...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
Next: What is the correct term for this type of chart?
From: Me on 13 Dec 2009 10:45 On Dec 13, 10:25 am, "Jonathan" <H...(a)Again.net> wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message > > news:00a09904$0$23357$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > >> Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology > >> works, citing intellectual property concerns. > > > Meaning it wouldn't stand up to the inevitable expert scrutiny if they got a > > patent. > > Maybe, but keeping a secret could mean fraud or it could mean > a breakthrough, we don't know for sure. But the electric company > P G & E, one of the largest utilities in the nation, while considering > the contract should be privy to the details of the technology. > And from their application to the state utilities commission wrote.... > > Public Utilities Commission of the State of California > > Subject: PG&E's Power Purchase Agreement with Solaren > Corporation > > "Solaren is using an innovative space-based solar technology, > which, if successful, would represent a break-through in the > renewable power industry. While emerging technologies like > space solar face considerable hurdles under a traditional > viability analysis, PG&E believes that potential, significant > benefits to its customers from a successful space solar installation > outweigh the challenges associated with a new and unproven > technology."http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_3449-E.pdf > > The key wording is the statement that ...the potential outweigh the risk. > That's called a tipping point, from pie-in-the-sky to nearly practical. > > > And let's remember that it's perfectly possible to make money lawfully out of > > a technically flawed concept if you can get investors - you just pay yourself > > a good salary. > > Right. But the point is that a 'Big Utility' has taken a good look at an early > attempt at SSP and have ...signed upon the dotted line. The point is > that both sides, buyer and seller, seem to think the idea is realistic > enough to attempt a start up. > Incorrect. The contract requires nothing from the utility. All the contract says it that if you have electrical power, we will buy it from you, no money until then. There is no risk to PG&E nor does PG&E have know how the power gets to them.
From: Androcles on 13 Dec 2009 10:59 "Me" <charliexmurphy(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7535324d-3f1c-4596-996a-19879a6c168e(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Dec 13, 10:25 am, "Jonathan" <H...(a)Again.net> wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message > > news:00a09904$0$23357$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > >> Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology > >> works, citing intellectual property concerns. > > > Meaning it wouldn't stand up to the inevitable expert scrutiny if they > > got a > > patent. > > Maybe, but keeping a secret could mean fraud or it could mean > a breakthrough, we don't know for sure. But the electric company > P G & E, one of the largest utilities in the nation, while considering > the contract should be privy to the details of the technology. > And from their application to the state utilities commission wrote.... > > Public Utilities Commission of the State of California > > Subject: PG&E's Power Purchase Agreement with Solaren > Corporation > > "Solaren is using an innovative space-based solar technology, > which, if successful, would represent a break-through in the > renewable power industry. While emerging technologies like > space solar face considerable hurdles under a traditional > viability analysis, PG&E believes that potential, significant > benefits to its customers from a successful space solar installation > outweigh the challenges associated with a new and unproven > technology."http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_3449-E.pdf > > The key wording is the statement that ...the potential outweigh the risk. > That's called a tipping point, from pie-in-the-sky to nearly practical. > > > And let's remember that it's perfectly possible to make money lawfully > > out of > > a technically flawed concept if you can get investors - you just pay > > yourself > > a good salary. > > Right. But the point is that a 'Big Utility' has taken a good look at an > early > attempt at SSP and have ...signed upon the dotted line. The point is > that both sides, buyer and seller, seem to think the idea is realistic > enough to attempt a start up. > Incorrect. The contract requires nothing from the utility. All the contract says it that if you have electrical power, we will buy it from you, no money until then. There is no risk to PG&E nor does PG&E have know how the power gets to them. ================================================ Only a fool would sign that contract, there is always a risk. You call on the phone for a taxicab and an old banger turns up with a drunken driver, but it's cheap. What do you, be late for your appointment and call a different cab company or accept the ride in the banger? PG & E needs to know if the supply is safe and reliable -- secrets are not confidence building.
