...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: Peter Fairbrother on 14 Dec 2009 19:31 Sylvia Else wrote: > Uncle Al wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> Uncle Al wrote: >>> >>>> 80% bullshit business plan number for RF >>>> conversion >>> At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of, >>> by radiation alone. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Given 0% carbon footprint, 80 MW continuous ground heating cannot add >> to Global Warming. Besides, it is add over a broad area. It's not >> like lighting a candle or grilling a steak - both of which are >> Enviro-whiner atrocities. >> > > I wasn't talking about on the ground. If the space side conversion of > generated power to microwaves is only 80% efficient, then there's 20% > loss in heat. That heat has to be got rid of, or the system will melt. > Given that it's in a vacuum, the heat has to be got rid of entirely by > radiation. For physics reasons (in order to get a small enough beam spread) the transmitter will need to be 0.5-1 km across, regardless of power; and there is no real reason why it should not be made from heat-tolerant materials, excepting maybe some of the electronics. Even for my proposed 100 GW systems, cooling the transmitter isn't a big problem. No external cooling systems are needed, just sunshades. Indeed if it can operate at a few hundred C even sunshades are not required. [One reason why I am in favour of very large systems is that the Earth and space antennae are about the same size regardless of power (within reason) - so it's best to put a whole lot of power through the system - means fewer Earth stations are required. For instance half a dozen 100 GW systems could provide the US's entire electricity needs, and have extra left over for eg electric transport - and only need six receiving stations, each about 15 miles across.] -- Peter Fairbrother
From: Androcles on 14 Dec 2009 19:29 "Rick Jones" <rick.jones(a)hp.com> wrote in message news:hg6dio$bqu$1(a)usenet01.boi.hp.com... > In sci.space.history Androcles <Headmaster(a)hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: >> Everyone else is new to rocket science except Rick Jones, >> he's been around rockets since 1814. > >> "And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, >> Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. >> Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam, >> In full glory reflected now shines in the stream: >> 'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave >> O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." >> -- Francis Scott Key, 1814 > > Francis always did have a way with words. > >> You'll be 200 years old in 4 years, Jones. No wonder you know so >> much about rocket science. > > Your flattery of those of us in the peanut gallery is apreciated, if > perhaps premature... It's never to early to be sarcastic. Energy company engineers don't know a thing about vehicle science, they don't work for Ford or GM. I doubt they can even drive a car - especially if the new electronic ignition system with the radio controlled switch designed by Osama bin Laden is still secret and unpatented. Still, never mind, as long as it works on a test drive you'd buy one, eh? Such a trusting soul...
From: Androcles on 14 Dec 2009 19:31 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message news:016dcf9f$0$10143$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > Uncle Al wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> Uncle Al wrote: >>> >>>> 80% bullshit business plan number for RF >>>> conversion >>> At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of, >>> by radiation alone. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Given 0% carbon footprint, 80 MW continuous ground heating cannot add >> to Global Warming. Besides, it is add over a broad area. It's not >> like lighting a candle or grilling a steak - both of which are >> Enviro-whiner atrocities. >> > > I wasn't talking about on the ground. If the space side conversion of > generated power to microwaves is only 80% efficient, then there's 20% loss > in heat. That heat has to be got rid of, or the system will melt. Given > that it's in a vacuum, the heat has to be got rid of entirely by > radiation. > > Sylvia. It had to arrive entirely by radiation. Didn't you know the Sun is hot?
From: Jonathan on 14 Dec 2009 19:54 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message news:00a1528c$0$26889$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > Jonathan wrote: >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(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. > > If they have a breakthrough, they should get a patent on it, ASAP. As long as > it's merely secret, they're exposed to industrial espionage, accidental leaks, > you name it. They claim to have a patented 'system'. But that's all I found, no details. ":Solaren's patented SSP plant design uses...." "We are currently supporting the CPUC regulatory filing process, and plan to provide additional details about our SSP pilot plant project in early Summer 2009." http://www.next100.com/2009/04/interview-with-solaren-ceo-gar.php > > > 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. > > It wouldn't be the first time that people who should have known better got > taken for a ride. See But there is significance to be found in all this. The 'Big Question' in building a vibrant space faring future is when will the market place be able to make 'Big Money' in space. Which would vastly accelerate the move into space. The answer to that question is stated clearly by P G &E in it's filing. "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 /When the benefits exceed the risks/.....THAT'S..when the market place can make a successful pitch to investors, and start the ball rolling. Even with the low risk contract, the key point is that P G & E has pledged to buy the product in advance. That's a big help in finding investors and an advantage over most start ups. A biotech, for instance often spends hundreds of millions of dollars in the hope their product pans out and finds a buyer later. The energy start ups, it appears, will be able to find buyers and agree upon prices before they've printed their first circuit board. It seems energy just might become that next large market for space activities. And that is a good thing for our future. Very Good! > > http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-240493.html > > which is about the Pixelon video-streaming compression scam. > > Sylvia.
From: Sylvia Else on 14 Dec 2009 19:55
Androcles wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message > news:016dcf9f$0$10143$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> Uncle Al wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> Uncle Al wrote: >>>> >>>>> 80% bullshit business plan number for RF >>>>> conversion >>>> At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of, >>>> by radiation alone. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> Given 0% carbon footprint, 80 MW continuous ground heating cannot add >>> to Global Warming. Besides, it is add over a broad area. It's not >>> like lighting a candle or grilling a steak - both of which are >>> Enviro-whiner atrocities. >>> >> I wasn't talking about on the ground. If the space side conversion of >> generated power to microwaves is only 80% efficient, then there's 20% loss >> in heat. That heat has to be got rid of, or the system will melt. Given >> that it's in a vacuum, the heat has to be got rid of entirely by >> radiation. >> >> Sylvia. > > It had to arrive entirely by radiation. Didn't you know the Sun is hot? > > Yes, and if the transmitter could run at the temperature of the surface of the sun, there'd be no problem. Sylvia. |