Space-power startup claims it can beam energy to solar farms
- Reference: 1765475757
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/12/11/spacepower_startup_beam_energy_solar_farms/
- Source link:
Overview Energy [1]announced on Wednesday that, after three years developing its technology in stealth mode, it managed to get a Cessna Caravan plane to send power to a solar installation on the ground from an altitude of 3 miles (5 kilometers). It's the first time, the company said, that anyone has managed to send energy to a stationary ground target from a transmitter in motion.
Maybe this is the first power transfer from an airplane in motion, but we note that the California Institute of Technology said in 2023 that it had successfully [2]beamed power from an orbiting satellite to a ground station, albeit a negligible amount.
[3]
As with similar space-to-ground power transmission concepts, Overview wants to lob a constellation of solar-collecting satellites into orbit that will turn solar energy into a power source available even at night when the sun is on the other side of the globe. Unlike competitors like Aetherflux, which aims to do so [4]using an optical laser-based power-beaming system, or [5]Northrop Grumman and [6]Space Solar UK , both of which are developing microwave-based wireless power transmission concepts, Overview's tech uses a wide-beam, low-intensity near-infrared laser aimed at standard commercial solar panels.
[7]
[8]
Near-infrared, the company [9]says , tackles many of the problems raised around other methods. It's safe for humans and animals, the company argues, because the beam is wide and low-intensity, and it doesn't require any custom ground receiver hardware, instead being absorbed by standard solar panels.
"Our airborne milestone proved that the core transmission system works in motion—the same foundation that will operate in orbit," Overview founder and CEO Marc Berte said in the company's stealth-breaking press release. "Space solar energy will only matter when it powers real demand on Earth, and we're designing for that scale from day one."
[10]
There are problems with Overview's design, however. Optical beams in the infrared and near-infrared range are easily scattered and absorbed by clouds or water droplets, meaning cloudy or rainy weather can significantly reduce transmission performance compared with microwave radio systems, which penetrate the atmosphere more reliably.
In addition to that small hitch, Overview didn't actually report any energy transmission figures from its [11]November Cessna flight. It's unknown how many watts of power Overview transmitted from its aircraft to solar panels on the ground, or how long transmission lasted - critical data points for understanding how successful the demonstration was.
The company noted in Thursday's press release that its system was validated in laboratory conditions as able to transmit an unspecified amount of energy in the thousands of watts range, and Berte told Space News that the flight test involved transmitting "multiple thousands of watts," but without specific numbers or a duration there's a lot left unanswered.
[12]Look! Up in the sky! Proof of concept for satellites beaming energy to Earth!
[13]Boffins say their thin film solar cells make space farms viable
[14]Galactic Brain space datacenter coming in 2027, pledges startup Aetherflux
[15]China starts testing tech to harvest solar energy from orbiting panels
It's also worth pointing out that DARPA [16]bested Overview's transmission distance by more than two miles when it sent 800 watts of power to a receiver 5.3 miles from a laser emitter over the summer. The research institute also explained that it kept power transmission going for just 30 seconds - not exactly enough energy or duration to say the system is ready for operation, but a considerable advancement nonetheless.
Overview Energy also made no mention of how efficient its system is, which is an important factor to consider. DARPA's laser demonstration, for example, only topped out at 20 percent efficiency, and even that was at shorter distances than the full 5.3-mile range the agency beamed the energy at.
[17]
We reached out to Overview to get answers to all those essential unanswered questions, but didn't hear back.
If Overview's tech isn't efficient, doesn't transmit much energy ("multiple thousands of watts" still isn't much more than what's needed to power a small home appliance), and can't keep the juice flowing, then its stated goals are going to be hard to meet.
The company said it intends to get a low-Earth orbit demonstration satellite up and running by 2028, and plans to launch its first geosynchronous orbit satellite by 2030, when it intends to begin commercial operations "with the world's first megawatt transmission from space."
That's an incredibly ambitious timeline given that it's still only capable of beaming a few thousand watts from an airplane at a 5-kilometer altitude. An impressive first, to be sure, but hardly indicative that this is anything other than another set of goals designed to land investors for a tech project that's going to need a lot of cash to have even a hope of success. ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/overview-energy-exits-stealth-with-worlds-first-airborne-power-beaming-demonstration-for-space-solar-energy-302637459.html
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/07/satellite_energy_earth/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aTtNBK0n85-_SE9NnyuiigAAAJY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.aetherflux.com/
[5] https://www.northropgrumman.com/life-at-northrop-grumman/supercharged
[6] https://www.spacesolar.co.uk/our-technology/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aTtNBK0n85-_SE9NnyuiigAAAJY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aTtNBK0n85-_SE9NnyuiigAAAJY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.overviewenergy.com/updates/space-to-grid
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aTtNBK0n85-_SE9NnyuiigAAAJY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://www.overviewenergy.com/updates/airborne
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/10/esa_space_based_solar_power/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/25/brit_boffins_say_their_tech/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/10/aetherflux_space_datacenter_2027/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/17/china_orbiting_solar_panel_tech_tests/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/19/darpa_energy_beaming_record/
[17] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aTtNBK0n85-_SE9NnyuiigAAAJY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Daft question?
