SPS vs. solar/wind/hydrogen debate (Long Post)

In article Pine.WNT.4.56.0311222322220.2968@homecomps,
Larry Gales wrote:

I have partially read your article (and saved it for future reference) and
it appears to reference a lot of very useful data on solar and wind power
as well as SPS. What bothers me is the assumption that environmentalists
are anti-space, anti-technology, and anti-SPS. I have a very strong
interest in space, and an equally strong interest in environmental issues
and do not find them in serious conflict.

Well sure, I think that lots of us here are in that boat. It's very
difficult to have a rational, forward-looking mind and not be concerned
about the environment (especially CO2 levels and their impact on global
climate). However, the reverse is not true: it's very easy to be an
"environmentalist" without any capacity or inclination for rational
thought, and unfortunately, there seem to be at least a few of these in
any environmental group.

I don't know is SPS will turn out to be a useful form of energy but
I support the research that would help us determine if it would be
the case.

Yes, as was recently pointed out in another thread, it's quite
ridiculous how much money has been poured into fusion research while
almost nothing has gone into SPS, when SPS seems far easier to
accomplish. Even if you don't agree with that latter assessment, it's
embarassing that we haven't tried.

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

(Len Lekx) wrote in message news:3fc0cbd0.843052836@nntp...
On 23 Nov 2003 05:16:12 -0800, (Gary Heidenreich)
wrote:

Where do the orbital resources come from if not the moon? If from the
moon, why not use them where they are found?

Asteroid resources have a lower energy cost to obtain and use, but
take longer to reach the mining/refining/construction sites.

Lunar-based solar power is plagued by the same restrictions as
terrestrial solar power. Namely, the sun shines on a given area for
only a certain amount of time. On earth, the amount of time varies
from a 50/50 split of daylight/night, to a few hours of daylight...
the moons' cycle is 2 weeks of light, and two weeks of darkness.
Unless you build your collectors at the poles, you're not going to get
any benefit. This could be done... but as power demand increases, and
you add more collector area to the site, you're *eventually* going to
reach a point where the new collectors you install are going to be
only partially illuminated.

That is absolutely true. The questions are where to find the "fuel"
and what is the ultimate costs of this "fuel" and its transformation
into electric power delivered to earth.


Then there's the question of aiming the power beams. The earth
rotates faster than the moon orbits, so you can't aim your
transmission beam at a fixed point on the earth. In order to get the
power from the moon to the earth, you'd need a series of relay
satellites in GSO, to transfer the beam to your rectenna site. Why
not just collect the solar energy in GSO, and beam it down directly?

Good, valid questions. To supply the earth with 20 TWe in ~ 2050
would be an enormous undertaking. The reference I gave is itself only
a 60 page summary of many years of work by many people; it maintains
that the cheapest and most mass efficient way to achieve 20 TWe is
using lunar solar power. I quote from section 9.4

"LSP does not have the mechanical directness of SSPS. To achieve the
lowest cost of energy the LSP system needs microware orbital
redirectors about the earth. Compared to an SSPS the specific-mass of
beam redirectors can be very low for the power they project to the
rectenna. This is because the LSP orbital redirectors can achieve far
higher efficiiency in retransmitting or reflecting microwave than can
an SSPS in converting sunlight into microwaves. Also, the LSP
microwave reflectors can be much smaller in area than an SSPS that
transmits an equal level of power. This is becasue the LSP orbital
unit can be illuminated by microwave beams in space that are more
intense than solar intensity. LSP requires the smallest amount of
equipment and final materials of any of the power systems..."

Many people think terrestial sources (whether oil, gas, coal, nuclear,
solar, biomass, wind, hydro, etc.) are sufficient for at least the
next century and cheaper than off the earth resources. I would like to
believe that but I have doubts, especially if the increase required
for all the world's population is considered.

Some people would like to develop low cost heavy lift reusable launch
vehicles
and put SPS into GEO orbits. If this is the cheapest way to generate
20TWe, I'm all for it.

Unfortunately, I don't see an openness or willinglness in our leaders
to think long term.

