan will be much of a competitor to the US for quite some time, as their current population is approx 160m and the US is 300m… and economics has shown that as a country’s economy improves and people’s disposable income goes up, they tend to have fewer and fewer children (in no small part because people have more wealth to spend on fewer children, but also because of increased education leading to more careers leading to deferred marraige/childbirth, etc).
July 5, 2007 at 11:36 am
Coyote,
you may be interested in this presentation that was made to the US Council on Environmental Quality, which is turn contains a presentation made to India by the Space Island Group.
http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/ceq-docs.html
July 20, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Two of the four cost advantages SpaceIsland cites for Solar Sat Power’s Ground Based Infrastructure:
* No Power Line Construction & Maintenance
* No National Power Grid Needed
assume no Transmission and Distribution grid is needed. Nothing is farther from the truth. SSP’s T&D structure will be identical to those in use today. They are required for power Transmission and Distribution!
The SSP construction SpaceIsland describes envisions a large construction crew and habitat. The business case for human/astronaut SSP construction does not close - astronauts are 1000 times more expensive than telerobotic construction. Until there are solid commercial/market reasons for people in space we can do nothing more than Apollo did - a few flags and footprints and run home. There is a better way:
http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsat-how.pdf
July 21, 2007 at 6:47 am
Darel,
Good points. The paper “How to Build a Space Solar Power System” that you attached to your comment is a good basis for discussion. I am going to post it more broadly and see what comes of it.
July 24, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Rocky,
Interesting briefing. Who was in the audience and how was it received???
Coyote
October 8, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I agree with post 4 by Darel Preble: India needs a national grid and power lines, unless SpaceIsland Group is thinking a rectenna which covers all of India, which would cost many trillions of dollars. Likely they are thinking five or ten rectenas evenly spaced about India, each covering several square kilometers, with beam density of about ten kilowatts per square kilometer. This would be moderately dangerous, to the sacred cows as well as humans if the beam fell on a village instead of a rectenna for more than a few minutes. Other people are thinking one kilowatt (or less) per square meter which means more and/or bigger rectennas, but little hazard. In any case, the very high voltage power lines go out (from each retenna) like spokes on a wheel to cities up to 500 kilometers from the nearest rectenna. From each city, 100,000 volt (or there abouts) power lines extend outward like spokes of a wheel to villages up to 100 kilometers from the city. I suppose we could call this a spoke network instead of a grid. Existing power plants could be connected to one or more nearby spokes. Villages close to a spoke could share the spoke with the more distant city or village.
Even if SpaceIsland Group is thinking 1000 rectennas, we still need the spokes, but they are shorter spokes. Neil