OPEN LETTER TO ARPA-E on Space Solar Power

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Marty Hoffert
To: Arunava Majumdar ; Arun Majumdar
Cc: Steve Chu ; David.Danielson; eric; john_holdren
Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:45:55 AM
Subject: Presentation at ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit

Dear Prof. Majumdar:

I write to propose a high-level briefing, perhaps at the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Pre-Conference Workshop on March 1 at the Gaylord Convention Center in DC, on space-based solar power (SBSP); and, as a possible specific example, a near-term ARPA-E funded project to test it by laser beaming of solar energy collected in orbit from the International Space Station to collectors on Earth (see attached).

Longer term, but soon, a laser SBSP demonstrator in geostationary orbit could be deployed. If successful, there are many plausible business plans for commercialization, at least as much as for terrestrial solar, with which space-based solar would logically can co-evolve.  Even now, a California company, Solaren, has signed a proprietary agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric to deliver 200 megawatts of electricity from space to their grid by 2016. And whereas, for technical reasons relating to large space components needed for "first power," we don't think their microwave beaming approach is the way to go initially, the technology needs to be taken seriously.

Despite a strong endorsement by the recent Pentagon NSSO Report (see below), and major investments by Japan's space agency and Mitsubishi electric, the US has no agency-funded SBSP programs.  This is bad. Would we have ever gotten the Internet from private sector investments and venture capital only? Twenty years with DARPA and ten more with NSF funding were needed for the Internet, which changed, and continues to change the world, took off. Only logical that ARPA-E, whose charter is to make "transformative" energy systems real, should fund SBSP. It doesn't yet, nor does any other US agency. Most funders are inherently risk-averse. But ARPA presents a unique opportunity to explore a revolutionary energy technology that could run civilization on a global scale with minimum environmental impact. (We realize that this and other assertions on the state-of-the-art, on costs and on weapons implications, must be defended. That's what we want. But it needs doing at a sufficiently high organizational level that ARPA-E decision-makers and advisors, mainly yourself, but also Steve Chu, John Holdren, Jim Woolsey and senior ARPA-E program managers can engage the real issues.

We're fighting to be heard. Pretty accomplished guys (no false modesty here), my son and business partner Eric and I did get a chance to pitch SBSP to Dave Danielson last September at the L'Enfant Plaza ARPA-E offices.  Having received the official ARPA-E "discouragement letter" for our laser SBSP Concept paper along with 98% of fellow proposers -- I know, there wasn't enough money -- I was pleasantly surprised to be contacted by Dave, who informed me that our rejection should be seen perhaps more as a postponement of consideration.  There is not a lot of technological literacy about space solar power -- not surprising in light of the funding dessert we're in.  You have to pay the rent.  Lucky I'm an emeritus professor of physics and Eric has an active software business. It has been a long labor of love to nurture and develop these ideas.  But we, along with competent colleagues whom we have come to know well, can do this job. It might be a good idea to kick off this project for ARPA-E, if it happens, with a technical conference for the major players.  Initially skeptic, by the end of our presentation to Dave Danielson,  he told us that our case was compelling.  Please ask him about this. He has notes on our meeting, and has encouraged us to cite his conclusions. The next step, he said, was to convince you.

I suspect that you are not the only one to convince. I have heard from a colleague that during a recent talk at an IIT in India, Steve Chu was questioned about whether the US was willing to participate in joint research with India on solar power satellites, which the president of India had found exciting as a possible energy source.  His response, I am told, was that so far, Marty Hoffert had not convinced him SBSP costs would not be prohibitive. We have in fact developed a careful cost analysis showing current costs of terrestrial and space-based solar power for base load are comparable, and that both may be expected to drop along standard "learning by doing" curves to someday compete with coal for electricity -- Google's famous SE < C.  NREL's solar energy roadmap is based on these projections, and we have similar ones for launch costs to geostationary orbit. The Chu story may be apocryphal, but technical arguments and perceptions have to be engaged or we'll never get anywhere. We have to talk to you guys.