On 23 Nov 2003 11:54:47 -0800, (Gary Heidenreich)
wrote:

lowest cost of energy the LSP system needs microware orbital
redirectors about the earth. Compared to an SSPS the specific-mass of
beam redirectors can be very low for the power they project to the
rectenna. This is because the LSP orbital redirectors can achieve far

The masses might be lower, but the aiming and interconnecting would
be a logistical nightmare. Which redirector is collecting the
microwave beam at any given time, and how many others is it passing
through to reach its' intended target rectenna?

higher efficiiency in retransmitting or reflecting microwave than can
an SSPS in converting sunlight into microwaves. Also, the LSP

I don't follow that reasoning. By introducing redirectors (or
reflectors, or whatever design is developed...) you're introducing
another transmission-loss to the system. If you use reflectors,
they'd have to be phase-conjugate to reflect the greatest amount of
energy in an undispersed pattern... and that will probably require an
*active* system to coordinate. *Every* link from generator to
end-user involves transmission losses.

Imagine, for example, that a power-beam from the moon needs to
reach a rectenna on the opposite side of the earth. You beam the
energy to one redirector, which redirects the beam with (say) 95%
efficiency. It goes to another redirector which is directly above the
rectenna, so you lose another 5%. Thus, if only two redirectors are
utilized, you're only receiving 90% of the beamed power. So your
lunar-based generator would have to put out 10% more microwave energy
than an orbiting SPS, in order to attain the same output to the
receiving power-grid. Putting the generator in orbit saves two steps,
and a 10% loss in efficiency.

microwave reflectors can be much smaller in area than an SSPS that
transmits an equal level of power. This is becasue the LSP orbital
unit can be illuminated by microwave beams in space that are more
intense than solar intensity. LSP requires the smallest amount of
equipment and final materials of any of the power systems..."

This makes no sense to me. The solar-to-microwave conversion has
to take place SOMEWHERE, and the solar flux is the same in GEO as it
is on the lunar surface, so lunar-surface solar farms don't seem to
make that much difference, as opposed to a GEO satellite.

believe that but I have doubts, especially if the increase required
for all the world's population is considered.

Not only due to the growth in population, but the demands that the
entire world be brought up to Western levels of use. Nobody wants to
LOWER their standard of living, do they...? :-)

Unfortunately, I don't see an openness or willinglness in our leaders
to think long term.

Absolutely true! Our so-called 'Leaders' can't seem to be able to
plan for any terms longer than the next election. A sad state of
affairs, really...

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
I would urge you to join major environmental groups, like the Sierra
club. I believe that this group as a whole has its heart in the right
place, though certainly there are the closed-minded anti-modernists like
you describe. But those will only be overcome by outnumbering them, and
patiently, patiently explaining things over the course of many years.

To tell you the truth I've had my fill with environmentalists. Soft
environmentalists, a group that I would belong to, actually favor careful
environmental stewardshp, but most of the vocal people in the movement are
more about the lifestyle and assorted politics.I've nothing in common with
them. I've reached that conclusion based on my personal experience.

A few suggestions for you, to increase your impact. First, double-check
your spelling and grammar; I noticed abuses of "it's" vs. "its" and
"affect" vs. "effect" which gives an attacker easy ammunition if they
would stoop to questioning your educational level.

If I was submitting the post as an article for publication I'd first
proofread it, edit it, and run a spell check but as it was a stream of
consciousness effort that I dashed off in a hour or so, I think most people
are accepting of a laxer standard in e-mail and usenet posts. Quite frankly
I'm surprised to read your criticism. My humble advice to you is not to be a
"grammer ninny" and pester people about their spelling and grammer mistakes,
otherwise they may find you annoying. Take the advice or leave it.

Second, post with
your real name. Nobody's going to listen to someone using a handle;
that's generally done only by kids or people with something to hide.

For professional reasons I don't want to identify myself but I stand behind
the posts submitted under my psuedonym. I post responsibly. Would it make
any difference if I chose a pseduonym like John Smith? What's the
difference?

As to whether you judge the merit of the post by it's substance or by
whether the author signs it with a "real name" or psuedonym, that's not my
worry. I'd rather have my post judged by its substance.

TangoMan

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...

