A strange article in E+T which seems to support a very limited and costly source of electricity.
Hoping for a bit more engineering content I found the original publication,
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(25)00255-7
with the pdf here.
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2542-4351%2825%2900255-7
I am fairly sure there was a discussion in a previous iteration of this forum looking at the problems and risks of beaming microwave energy from space to a ground station, what the energy density would need to be and how to avoid the beam being deflected to a nearby town.
The article itself seems to suggest that this is an alternative to batteries for when the sun doesn’t shine as there are no clouds in space (do clouds absorb microwave energy?) and requires a fourteenfold cost reduction before it is viable.
The key statement is on page 9:
“Advanced nuclear encompassing small modular reactors (SMRs) and Gen IV designs, with fusion more distant aims to deliver continuous, carbon-free electricity. Demonstration SMRs have entered operation or advanced construction in recent years, and a Gen IV pebble-bed reactor began supplying power in 2021.45 By contrast, SBSP may be unlikely to mature before the 2040s, so advanced nuclear may achieve commercial readiness sooner.”
Even if SBSP might work nuclear will get there sooner and do a better job.
What do the panel think?
