...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: Uncle Al on 13 Dec 2009 14:57 Jonathan wrote: > > Controversy Flares Over Space-Based Solar Power Plans > > Jeremy Hsu > space.com - Wed Dec 2, 10:15 am ET > > "Solaren would then need to launch a solar panel array capable > of generating 400 megawatts. The total launch weight of all the > equipment would be the equivalent of about 400 metric tons, > or 20 shuttle-sized launches, according to Hoffert. 1) Energy of a Space Scuttle launch, altitude plus velocity, is no less than 4.2*10^12 J. $500 million/mission. 2) 20 missions = 9x10^13 J and $10 billion. 3) Solar cell efficiency real world is no better than 20% with crystalline silicon. 80% bullshit business plan number for RF conversion, 80% bullhshit^2 number for ground recovery. (0.2)(0.8)(0.8) = 13% orbita; insolation to ground electrical transfer, assuming absolute perfection. Look up the solar constant for square mileage of solar cells required. 4) After the power plant delivers 2.5x10^6 kW/hr of electricity it covers its launch energy. After it delivers another 10^11 kW/hr of electricity at $0.10/kW/hr net profits, it covers its launch cost. 5) At 400 megawatts 24/7, the bottom of the hole reaches ground level - assuming no intermediate costs, after 28.52 years (including leap years). 6) Add in amortization of the cost of materials, maintenannce, salaries, pensions, healthcare coverage, expense chits... and teh lfie of a soalr cell installation under solar hard UV, radiation, meteor showers, and orbital debris. Ground solar cells last about 20 years. 7) If every impossible assumption works dead center double bullseye, BULLSHIT. > But Solaren says that it would just require four or five heavy-lift > rocket launches capable of carrying 25 metric tons, or about > one fourth of Hoffert's weight estimate. The company is relying > on developing more efficient photovoltaic technology for the > solar panels, as well as mirrors that help focus sunlight. > > Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology > works, citing intellectual property concerns. But it expects that > its space solar power can convert to RF energy with greater > than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar conversion > efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC > electricity on the ground in California. The company also > anticipates minimal transmission losses from the space > to the ground." > http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20091202/sc_space/controversyflaresoverspacebasedsolarpowerplans > > The 'inevitable' is steadily becoming possible...imho. > > Jonathan idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Jorge R. Frank on 13 Dec 2009 15:02 Alain Fournier wrote: > 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. That's correct. The beam power density will be about one-fourth the solar constant. Even then, the aircraft hull is a perfect Faraday cage against the frequencies of the beam. The safety issues are overblown (the economic issues are not).
From: Me on 13 Dec 2009 17:55 On Dec 13, 10:59 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "Me" <charliexmur...(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. wrong, the contract can have standards on the quality on the power supplied, which still doesn't PG&E doesn't need to know the origin of the power. PG&E isn't going to rely on this power,
From: eric gisse on 13 Dec 2009 17:59 Jonathan wrote: [...] > Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology > works, citing intellectual property concerns. But it expects that > its space solar power can convert to RF energy with greater > than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar conversion > efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC > electricity on the ground in California. hahahahahahahahahahahahah If both numbers summed to 10% I would be impressed. Instead I'm insulted for being lied to so blatantly. Is the technology 'not existing' an 'intellectual property concern'? [...]
From: Pat Flannery on 13 Dec 2009 20:24
Jorge R. Frank wrote: > That's correct. The beam power density will be about one-fourth the > solar constant. Even then, the aircraft hull is a perfect Faraday cage > against the frequencies of the beam. As long as it's all metal, yes. But with the increasing use of non-metallic composites in aircraft structures that might bear some looking into. When they were designing the B-2 stealth bomber, one area of concern was how a lightning strike would affect its composite skinning. Pat |