Well sure, I think that lots of us here are in that boat. It's very
difficult to have a rational, forward-looking mind and not be concerned
about the environment (especially CO2 levels and their impact on global
climate). However, the reverse is not true: it's very easy to be an
"environmentalist" without any capacity or inclination for rational
thought, and unfortunately, there seem to be at least a few of these in
any environmental group.

Unfortunately the latter group to which you refer is the most vocal, most
able to attract new recruits, most activist, and most political. An
environmental movement that started out actually concerned about the
environment has morphed into something more. Somehow that group also has a
lot more time on their hands to create "news" events, compared to the
working stiffs who send in their Seirra Club dues and read the newsletters.

I don't know is SPS will turn out to be a useful form of energy but
I support the research that would help us determine if it would be
the case.

Yes, as was recently pointed out in another thread, it's quite
ridiculous how much money has been poured into fusion research while
almost nothing has gone into SPS, when SPS seems far easier to
accomplish. Even if you don't agree with that latter assessment, it's
embarassing that we haven't tried.

Those who advocate and lobby under the rubric of 'environmentalism' are just
so much better organized than those of us who want to see more research put
into SPS. We can appeal primarily to NASA while they can appeal to a broader
range of political pressrue points.

TangoMan

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:32:08 GMT, "TangoMan"
wrote:

I'm surprised to read your criticism. My humble advice to you is not to be a
"grammer ninny" and pester people about their spelling and grammer mistakes,
otherwise they may find you annoying. Take the advice or leave it.

Devils' Advocate

I don't know... it seems to me that a good deal of our literacy
problems in the 'younger' generations stems from a laxness in their
elders to correct grammar and spelling.

Ur wud yu raathr wee tauk end spel likk dhis?

DA OFF

"Len Lekx" wrote in message
news:3fc14e87.876520517@nntp...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:32:08 GMT, "TangoMan"
wrote:

I'm surprised to read your criticism. My humble advice to you is not to
be a
"grammer ninny" and pester people about their spelling and grammer
mistakes,
otherwise they may find you annoying. Take the advice or leave it.

Devils' Advocate

I don't know... it seems to me that a good deal of our literacy
problems in the 'younger' generations stems from a laxness in their
elders to correct grammar and spelling.

Ur wud yu raathr wee tauk end spel likk dhis?

DA OFF

OK, I'm game Oops, sorry emoticons really aren't grammatical.
I still think that punctiliousness about grammer will get the group into
sniping contests, but playing along as another advocate of the Devil,
shouldn't your comments been written like this:

I don't know...(what don't you know? If you don't know then why
continue writing an opinion?) it seems to me that a good deal
of our (the, not "our") literacy problems in ("with", not in) the
'younger' generations stems (stem, not "stems") from a laxness
in (on the part of, not "in" )their elders to correct (their)
grammar and spelling.

How interesting is this type of commentary to an audience wanting to
read commentary about Space Policy?

TangoMan

Joe Strout wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Gary Heidenreich) wrote:

Where do the orbital resources come from if not the moon?

Well, NEAs. But I agree that the Moon is more likely.

If from the moon, why not use them where they are found?

I see that proposal discussed now and then, but I don't see how it makes
as much sense. The Moon is not at fixed position in the sky, nor does
any point on it receive continuous sunlight, or sunlight from a fixed
direction. All of those problems are avoided (almost completely) by a
satellite in GEO. And it doesn't strike me as substantially harder to
build it there than to build it on the lunar surface.

A detailed reference that compares all forms of terrestial and space
power (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, etc. and SPS,
and LSP (lunar solar power) can be found in the book "Innovative
energy solutions to CO2 Stabilization," 2002, Ch 9 pp 345-410 by D.R.
Criswell

Thank you for the reference, I'll add that to my list. ...Er, I'm
embarassed to say that I can't find this. Would you have an ISBN number?

I would like to see an independent peer review of the technical and
cost extimates from this research, which is the result of twenty-five
years of effort. I am thinking of a ~$5-$10 million 1-2 year study.

Well I certainly would love to see that too.

- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

I apologize. The ISBN number is listed below.

