|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs
Brian Thorn wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: Space based power can supplement base load. Ground based solar can't. Huh? Ground based solar already is, a tiny fraction of course, but it already is Maybe you don't know what "base load" means. It's the 24/7 generating infrastructure. Ground solar has an issue called night that means the only way it can supply base load is to have transmission lines that cross the oceans. supplementing. Peak load generation is not the same thing as base load generation. Ground based solar can and does supply supplemental or peak load power. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs
On Nov 17, 2:24*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Space based power can supplement base load. *Ground based solar can't.. Huh? Ground based solar already is, a tiny fraction of course, but it already is Maybe you don't know what "base load" means. *It's the 24/7 generating infrastructure. *Ground solar has an issue called night that means the only way it can supply base load is to have transmission lines that cross the oceans. supplementing. Peak load generation is not the same thing as base load generation. Ground based solar can and does supply supplemental or peak load power. i do wonder what percentage of homes roofs would really be useful for solar panels? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs
On Nov 17, 2:47*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 17, 2:24*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote: Brian Thorn wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Space based power can supplement base load. *Ground based solar can't. Huh? Ground based solar already is, a tiny fraction of course, but it already is Maybe you don't know what "base load" means. *It's the 24/7 generating infrastructure. *Ground solar has an issue called night that means the only way it can supply base load is to have transmission lines that cross the oceans. supplementing. Peak load generation is not the same thing as base load generation. Ground based solar can and does supply supplemental or peak load power. i do wonder what percentage of homes roofs would really be useful for solar panels? Putting panels on roofs actually increases their cost. Putting arrays of panels on surface mines to reclaim them, provides the lowest cost implementation. To have solar energy provide more than 12% of the world's energy requires that they a) generate hydrogen from water and b) produce 5x to 6x more power than used on average when the sun shines. This means that to be competitive solar panels have to be VASTLY less expensive than any other form of generation. I have achieved this. http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/W...to-Mok-FINAL-1 At $0.05 per peak watt, located in a region that has 1,700 hours of illumination per year, I can produce hydrogen for $85 per metric ton. Radio interview - revolution radio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ99n...65AD4AE0E19A8C Other radio interview - talktainment radio http://67.72.16.232/talk/2565604.mp3 At this price hydrogen is the least expensive fuel on the planet, and the least polluting. How to enter the market? Use hydrogen to convert coal to crude oil and sell the crude oil. Then use hydrogen to convert stationary power plants to burn hydrogen. Then, buy oil retailers to distribute coal derived crude oil efficiently. Then add hydrogen pumps at the oil retailer. Sell hydrogen as a loss leader to drive crude oil out of business. Then add beamed power from space to beam to the large solar arrays, increasing their output 16x. Then beam high intensity beams to users around the world, including vehicles and rockets. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs
On Nov 17, 6:26*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Nov 17, 2:47*pm, bob haller wrote: On Nov 17, 2:24*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote: Brian Thorn wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Space based power can supplement base load. *Ground based solar can't. Huh? Ground based solar already is, a tiny fraction of course, but it already is Maybe you don't know what "base load" means. *It's the 24/7 generating infrastructure. *Ground solar has an issue called night that means the only way it can supply base load is to have transmission lines that cross the oceans. supplementing. Peak load generation is not the same thing as base load generation. Ground based solar can and does supply supplemental or peak load power. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs
On 11/17/2011 08:28 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says... | wrote: "J. wrote: Two major benefits of orbital solar are that it doesn't have to deal with the day/night cycle and it can put the power where it's needed--NYC needs a lot more power than does Flagstaff, Arizona, but has a lot less convenient desert. Space based power sats will have to be in a very high orbit. I am thinking Van Allen belts. Otherwise the power sat will be passing over head about every 90 minutes ;-( O'Neil suggested they be in geostationary orbits. That's above the belts, right? It's above the inner belt but pretty much in the middle of the outer. More like the outer fringes of the outer belts. Hasn't been an issue for any other kind of geostationary satellite though so no reason to think it would be a problem with powersats. It's not much of a problem with respect to things like avionics upsets or degradation of solar cells, but it is a problem with respect to human exposure. That could limit, or eliminate entirely, the prospect of EVA assembly of powersats. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs
In article , jrfrank@ibm-
pc.borg says... On 11/17/2011 08:28 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In , says... | wrote: "J. wrote: Two major benefits of orbital solar are that it doesn't have to deal with the day/night cycle and it can put the power where it's needed--NYC needs a lot more power than does Flagstaff, Arizona, but has a lot less convenient desert. Space based power sats will have to be in a very high orbit. I am thinking Van Allen belts. Otherwise the power sat will be passing over head about every 90 minutes ;-( O'Neil suggested they be in geostationary orbits. That's above the belts, right? It's above the inner belt but pretty much in the middle of the outer. More like the outer fringes of the outer belts. Hasn't been an issue for any other kind of geostationary satellite though so no reason to think it would be a problem with powersats. It's not much of a problem with respect to things like avionics upsets or degradation of solar cells, but it is a problem with respect to human exposure. That could limit, or eliminate entirely, the prospect of EVA assembly of powersats. They don't have to be assembled in geostationary orbit. They're going to have some kind of propulsion system for stationkeeping--use it to move them to where you need them. It's not like a gigawatt powersat is lacking for power to run a thruster. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs
