On Jul 15, 8:25 pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 41f2ea4f-47ee-4f68-b980-399f7e714df0

@j14g2000prn.googlegroups.com, says...



On Jul 14, 7:26 pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 01609aef-2c20-43b4-a553-9c84cb346892

Even then I'm not sure they make sense. They've got to compete wit
h
all other alternative sources of terrestrial power. As fossil fuel
prices continue to rise, terrestrial alternatives become more
attractive and investment in them may yield reductions in cost such
that space based power never makes economic sense.

That's possible. But it will take a conceptually different approach,
like solar collectors that grow themselves like Kudzu. It seems
unlikely that earth based solar power will ever get down to 2 cents
per kWh, and that's the target I set for power satellites.
(StratoSolar might be an exception.)

Perhaps advances similar to this?

Photovoltaic Breakthroughs Brighten Outlook for Cheap Solar Power

Novel materials might make harvesting sunlight for electricity

affordable

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...=photovoltaic-

breakthroughs-brighten-outlook-for-cheap-solar-power

Frankly, no. This is not particularly reliable information. Shame
too, I grew up on Scientific American, started reading it in 1957,
read back issues to 1948 and read every issue till the editorial
policy changed and it got "fluffy."

And there are always other renewable sources, like wind, wave,

hydroelectric, thermal, and etc.

Wind will not scale large enough, wave is much worse. Hydroelectric
is mostly exploited. Geothermal isn't large enough either.

You might want to look he Sustainable Energy — Without the Hot
Air. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay It's available
online.

Keith



Jeff

--

" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry

Spencer 1/28/2011