Sun-powered Solar
Japan successfully transmitted power over a short air-gapped distance to demonstrate the capability to beam energy from space to Earth. In this essay, I ponder some problems that might accompany this science-fiction feat.
Let's assert the technology, currently in development1, will be available on the projected timeline: in 2025, Japan successfully beams microwave energy from satellites to the surface of the Earth. Subsequently, within the following ten years or so (my guess), many larger satellites are sent up and begin beaming power down. What could possibly go wrong?
The obvious precision problems of targeting a base station from twenty-two thousand miles away are just technical issues, most probably already solved by scientists capable of landing rovers on Mars within meters of the intended destination. But what if the targeting jitters? I assert the amount of power hitting the surface would be at least in the kilowatt range (more likely megawatts to gigawatts), which would be like standing in front of one or more operating microwaves without their protective Faraday-cage doors. Not healthy for living tissues, for sure. Definitely a problem. Is the "free" power worth the risk? The solution to this is larger targets and better tracking, which increases the costs. Where is the "break-even" point? Like many other complex technologies (boiling water reactors and seismic predictions, for example), I predict we'll experiment with lower-cost solutions until a terrible accident causes a catastrophe, and then we'll re-engineer for better safety margins.
My bigger concern is the effect on climate. We are (arguably) now causing the greatest change to our climate by burning fossil fuels because the energy density is so convenient and cost-effective for our current lifestyles. Let's assert we build the infrastructure and advance battery technology so there is little change between burning fuels and using batteries (that is: range, time to refuel, cost per mile, and other factors are constant between the two competing technologies) and people embrace the new over the old. According to one article2, we would be beaming nearly 5 terawatts per year to the surface. If the satellites were between Sol and the Earth, then the intercepted sunlight would no longer heat the atmosphere; let's assert this is a wash in terms of climate effects (I could not find any publications about this), and analyze the alternate: if the satellites don't intercept sunlight directed at the Earth, but instead orbit outside of Earth's halo. In this case, we're beaming an additional 5 TW to the surface per year. Because of the conservation of energy, that will eventually become heat. Will the absence of carbon from fossil fuel burning be sufficient to offset this additional heat? Sounds like a Ph.D. thesis (for someone else!)