Hence our request to do a high level briefing on space-based solar power. The upcoming ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, March 1-3, may or may not be the place for it.  I do see from the draft agenda that the Pre-Conference Workshop on Monday has morning and afternoon  breakout sessions on grid scale energy storage, power electronics, solar PV and solar thermal, all of which are component technologies of a space solar power system.  Perhaps you can find a slot for the briefing we propose, or alternately, we could make it another time or place. In any case I've made reservations to stay at the Gaylord Convention Center Feb. 28-March 2 (yesterday was the last day for the conventional rate). And I did indicate to your assistant Norman Kaufmann, my and Eric's desire to participate productively in the meeting in whatever way is useful, not only in giving this talk, but as panel members, etc.  Registration fees are another story as we have no present source of funds other than our pockets for this. We have, so far, not heard back. But I hope, you or Norman will find time from your busy schedule to get back to me soon.

Best regards,

Marty Hoffert
Professor Emeritus of Physics   
Andre and Bella Meyer Hall of Physics
4 Washington Place    
New York University
New York, NY 10003-6621    
                        
NYU Phone:  212-998-3747   
NYU Fax:     212-995-4016
Home Phone: 516-466-9418
Home Fax:    516-487-0734
Cellphone:     516-972-4779
Email:        marty.hoffert@nyu.edu 
Web page:  http://www.physics.nyu.edu/people/hoffert.martin.html

DOWNLOADABLE REFERENCES

TRANSFORMATIVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY IN GENERAL

• Science paper first-authored by yours truly & co-authored by 17 energy/climate experts on advanced energy tech to address global climate change including letters to the editor &  responses thereto (1 Nov. 2002):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Hoffert_etal_Science+Lett.pdf

• Report in Andy Revkin's  New York Times dotEarth blog  (3 Dec. 2007) on a letter to Congress by yours truly co-signed by 36 energy/climate experts -- including three, who, like Steve Chu, are Nobel laureates -- supporting ramping-up investment to $30 billion per year to "develop, demonstrate, and stimulate the commercialization of a range of technologies and approaches that can provide affordable carbon-neutral energy, and to use that energy more wisely." This is similar to my Congressional testimony supporting transformative energy R & D at funding levels that can make a difference for carbon dioxide emission phaseout by midcentury -- a scale sufficient also to stimulate US job-creation near-term. The scaled-down version passed by Congress funds ARPA-E at $400 million for a limited time through the Stimulus Bill. It could only support 2% of round one Concept paper proposals received by ARPA-E -- a scale biased for various reasons against truly transformative carbon-neutral energy systems like space-base solar power.  Many economists now call for much larger energy tech investments for both environmental and economy stimulus reasons, as we did in '07:

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Hoffert_etal_EnergyLetter.pdf

• My Video Interview on "CleanSkies" on ARPA-E proposal reviews & funding (8 Nov. 2009):

http://www.cleanskies.com/videos/some-question-doe-grant-process

• Science Magazine News article on ARPA-E funding citing my comments (22 August 2009):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Mervis-Science-ARPA-E_stum.pdf

• My TV interview on PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on the release of the IPCC "Mitigation Report" making the case for innovative energy research to address climate change (10 Oct 2007):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdTb5xzUXJM

SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER (SBSP)

• My recent talk as a PowerPoint File on "Solar Electricity from Orbit" presented at New Jersey Institute of Technology colloquium, Newark, NJ (4 Nov, 2009):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Hoffert-NJIT.ppt

• Eric & my ARPA-E Concept Paper, "Laser PV Tests for Space Based Solar Power" submitted from our startup, Versatility Energy Systems, South Orange, NJ (2 June 2009):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Hofferts_arpa-e_Concept_Pa.pdf

• On inter-generational collaboration on solar power from space (27 June 2008):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Hofferts%20-%20The%20Son%20Also%20Ri.pdf

