 The next talks, actually two talks, will be about somehow about saving the world and saving the environment. We will have two different ways of saving them. The first talk is saving the world with space solar power. It's held by Stefan and Anja. And they work as space engineers in Berlin at the Technical University. That talk will be followed by another approach which is introduced to you by Krzysztof. He has a PhD in theoretical physics and just from Von Kross, he is working with Paya Lo, which brings you here at Super Symmetric Young Mills Theories. And now he is doing airborne wind energy. Please give him a round of applause for the three of you. Yes, hello. Okay, hello. Today we are trying to save the world. We are trying to save the world today to bring you to a different approach for sustainable energy. We are three of us. We start with Stefan. Hello, everyone. Thanks for having us here. And me with our talk about space solar power. Of course we are talking about energy and I will start the introduction. We are showing you this very nice picture. Here you see the light also known as the light marble. It's a very interesting picture because it illuminates you or shows you where people live. Or at least where people have energy. But there is more information in this picture. If you compare this picture with pictures from other years, you can see how different regions of the world develop. And you can also see where suddenly it gets dark, where there has been a catastrophe, or something like that. So the availability of electricity is an indicator for the development of humanity. But unfortunately this power demand is largely caused by fossil fuel. We definitely need renewable energy such as solar power, water plants, even other solutions. The thing with energy plants is that they are bound to some location of energy. So I don't need to centralize them. I don't have to decentralize them. You need a lot of the transfer infrastructure. The other thing is especially when I'm thinking about wind or solar power, I think that the availability varies. So it depends on different factors. So the energy has to be saved. When you talk about solar energy, you know the day-night cycle. We have to clarify the day-night cycle and the atmosphere. Why not go into things? There are some selling arguments or some really selling arguments about space solar power. As I already said, it's sustainable because it's solar energy. Space generally is very, very large. So you can build quite big structures without covering any space, any area on Earth. And it is possible to have sun, sunlight on our satellites up there all around the clock. And we don't have a night-night cycle. So there is no weather. Space solar power products have unlimited constant and predictable energy costs. The idea is that solar energy in the world is all constant and predictable. In addition, we don't need much infrastructure to distribute the power of the power. For example, if you compare that to a huge solar field in the Sahara, you would need a lot of cables and energy that correspond to Europe. This comes with some problems. But also, if solving the problem of power transmission, you can look into the very remote locations on Earth. And they also have to be up there quite quickly. And of course, the intervention and the landscape is, let's call it minimized, but of course you have to do less environmental damage. This concept of space solar power acting as an energy in the world is not so new. There is a pattern from Peter Glacier from the 70s, where he had already suggested that you could do something like this, with a current in the atmosphere. I'm not sure whether you can see that, but you already see that he introduces all the components and he has already suggested that you need a large area for the solar area to transmit some antenna in order to transmit some kind of antenna or to transmit some kind of energy. Since the 70s, this concept has been discussed again and again. And the state of the arc approach for that is called SPS-ALP, which means Solar Energy Satellites, which comes with a very large phase array. NASA had done a study in 2011-2012 and they suggest that you place the satellites in the geostationary orbit that should not move. And the sun will then be very large, and it has power with a microwave beam that can transmit some kind of laser, like a wine glass or like a puddle or a pedal. But there are three main components here, so that would be the sun reflector, this very, very large shape. The sun reflecting mirrors are made of solar sail material, they are very light, although they are so big. The core piece of this installation is the so-called hex modules that you can see here, and they both hold the solar array, the panel and the wireless power transmission module. And then of course you also need the structure to hold everything together. In addition to that you also need some support structures, so small robots that repair things. But they have not been discussed further. But the NASA approach is not the only one. There is also one from JAXA, that is the Japanese Space Agency, they call it a rather generalized approach. You can see that the idea is basically the same, but they do not have the mirror whose sales argument is, you know, our system is so simple, we are safe, it will work somehow. But they also say that it is not as efficient as the other approaches. In addition, there are Japanese scientists who have participated in the SPS Alpha study. But what I also find interesting, there are many approaches to bring