A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 17th 11, 08:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 222
Default 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  
Old November 17th 11, 08:47 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default 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  
Old November 18th 11, 12:26 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default 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  
Old November 18th 11, 03:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default 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.

  #37  
Old November 18th 11, 06:28 AM posted to sci.space.policy
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default 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  
Old November 18th 11, 11:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default 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  
Old November 18th 11, 04:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default 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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.