• Google Tech Talk video of my overview lecture, "Electricity from Orbit: The Case for R & D," including a comparison of spot sizes on Earth for space mirrors, microwave and laser beams in geostationary orbit and the advantages of starting near-term with lasers, presented at NASA/Ames & Google, Mountain View, CA (5 Dec. 2007):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9YD9-_WTjk

• Pentagon National Security Space Office (NSSO) report supporting space-based solar power for strategic energy security, and the need for institutional research support by a US government agency to underwrite the risk of development (10 Oct. 2007):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/NSSO-sbsp.pdf

• Space.com online article on Solaren proprietary plans for near-term electricity from orbiting ultralight SBSP employing microwave beaming to address California's 2020 goal of 33% carbon-neutral electricity by 2020 citing my initial response to the idea (2 Dec, 2009):

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/091202-space-power-beaming.html

• NPR News audio clip on Solaren concept for selling carbon-neutral electricity from space to PG & E by 2016, including new info on their distributed component concept from CEO Gary Spirnak (17 Dec., 2009):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Solaren-NPR-12_17-09.2.m4a

California's Renewable Mandate

From: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/outfront-california-renewable-clean-energy-or-bust.html

California's Renewable Mandate
Lee Gomes, 01.18.10, 12:00 AM ET
Solar energy beamed to earth from outer space: It's Popular Mechanics-style engineering with a whiff of science fiction--the stuff, maybe, of a Discovery Channel documentary. But a way for a quarter-million California homes to be getting their electrical power, and not in 60 years, but in 6?

That's the plan. The state's Public Utilities Commission in December approved a proposal by Pacific Gas & Electric to buy power from a southern California startup named Solaren.

Solaren is the creation of ten or so veterans of the region's aeronautics and defense industries; as of a few weeks ago it had neither a Web site nor an office. What it has is some grandiose ideas.

So why is PG&E mixed up in this? Utilities are facing a requirement from the legislature to get 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010, though an extension will likely be granted. PG&E currently gets 14% from renewables, including geothermal and biomass. You'd think getting to 20% would be an easy task in a big state with deserts, coastlines and windy mountain passes. PG&E is having a rough time at it, though.

In some cases renewable energy technologies remain expensive or unproven. At other times solar and wind farms have been blocked by environmentalists or neighbors who didn't care to look at these things. So the company says it is taking something of a portfolio theory approach to alternative energy sources, embracing a collection of them with the expectation some might not work out. Solaren would seem to be the riskiest of the lot.

Solar panels would be lifted by rockets into an orbit 22,000 miles high, where they would unfurl themselves into an array roughly a third the size of New York's Central Park. Rays from the sun, which are plentiful at that elevation, would be converted to electricity and then beamed down via microwaves to someplace along the PG&E grid. Birds and airplanes would have to keep a distance from the beams.

All of the individual pieces of such a power system have been built before, many times. But never at such a scale. The folks at Solaren say they have concrete ideas on how to make the whole thing work--how to assemble a solar array without astronauts, for example--but aren't providing many details to outsiders.

PG&E says its only commitment to Solaren has been to agree to buy whatever power the company can generate (estimated at 2% of PG&E's needs today). Solaren estimates that to get its panels off the ground it will need several billion dollars, which it is in the process of raising from private investors.

Naturally the plan has attracted skeptics. Not because of the basic idea; space solar power is being pursued in various forms all over the world, including by Japan's space agency. The doubts involve whether the meager resources available to Solaren are up to the moon-shot ambitions of the undertaking.

Martin Hoffert, a New York University physicist who is a big believer in space power, says this is properly the work of a government outfit like NASA. The science might be mostly on the mark, but what's happening in California, he says, "is the wrong business plan."

It may not be wrong for PG&E, though. If Solaren's panels never fly, the utility can say it tried very, very hard to get renewable energy and needs another extension.