this wireless power transmission. There is also a new approach, it is from the Chinese, it is called CAST, and they are fighting for a multi-rotary joint SPS. Here in this, the yellow thing in the middle, is the transfer antenna. But they have built the solar panels in this structure, which should be about 10 km away. And they adjust the position of their solar panels depending on the sun position, to increase the efficiency. There is also a paper from Europe, which is quite old in 2001, but I am not familiar with any other works from Europe. If we summarize some of the parameters of the semiconductor, the cost approaches, we come to this point. We are talking about the transfer rate from 2 to 1 gigawatt. They have a weight of about 10,000 to 25,000 tons. The antennas are quite big, we will come to that later. This comes with a certain energy density, but the total efficiency of these different approaches is calculated and included with a small wish list. The actual efficiency is somewhere in the area of 25%. I put a question mark behind this 25%, because they are sure that they are not so efficient at the beginning, so they don't take this number too seriously. Maybe then it would be miscalculated. With these three approaches, I would say that the problem is solved, right? Let's give them a round of applause. Concepts? We have already heard the basic concepts. But there are some major challenges we want to point out here. But first, this is the attitude in orbit control. There are several TV satellites working quite well, but these TV satellites are about 1.8 metric tons, and the station we are talking about is about 10,000 tons, or 925,000,000 tons. So this is a huge difference. In the geo-station orbit, it's not a big deal to rotate it slow, so you just need to point to watch first to hit the designated point on the one transfer of energy to. Then we have a fixed-area antenna, so these little modules, you have a phase-area antenna to form a beam which points exactly to the receiver. Another point is the orbit control. This is another point. This is already for TV satellites a little bit difficult to do. And now we have, as I said, these 1,000 metric tons station to lift up to the right distance or to accelerate. There are several forces trying to push us out of the exit orbit. There are a lot of forces that are looking for a way out of this runway. For example, the solar gravity, or the lunar gravity, or the other... The Earth needs a perfect crew goal. That is the imperfect. There are solar winds, and radiation pressure, and solar wind comes from the sun. These solar winds come from these solar, these tiny particles, these satellite waves from the runway. That is the same, that comes from this deep space. We have a very large surface, so we have to overcome it. And that's why we have to use nearly unlimited energy with this station, so that we can use electrical thrusts so we don't need any fuel or propellant. We have unlimited energy, so we don't need any electric vehicles. Another point is the energy transfer. And I think that's one of the most critical points. As I said, it's in the geostation orbit. I have an example here. I chose the MR-SPS, because most of the concepts are as you saw before. I thought about 1 gigawatt output, and on the right side of the picture you can see the yellow point is the antenna. It would be about 1,000 meters, this is about 110 soccer fields in space. This antenna is sending micro-wheels, so micro-wheels, with 2.48 gigahertz, or 5.8 gigahertz. These frequencies are chosen because of the good atmosphere without losing much energy. They don't dampen the atmosphere that much in these areas. And the received antenna is 5,000 meters in diameter. That's about 2,750 soccer fields. Or about 20 times as much as the Messer Leipzig area. So you can imagine that this is a big deal. You will think about wind parts when you think about this area. Wind power plants are ugly, then you think about something like that. We have more information about that in our references. I guess you wonder about the effects of this. I talked about it earlier. I have the sub-systems here and I think the worst is this antenna. But it's not tested yet. It's just a calculated number. These 95-95% or these 95% are from the studies that we have read. The actual tests are more in the area of 1%. But most studies are not really certain about the total efficiency. We have 18-24%. And in other studies we have 30% or 25%. But that's actually all just calculation. Now you would wonder if laser work for this? I think it sounds nice. I think it sounds nice. I think it sounds nice. I think it sounds nice. I think it sounds nice. I think it sounds nice. But a laser would be much more, I guess. A laser would be much smaller. Yes, of course you could use a laser for that. But it would have a much higher energy density. So you could see a smaller spot on the earth. You could have a smaller spot on the earth. So not these 5 km large antennas. But most of the research don't want to talk about laser. Just a little bit too obvious. Maybe a little bit too obvious. Yes. Okay. Okay, so this is the most technical. Okay, this is the most technical. The other question is who will pay for it? If we talk about these extremely large structures, they have to be built. Since they also have to be in the geostationary locations, and they have to have a certain radioactivity, they have to be protected for quite a long time, because we want them to be able to operate for a long time. They are also relatively expensive. All the certifications