From: Peter Fairbrother on 13 Dec 2009 11:18 tadchem wrote: >[..] > > Nice, if there's somebody in orbit who can use 400 MW. > > If you want to use it planet-side, you have to get it down here. > > THAT creates problems. > > A storage device has mass, which brings all the transport problems of > a safe re-entry and recovery. Anti-matter? > A conduit would require materials with properties we have not > developed yet. > > A beam would present an enormous safety and environmental hazard. You > could cook an Airbus in milliseconds with a 400 megawatt microwave. > That's about 200,000 heavy-duty microwave ovens - at once. Not so, actually - an Airbus weighs about 400 tons, call the exposure 1 kW/kg, or perhaps 1 degree C per second, so it would take several minutes, not milliseconds, before the Airbus might start losing structural strength. If it was flying rather than parked, the air would cool it so much that it wouldn't be affected at all. That's IF you can get it all into the Airbus, which is not even vaguely likely - a typical ground station covers maybe a square mile, GEO is a looong way away, and focussing enough energy at that distance to do any real short-term damage would take a maser, not the typical microwave transmitter used in these space solar power designs. The exposure on the ground could easily be low enough to be short-term survivable for an unshielded human, indeed it would be quite difficult to get even that amount of power per unit area, and impossible unless it was deliberately weaponised. Getting the power down to the ground is tricky, but it's not at all impossible from a technical or a political viewpoint. But I don't believe the Solaren numbers on the required uplift mass, they are too small by a lot, and even if they are correct it has to get to GEO not LEO (a power station in LEO is pretty much useless), which would take maybe 60 Shuttle launches, not 20. At a conservative $100 million per Shuttle launch, that's $6 billion - and at 10c per kWh it would take 68 years just to recover the launch costs, ignoring interest - in practice you could never do it. I don't think Space Solar Power is impossible BTW, but I don't think the way Solaren are going about it will work, at least not anytime in the near future. I'd be looking at a maybe 50 gigawatt system instead, using mirrors, boilers and turbines - possibly manned. And a much cheaper launch system. -- Peter Fairbrother
From: tadchem on 13 Dec 2009 14:43 On Dec 13, 11:18 am, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6...(a)zen.co.uk> wrote: > tadchem wrote: > >[..] > > > Nice, if there's somebody in orbit who can use 400 MW. > > > If you want to use it planet-side, you have to get it down here. > > > THAT creates problems. > > > A storage device has mass, which brings all the transport problems of > > a safe re-entry and recovery. > > Anti-matter? > > > A conduit would require materials with properties we have not > > developed yet. > > > A beam would present an enormous safety and environmental hazard. You > > could cook an Airbus in milliseconds with a 400 megawatt microwave. > > That's about 200,000 heavy-duty microwave ovens - at once. > > Not so, actually - an Airbus weighs about 400 tons, call the exposure 1 > kW/kg, or perhaps 1 degree C per second, so it would take several > minutes, not milliseconds, before the Airbus might start losing > structural strength. If it was flying rather than parked, the air would > cool it so much that it wouldn't be affected at all. How long would the Airbus' avionics last in a 400 megawatt microwave beam? You can't fly those crates by the seat-of-the-pants. Knock out the electronic fly-by-wire systems and the plane becomes a brick. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
From: Alain Fournier on 13 Dec 2009 14:55
tadchem wrote: > On Dec 13, 11:18 am, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6...(a)zen.co.uk> wrote: >>Not so, actually - an Airbus weighs about 400 tons, call the exposure 1 >>kW/kg, or perhaps 1 degree C per second, so it would take several >>minutes, not milliseconds, before the Airbus might start losing >>structural strength. If it was flying rather than parked, the air would >>cool it so much that it wouldn't be affected at all. > > > How long would the Airbus' avionics last in a 400 megawatt microwave > beam? > > You can't fly those crates by the seat-of-the-pants. Knock out the > electronic fly-by-wire systems and the plane becomes a brick. As Peter said, a microwave energy beam would be spread over an area in the square kilometre range. This is not really for security's sake it is because of basic physics making it impossible to focus a microwave beam very tightly over long distances. The beam would be survivable by an unshielded human being (or more likely by a bird flying through it). The electronics in the jetliner are shielded by the hull of the plane and will survive the beam even more so than the human wandering into the beam. This is not a problem. Alain Fournier |