Real Engineering recently did a [1]video on orbital solar . The latter part of the video is about Reflect Orbital, who indeed plan to use mirrors - their concept is to direct sunlight at existing solar farms during their local night, increasing their productive hours, and thus they won't need to build any dedicated receiving stations on the ground. I tend to agree, the conversion losses turning the sunlight into electricity, then into lasers, it just sounds unlikely that that would ever be efficient enough; the mirror thing sounds a bit more likely to be practical. But as the video reveals, there are quite a lot of complications.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf_pS0XSTyo
Re: Daft question?
We both got downvoted though..
Someone has shares in orbital lasers?
Re: Daft question?
You want to ruin stargazing and astronomy even more than city lights and Starlink already have?
Roll up ... Roll up ... get your wallets ready ...
Methinks that a new chair is needed next to 'AI' and 'Fusion Reactors' for the 'power-beaming' Bros.
If this works there will be a push (yet more money !!!) for evolution of "power-beaming" towards orbital weapons that are NOT bombs/missiles.
i.e. a real 'Nuke it from Space' type of weapon that is some sort of energy beam. (Just like in all the best Sci-Fi !!!)
I know that I cannot wait to invest untold $Billions in the next great adventure !!!
P.S. Did anyone just hear a loud pop !!!??? ... Never mind ... maybe I was mistaken !!!
:)
But...why?
What's wrong with plopping 200 sq miles of cheap solar PV in some desert to generate 100GW, and pair it with a pumped storage site / loads of very hot salt/sand that you can use at night? Must be more effective than a series of very expensive stages each of which runs at 20-30% efficiency
Re: But...why?
Your comment reflects a simplified view: “massive solar + storage > complex staged generation.” While your logic is appealing it overlooks practical constraints: energy storage scale, intermittency, land use, and costs. While technically plausible on paper, real-world implementation at 100 GW is extremely challenging.
Re: But...why?
Er, and beaming 100GW from a definitely-entirely-safe-and-peaceful Space Laser is so much more feasible??
I'm far from a solar+storage cheerleader (I do have panels on a flat roof, but not a battery) but this company just sounds like a fake-science pitch to give clueless, drugged-to-the-eyeballs HNW investors a greed-orgasm as they dream about a) selling overnight sunlight to solar farms (which actually they don't need - they need undercloud sunlight, which this doesn't solve) and/or b) holding the world to ransom with a Bond Villain / Dr Evil style superweapon
Re: But...why?
There is absolutely no way in hell even if satellite launches were FREE that orbital satellites beaming power down to the ground is more cost effective than solar/wind energy + batteries unless you're trying to provide power for Antarctica during its six month winter.
For power generation, this is an idiotic idea, but of course the purpose of this technology is generate investment not power. There seems to be an endless supply of gullible venture capitalists that are willing to pour money into any "green" power scheme.
Why?
Now here is a thought. Rather than place systems in orbit to catch the sunlight at night why not place a set of interconnected solar farms at intervals around the surface.of the globe? Cost and politics may be a factor but it would need no special technology.
energy beaming
If someone is going to beam large amounts of energy, say in the MW or even GW range, then there needs to be some serious thinking about the safety of the process.
If the beam gets out of alignment then it will potentially incinerate anything in its' path. The original "War of the Worlds" heat ray scenario.
The actual effect would depend on the power, width of the beam and wavelength, but is potentially dangerous if the beam passed through a heavily populated area.
Secondly, the earth's atmosphere is not totally clear but contains water droplets, various gases (Argon, CO2, etc) plus particulates (dust, soot etc). There is likely to be a potential effect on these, again depending on wavelength and energy. Beams may also be blocked by thick clouds and even potentially affect weather systems at extreme powers.
In this case there is the potential for the "Law of Unintended Consequences" to become involved (Murphy's 4th Law).
"There are problems with Overview's design"
There are problems with any design -- at least one of them fundamental. Don't step into the beam unless you want to be fried.
Hmm...
If you could beam energy through the atmosphere without it being absorbed/dispersed past the point of utility, we would surely be already seeing satellites being cooked by ground-based energy weapons.
Re: Hmm...
Not cooking satellites...yet.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/29/1117502/epirus-drone-zapping-microwave-us-military-defense/
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/solutions-catalogue/defence/thundershieldtm-high-power-microwave-electromagnetic-neutralisation
Daft question?
Why lasers? Couldn't they use an array of precisely actuated mirrors?
Surely cheaper than the cost of solar panels bigger than a ground-based solar farm in space, plus Gigawatts of laser, and the inefficiency/losses of both..
Or maybe they are looking for something more weaponisable ...