I just posted this article at http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?
title=Rectenna
Rectenna is a "Receiving Antenna" which converts RF radiation into
electrical power.
They would be a fundamental component of Solar Power Satellite
systems.
The SPS rectenna can sited almost anywhere, but although the
microwave radiation at low levels is harmless, public fear of
microwave radiation exposure might cause them to be sited in remote
areas.
One interesting site might be the Chernobyl Zone of Alienation, an
uninhabited radioactive area surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear
reactor in the Ukraine which sprayed lethal radiation over a large
area in 1986.
This is zone is patrolled by the Ukrainian state security service to
make sure that no unauthorized people enter, getting entry permits is
possible but difficult. Yet the area is close to large population
centers, and large industrial consumers of electric power. Also, it
was a major hub for electricity distribution, from the reactor. So
infrastructure already exists to connect a rectenna directly to the
Ukranian power gird.
The central hot zone has a radius of 30 kilometres, which is large
enough to accommodate several SPS rectennas, with potential for tens
of gigawatts of power delivery.
Other sites:
There are other sites of nuclear tests and disasters which might be
suitable. For example, Kazakhstan had some nuclear test sites, also
in Nevada USA. A big Soviet nuclear waste dump in the Urals exploded
in the 1960s, that is another large exclusion zone.
September 29, 1957: At Kyshtym in the Soviet Urals. Kyshtym is near
the Chelyabinsk-40 nuclear complex, also known as "Mayak" ("beacon"
in Russian), where on 29th September, 1957, a violent explosion
involving dry nitrate and acetate salts in a waste tank containing
highly radioactive waste, contaminated an area later called
the "Kyshtym footprint". The explosion resulted from a failure of the
cooling system of the tank[1]. About 800 km of land were taken out
of use, and 82% of this area has now been taken into use again for
forestry and farming
The major problem with selling micro wave SPS systems
is in the naming of the received energy as MICRO WAVE
RADIATION. Just calling it SHORT WAVE RADIO ENERGY
would defuse knee jerk anxiety and allow us to proceed
unimpeded in construction of such,,,and there is no
lie given for short waves are what they are,,,
I also think it sets a bad precedent to locate rectennas in such areas. To be efficient and reduce transmission costs, rectennas need to be close to large population centres. How are the residents of Boston going to feel, for example, when there is a proposal to set up a rectenna farm in their area and the usual concerns about "radiation" arise and the only examples of installed systems are in areas poisoned by radiation or otherwise remote and unpopulated?
It does offer a real world precedent to compare with. Chernobyl is already a grand experiment in the effects of highlevel nuclear waste. Why not put it to use as the foothold of SPS based power? Once you can demonstrate the effectiveness and safety, will it be that hard to convince people living in Boston?
Ron Fox wrote: I also think it sets a bad precedent to locate rectennas in such areas. To be efficient and reduce transmission costs, rectennas need to be close to large population centres. How are the residents of Boston going to feel, for example, when there is a proposal to set up a rectenna farm in their area and the usual concerns about "radiation" arise and the only examples of installed systems are in areas poisoned by radiation or otherwise remote and unpopulated?
It does offer a real world precedent to compare with. Chernobyl is already a grand experiment in the effects of highlevel nuclear waste. Why not put it to use as the foothold of SPS based power? Once you can demonstrate the effectiveness and safety, will it be that hard to convince people living in Boston? Yes, but rightly or wrongly, this is what the Bostonians will hear you saying: "We were so frightened of the first rectenna that we built it in an uninhabitable and already-poisonous place, but now we want to build the second one next door to where you live." Much better to build the first one next door to the market being served, and insist from the beginning that it's always going to be safe to do so.
Mike Combs
A classic chicken and the egg controversy... With no real world example, the technology is hypothetical at best.The key is to understand the political process by which SPS rectennas will be approved. To win political acceptance, you will have to work through various layers of the government. For some groups, boldly proposing to build directly in the Boston area will win you favor. For other very powerful groups like the Sierra Club, you are doing what the nuclear industry did before us - fast track to acceptance an unknown and potentially dangerous solution. It is not as if SPS is the only green power system competing in this space. The other way is to work within the Sierra Club and other groups with a known example. The Sierra Club members can do their acceptance in a manor they are comfortable. Right now some are willingto consider nuclear power. How difficult is it to propose something far less dangerous and cleaner? It might take you 30 years to build a consensus in the US yet this is far better than a backlash. Look at what the nuclear industry could have been without 3 mile island or Chernobyl. SPS is really good technology though I am not going to claim it is perfect. There is another group that is probably key to this discussion - the cell phone lobby. If I was an executive with billions of dollars at stake, I will seek to kill off any proposedtechnology that "might" cause problems. Very few peoplecare about cell phone reception around Chernobyl while you sort out the frequency issues. They do care to the tune of hundreds of millons just around the Boston area alone. Knowing what I do of the net neutrality issue, I don't think we can win a fight with the likes of AT&T. They don't care if the world is relying on high poluting obsolete infrastructure. They care if they get their revenue. Globalization makes this a very complicated issue.
Cheers, Thor
Regards, Mike Combs
The Chernobyl site is already a major power hub near populated and
industrialized areas (e.g. Kiev). And Ukraine would love to make
themselves energy independent instead of relying on Russia for gas.
of cake.
Therefore it would be an excellent candidate.
Go for the low hanging fruit first.
Eastern USA is definitely not low hanging fruit from the standpoint
of public hearings and Environmental Impacts Studies. It could drag
on for years or decades.
>
> Behalf Of Thor Olson
>
> It does offer a real world precedent
to
> compare with. Chernobyl is already a grand experiment in the
effects of
> highlevel nuclear waste. Why not put it to use as the foothold of
SPS
> based power? Once you can demonstrate the effectiveness and safety,
> will it be that hard to convince people living in Boston?
>
> Yes, but rightly or wrongly, this is what the Bostonians will hear
you
> saying: "We were so frightened of the first rectenna that we built
it in
> an uninhabitable and already-poisonous place, but now we want to
build
> the second one next door to where you live."
>
> Much better to build the first one next door to the market being
served,
> and insist from the beginning that it's always going to be safe to
do