On Nov 15, 4:23*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"jacob navia" wrote in message

...

Le 15/11/11 04:22, a écrit :
"The sun's abundant energy, if harvested in space,
could provide a cost-effective way to meet global
power needs in as little as 30 years with seed
money from governments, according to a study
by an international scientific group.

I can't see what is that big advantage of installing solar panels
in orbit compared to installing them in the sahara desert

Terrestrial solar suffers from the same limitations as most
green sources of energy. It's intermittent, and they CAN'T
be used for baseload power. Which means providing a
continuous flow of electricity directly /into/ an existing grid.

That ability is the Holy Grail of green energy.
SSP is the ONLY green source that can.

Terrestrial solar can only reduce demand on a grid, not
power a grid. That is the difference between a source that's
limited to minor or specialty niches, and a sea-change
in our energy future.

And SSP can be delivered far from the equator, and more
importantly to rural or rugged areas where conventional
power, green or not, can't reach. That article mentions India
several times, and the reason they're so interested in SSP is that
a fourth of all the food *they grow spoils for lack of electricity.
Many there believe SSP could make India food self-sufficient.

or in other more accessible places in the surface of the earth. The U.S.
has a
fair share of solar power in a lot of deserts, installing solar panels
in there would be a no brainer...

And you could power ...the desert. What about the
rest of the world?



Maintenance?

Forget costly astronauts expeditions to replace old solar panels (they
last only 10-15 years in space)... You just take a truck and replace them.

But a conventional power plant of coal, oil or natural gas has
to shell out big bucks each and every day to keep the flow
of fuel pouring in to make electricity. *This is commonly called
an operating expense. SSP doesn't have any of these very
expensive operating costs, ZERO, *and can beam baseload power
to the /majority/ of Earth where terrestrial solar is useless.



If some meteorite hits them (yes, that *COULD* happen in earth too)
you just replace them very cheaply. But do not worry, they are shielded
from MOST meteorites by a thick gas blanket dozens of kilometers high.

And if the advance most expect happens, which is using mirrors dozens
of feet in size, rather than solar arrays miles across, then SSP suddenly
doesn't seem nearly as difficult or expensive. The mirrors could be
in high orbit transmitting the power with lasers to orbiting satellites
which microwave it down wherever needed.

Maybe someday getting electricity might be as easy as getting
a cable TV signal. SSP is essentially....WIRELESS...power
transmission.

The other Holy Grail of the energy industry.

NASA seems desperate for a new reason for being.
By the way. And the planet needs hope for a new
clean energy source.

Jonathan

s



At NO COST... Compare this with space where a micro-meteorite collision
is quite likely in a few years operation.

Health and security problems?

None. There is no need to beam the energy back to earth since they are
in the surface of the planet already. Forget problems with people
getting anxious that a microwave beam could fry them in the event
of any malfunction. There is NO BEAM, can you imagine? No health hazards.
No problems with birds being killed if they happen to
cross the beam. Or humans in small planes that wander into the
beam. And forget the energy lost to heating the atmosphere with
your beam. You get 100% efficiency on the ground since... YES!
THERE IS NO DEADLY BEAM!

Installation costs?

Almost nothing, your panels can be transported by a plain truck
to their destination. No satellites, no huge startup costs,
no problems with overcrowded skies where a microwave beam would fry any
satellite using a lower orbit... NO PROBLEMS or installation costs at all.
Pollution from the installation procedure reduces to the CO2
of the trucks transporting the panels. Compare to the pollution of
thousands of rockets (and associated exhaust fumes) the manufacturing
needs to build those rockets, and the pollution when they fall down and
are burn in the atmosphere.

End of life costs?

Almost none. Just take your panels and recycle them. No need to send
fuel and a transportation engine to make your panels burn in the
atmosphere, polluting the skies. Your panels can be dismantled and
replaced in no time by low qualified workers. No need to train
astronauts, devise a human transport system, etc.

Yes, your panels can be less efficient since they could be covered
by clouds. In the deserts of the U.S. anyway there are enough
days with full power to compensate any oddball cloudy days.

But of course, rationally thinking about solar power is not the
exercise here, as it seems.

jacob

Since you have nothing that works, go with Mokenergy. Solar converted
into H2 and O2 seems ideal.

What do you have against solar converted into HTP?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”