Related Areas: Earth, Environment & Atmospheric Sciences
Engineering

New titles email
For updates on new titles in:

Earth, Environment & Atmospheric Sciences
Engineering



Cambridge University Press

Innovative Energy Strategies for CO2 Stabilization

Edited by Robert G. Watts
£60.00

July 2002 | Hardback | 468 pages 102 line diagrams 3 half-tones 36
tables | ISBN: 0521807255

In stock | Stock level updated: 21 Nov 17:58 GMT


The vast majority of the world's climate scientists believe that the
build-up of heat-trapping CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to global
warming unless we burn less fossil fuels. At the same time, energy
must be supplied in increasing amounts for the developing world to
continue its growth. This book discusses the feasibility of
increasingly efficient energy use and the potential for supplying
energy from sources that do not introduce CO2. The book analyzes the
prospects for Earth-based renewables: solar, wind, biomass,
hydroelectricity, geothermal and ocean energy. It then discusses
nuclear fission and fusion, and the relatively new idea of harvesting
solar energy on satellites or lunar bases. It will be essential
reading for all those interested in energy issues, including engineers
and physicists (electrical, mechanical, chemical, industrial,
environmental, nuclear), and industrial leaders and politicians. It
will also be used as a supplementary textbook on advanced courses on
energy.

Contributors
Donald J. Wuebbles, Atul K. Jain, Robert G. Watts, Robert J. Lempert,
Michael E. Schlesinger, Susan J. Hassol, Neil D. Strachan, Hadi
Dowlatabadi, Walter Short, Patrick Keegan, Gene D. Berry, Alan D.
Lamont, Robert Krakowski, Richard Wilson, Arthur W. Molvik, John L.
Perkins, David R. Criswell, David W. Keith


Email friend about this title

Contents
1. Concerns about climate change and global warming Donald J.
Wuebbles, Atul K. Jain and Robert G. Watts; 2. Posing the problem
Robert G. Watts; 3. Adaptive strategies for climate change Robert J.
Lempert and Michael E. Schlesinger; 4. Energy efficiency: a little
goes a long way Susan J. Hassol, Neil D. Strachan and Hadi
Dowlatabadi; 5. The potential of renewable energy to reduce carbon
emissions Walter Short and Patrick Keegan; 6. Carbonless
transportation and energy storage in future energy systems Gene D.
Berry and Alan D. Lamont; 7. What can nuclear power accomplish to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Robert Krakowski and Richard Wilson;
8. Nuclear fusion energy Arthur W. Molvik and John L. Perkins; 9.
Energy prosperity within the twenty-first century and beyond: options
and the unique roles of the Sun and the Moon David R. Criswell; 10.
Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect David W. Keith;
Index.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:42:47 GMT, "TangoMan"
wrote:

OK, I'm game Oops, sorry emoticons really aren't grammatical.
I don't know...(what don't you know? If you don't know then why

I stand corrected. But then... I typically attained barely passing
grades in English Lit classes. :-)

How interesting is this type of commentary to an audience wanting to
read commentary about Space Policy?

You should see the way discussions devolve in the
rec.models.rockets newsgroup. ;-)

"Len Lekx" wrote in message
news:3fc162ba.881692032@nntp...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:42:47 GMT, "TangoMan"
wrote:

OK, I'm game Oops, sorry emoticons really aren't grammatical.
I don't know...(what don't you know? If you don't know then why

I stand corrected. But then... I typically attained barely passing
grades in English Lit classes. :-)

How interesting is this type of commentary to an audience wanting to
read commentary about Space Policy?

You should see the way discussions devolve in the
rec.models.rockets newsgroup. ;-)

My point exactly. I'd rather nit pick and debate about the substance of what
was written rather than the grammatical errors I made in the middle of the
night, which as an insomniac of sorts, is when I write most of my missives.
Never from work when I'm fresh

I concede to the errors. I probably paused to think for a moment, or stopped
to search for a link, and when I continued my train of thought was
interrupted, or whatever. I don't think it's germaine because the standards
for usenet grammer are looser than for a professional presentation, a term
paper, or a published article.

Look at the substance of this thread thus far - most of it has to do with
the grammer issue and not the topic. Pity.

TangoMan