On Nov 17, 9:32*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 17, wrote: On Nov 17, 2:47*pm, bob haller wrote: On Nov 17, 2:24*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote: Brian Thorn wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Space based power can supplement base load. *Ground based solar can't. Huh? Ground based solar already is, a tiny fraction of course, but it already is Maybe you don't know what "base load" means. *It's the 24/7 generating infrastructure. *Ground solar has an issue called night that means the only way it can supply base load is to have transmission lines that cross the oceans. supplementing. Peak load generation is not the same thing as base load generation. Ground based solar can and does supply supplemental or peak load power. i do wonder what percentage of homes roofs would really be useful for solar panels? Putting panels on roofs actually increases their cost. *Putting arrays of panels on surface mines to reclaim them, provides the lowest cost implementation. *To have solar energy provide more than 12% of the world's energy requires that they a) generate hydrogen from water and b) produce 5x to 6x more power than used on average when the sun shines. This means that to be competitive solar panels have to be VASTLY less expensive than any other form of generation. I have achieved this. http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/W...to-Mok-FINAL-1 At $0.05 per peak watt, located in a region that has 1,700 hours of illumination per year, I can produce hydrogen for $85 per metric ton. Radio interview - revolution radiohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ99nFW3KLU&feature=list_related&playn... Other radio interview - talktainment radiohttp://67.72.16.232/talk/2565604.mp3 At this price hydrogen is the least expensive fuel on the planet, and the least polluting. How to enter the market? Use hydrogen to convert coal to crude oil and sell the crude oil. Then use hydrogen to convert stationary power plants to burn hydrogen. Then, buy oil retailers to distribute coal derived crude oil efficiently. Then add hydrogen pumps at the oil retailer. Sell hydrogen as a loss leader to drive crude oil out of business. Then add beamed power from space to beam to the large solar arrays, increasing their output 16x. Then beam high intensity beams to users around the world, including vehicles and rockets.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - so it should be possible to locate solar panels in deserts, that would not only generate power directly, but collect beamed power at the same time? consol coal says they have a coal to gasoline technology too. and growing non food plants converting them to alcohol should help too Correct! This combined with water projects will provide the means to support up to 21 billion people on Earth. Crash program for continental development http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjR3tWBDPbI Power generation from ultra-low-cost solar panels in the major deserts. (1) Sahara (2) Arabian (3) Kalahari (4) Gobi (5) Australian (6) US Southwestern (7) Atacama A world of 8.51 billion people in 2030 consuming energy at a rate of 11,000 Watts requires 93.6 TW of power. Dividing this by 7 means 13.4 TW per site - if power is delivered 24/7. Today the world consumes 17 TW of primary power. To produce this with terrestrial solar panels requires 2.4 TW averge per site. That's 13.4 TW per site peak, 13,400 sq km per site for 7 sites when the sun is shining. Beaming band-gap matched energy at 1,000 W/m2 and converting it with nearly perfect efficiency 24/7 increases the power output to 13.4 TW per site - raising the peak to the average. This requires the addition of 8510 satellites that are 5 km in diameter and produce 11 GW each - separated by 31.2 km. With one launch every eight hours this requires 7.77 years to deploy the fleet. With six vehicles (42 elements) cycle times of two days - are required to sustain this launch rate. Launcher http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV Launcher Addendum http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum Power sat http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO Seven solar collector sites 130 km in diameter located in the deserts provide for the energy needs of the planet today- without pollution. Launching a 5 km diameter satellite to GEO every eight hours, increases this output to 11,000 Watts per person - for 8.51 billion - in 7.77 years - to sustain a very high standard of living. Sending satellites to within 3.75 million km of the sun and beaming 220 GW to Earth to redirect it to satellite receivers on the ground increases power level to 220,000 Watts per person - allowing routine access to space. Ballistic Transport http://www.scribd.com/doc/54316434/Ballistic-Transport Space transport http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33_-teBjZ4w Space Colonization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgrdAUFFMrA |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs
On Nov 18, 5:14*am, William Mook wrote:
On Nov 17, 9:32*pm, bob haller wrote: On Nov 17, wrote: On Nov 17, 2:47*pm, bob haller wrote: On Nov 17, 2:24*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote: Brian Thorn wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Space based power can supplement base load. *Ground based solar can't. Huh? Ground based solar already is, a tiny fraction of course, but it already is Maybe you don't know what "base load" means. *It's the 24/7 generating infrastructure. *Ground solar has an issue called night that means the only way it can supply base load is to have transmission lines that cross the oceans. supplementing. Peak load generation is not the same thing as base load generation. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs
J. Clarke wrote:
says... J. Clarke wrote: says... O'Neil suggested they be in geostationary orbits. That's above the belts, right? It's above the inner belt but pretty much in the middle of the outer. More like the outer fringes of the outer belts. Hasn't been an issue for any other kind of geostationary satellite though so no reason to think it would be a problem with powersats. It's not much of a problem with respect to things like avionics upsets or degradation of solar cells, but it is a problem with respect to human exposure. That could limit, or eliminate entirely, the prospect of EVA assembly of powersats. They don't have to be assembled in geostationary orbit. They're going to have some kind of propulsion system for stationkeeping--use it to move them to where you need them. It's not like a gigawatt powersat is lacking for power to run a thruster. So that's why O'Neil suggested that power sats be assembled at L5 from material launched from the lunar surface. Thanks! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dust down those orbital power plans | Sylvia Else[_2_] | Policy | 15 | July 31st 11 12:09 AM |
..Space Energy Inc plans to launch prototype Space Solar Power Satellite | Jonathan | History | 10 | December 22nd 09 05:17 AM |
Why nuclear power is better = solar power stinks | Rich[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 29 | November 18th 08 05:55 AM |
Power cuts feared in UK nuclear plants crisis | Abo | UK Astronomy | 2 | October 8th 08 07:42 AM |
So... is someone Sabotaging our Nuclear Power Plants? | jonathan | Policy | 0 | April 21st 06 01:41 AM |