that can be sent up to them are also very expensive. Somehow the SPS Alpha approach has thought about it. And the goals, the target market, which is also fluctuating, is at a material cost point of 250 euros. Which is about some billion dollars. And they are a Wunschlist. So they are aiming for this number in their third approach, but they always have to function and have the production and development costs all come down to our revenue. And now things are launch costs. The other thing is the launch costs, so the costs for the actual launch of the rocket. And that's really hard, 10,000 tons. The SPS Alpha people think they could send 1 kilo for about 600 dollars in the low-off orbit or just send it to the geostationary orbit with electronic thrusters, maybe if the big fucking rocket from SpaceX is available. But it would take some time, but it would take some time right now. For the price is the Falcon Heavy, which they have heard that. I don't know if they have heard that, but the Falcon Heavy has not flown yet. But then SpaceX hoped that they would send about 90 million in the low-off orbit to the geostationary orbit of 26 tons. That would be approximately 400 launches and 40 billion dollars. In addition to that, there are other costs like the first time installation in orbit and the operation costs of several hundred million in a year. That's pretty expensive. That's probably one of the reasons why we don't have space solar panels yet. We have technical problems and money problems, which is still possible. You know what the concept is? You have made a medium-concept trust with the problems, so let's imagine that we can win over everything and someone wants to pay for it. I think there are some considerations that we should make, whether we really want to do that. First of all, security. This beam is... You need a precision of about 10,000 degrees, plus or minus, to really meet this place. You want to meet a hazelnut on 100 meters in a station that flies three kilometers in a second if something goes wrong. If something goes wrong, and the beam is shot somewhere else. That's not a good idea, can you imagine? Or some of the antennas don't work so well or the beam doesn't really... The beam doesn't really bind and it goes somewhere. That's one point that's dangerous. Let's imagine that everything is going well, everything is going well. And the beam always goes through the atmosphere, through the shadow sphere. And then there are other satellites that go through the beam, because if they go through the beam, what happens then? Or if a plane goes through the beam, and then you can't turn on your phone on the plane, imagine what happens there if this beam... I don't want to sit on the plane, I can't avoid the animals, birds, insects, whatever... maybe you have the same imagination like I have or we have and I feel like this. Sounds pretty scary, actually, doesn't it? It's a bit scary to me, doesn't it sound like an energy gun? We thought about it a little, It's not a nuclear weapon, but it could cause a lot of damage. There is a high energy density, a very high energy density. It's a very fast adjustment of this radiation. You can set it on the antenna in the moment, and set it on the antenna in the next moment, and then back again. It's really fast. You can change that very quickly. It's not really defendable. You can't do anything against it. You can sit in the bunker and try not to hide, and maybe put your aluminum hat on, and maybe try to put your aluminum hat on, but still this thing is 24-7 on. This thing is 24-7 on. It could always hit your bunker. And last year is ... there is a lot of interest. There is also a lot of interest from military institutions. I think it's a little bit scary. But I think it's a bit scary. And then you would have this right of ... basically, there is already the United Nations Autospace Treaty. It was first signed by the Russian Federation and England and by the United States, and now it's in the UN. And most of the countries have signed it. It's about the activities of the countries around the world. What does it say about this case here? It says there are no nuclear weapons or other weapons with mass destruction abilities in the world allowed. But of course there is also a military object installed in the space with a scientific background. Then of course it's allowed again. Another point is that in this treaty the earth cannot be affected from the outside. There are some studies about it. There are no studies about it, but I guess that's what the environment is all about. So now ultimately all this technology and all this knowledge is necessary. So it's only possible that a few states can build it. And how do you prevent that some leading people from states that could build it needlessly? I can't give you an answer on that. I can't give you an answer on that, but I can tell you that there are a few that shouldn't have it. Maybe you can think about this after the talk. I know that we should take some things home. Anya is coming up now. So the concepts are existing and we say they shouldn't be discussed. They are basically evil. They are technically possible or at least imaginable. But it's still challenging. The technology is still not there, but the moral questions are still open. It's still science fiction. We shouldn't do that. But we should think about it. And we should be critical with this kind of new technology. But right now maybe we should think about is there another solution to this energy problem? Maybe a more realistic one? Maybe a more realistic one?