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
  #21  
Old November 17th 11, 03:26 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:14:56 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

There is something called "night". You might want to familiarize
yourself with it. If you are relying on "solar tiles" for your energy
needs you will become familiar with it very quickly.


Uh, it is generally a good idea to read the post before you reply to
it, Clarke. Just sayin'. Since you obviously didn't, I'll spoonfeed it
to you right here...

"b) Solar Power (and wind) won't replace all power on Earth. It can't,
not from orbit and not from the ground. But solar can take a large
part of the load during the day and let traditional power (oil,
natural gas, etc.) handle the night and periods of calm winds."

There. Now go away kid, the grown-ups want to have a discussion.


plonk, kid.


Indeed!

Lovely how this half-wit pops up here, insults me about a comment he
clearly never bothered to actually read, and then plonks me when I
call him on the carpet for it.

Oh well, such is usenet. Good riddance, child.

Brian
  #22  
Old November 17th 11, 03:29 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:53:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:


b) Solar Power (and wind) won't replace all power on Earth. It can't,
not from orbit and not from the ground. But solar can take a large
part of the load during the day and let traditional power (oil,
natural gas, etc.) handle the night and periods of calm winds.


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 supplementing.

Brian
  #23  
Old November 17th 11, 03:42 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:41:30 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:


what percentage of homes nationwide have good roofs for solar panels?


Most of them, according to the industry. And those that don't can be
replaced. Roofs don't last forever anyway, and it isn't as though
space solar power would happen overnight either. With solar cells
growing more efficient with time, and houses becoming more energy
efficient at the same time, the amount of surface area you need to
power your home will drop.

most arent orientated properly, or have site obstructions like trees
or buildings etc etc etc.


Some are, heavily wooded areas might want to instead chip in for a
local solar farm. And we don't need everyone to do this anyway. We
just need those who can to do it, and that would still make a huge
difference at a fraction of the cost of space solar power.

the vast makority of homes wouldnt be useful for solar panels


Vice versa, I say. The vast majority are useful. Most "Levittown" type
subdivisions which popped up all over the country after World War II,
are not heavily treed (they were all bulldozed to put up the houses)
and most houses had very simple roofs to ease construction. Older
communities might have a problem, but most people now live in the
newer suburban communities. And you technically don't actually need
the solar cells on your roof, you can put up an array in your backyard
wherever the sun is.

Brian
  #24  
Old November 17th 11, 03:52 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected] |
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 307
Default Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs

On Nov 16, 2:41*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:53*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:









Brian Thorn wrote:


a) But it will take many years longer to get Space Solar Power up and
running compared to putting solar tiles on your roof. Rooftop solar
can provide power next week. Space Solar Power is ten years away at
best. If the roof solar provides 8 hours of power a day, that's 29,200
hours of electricity from your roof before Space Solar Power provides
one hour. And then Space Solar Power only narrows the gap at the rate
of 16 hrs/day.


There's also the fact that solar cell manufacturing is a rapidly
advancing technology. *In a decade or two the price is likely to drop to
the point that anyone putting a new roof on their house will want to do
it with solar cells. *At that point the incentive for space based solar
will go down because of the ground availability. *But also that's the
point when the economics of space based power begin to work out.


b) Solar Power (and wind) won't replace all power on Earth. It can't,
not from orbit and not from the ground. But solar can take a large
part of the load during the day and let traditional power (oil,
natural gas, etc.) handle the night and periods of calm winds.


Space based power can supplement base load. *Ground based solar can't..
Neither will be able to replace hydroelectric, nuclear, coal and so on.


This is enormously more efficient than Space Solar Power, and probably
will be no matter how low you get the cost of space launch.


Until there is a mining and launching facilty on the Moon as suggested
by O'Neil and many others.


what percentage of homes nationwide have good roofs for solar panels?

most arent orientated properly, or have site obstructions like trees
or buildings *etc etc etc.

the vast makority of homes wouldnt be useful for solar panels


Good point. The housing stock is awful. Underinsulated, often poorly
ventilated, poorly built with pitched roofs in the wrong directions,
trees in the wrong places, bad materials, etc.

There would be a north south divide thing as well. The winter
night get long in the northern States.
A better grid would help I suppose.

For the top one percent this barely matters as long as
the 99 percent don't kill them.

Housing for the low income, a plastic coated cardboard box with
a shared clovis malstrum and trucked water provided they
can pay for it.............welcome to Grover's world............Trig
  #25  
Old November 17th 11, 03:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected] |
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 307
Default Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs

On Nov 15, 5:42*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...



jacob navia wrote:
I can't see what is that big advantage of installing solar panels
in orbit compared to installing them in the sahara desert 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 what typically makes for a good desert also typically makes for a good
location for solar power.


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 ;-(
  #26  
Old November 17th 11, 04:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected] |
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 307
Default Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs

On Nov 15, 5:41*pm, bob haller wrote:
wonder if its possible to deploy plain sun reflectors in orbit to
maximise daylight all year......

say augmented daylight from 6 am till 10 pm all year. this would cut
the power needed to light homes etc, and make driving safer too


No need to see the stars?
What about plants and animals that need the night?
Would it adversely effect crop as plants measure
day length to time responses to the seasons?
You'd better be sure before putting your cash into
the OSPP........Over Sized Pink Pacyderm.

Frack the ground water, Xenon 133 the atmosphere,
strip the sea bed, POP the biosphere.............Trig
  #27  
Old November 17th 11, 04:45 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 16, 10:10*pm, |"
wrote:
On Nov 15, 5:41*pm, bob haller wrote:

wonder if its possible to deploy plain sun reflectors in orbit to
maximise daylight all year......


say augmented daylight from 6 am till 10 pm all year. this would cut
the power needed to light homes etc, and make driving safer too


No need to see the stars?
What about plants and animals that need the night?
Would it adversely effect crop as plants measure
day length to time responses to the seasons?
You'd better be sure before putting your cash into
the OSPP........Over Sized Pink Pacyderm.

Frack the ground water, Xenon 133 the atmosphere,
strip the sea bed, POP the biosphere.............Trig


well in the summer in pa, its about 5:30 AM till 9:30 PM which is why
i said 6AM till 10 PM. everyone would still have nights, and plants
would still see decreased light intensity in winter because the angle
changes...

altogether longer reflected daylight would be simple, pretty cheap,
and likely have few bad effects on the environment
  #28  
Old November 17th 11, 05:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs

On Nov 14, 9:08*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article 5e5cda29-d8f9-474d-8399-
,
says...











"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.


Orbiting power plants capable of collecting solar
energy and beaming it to Earth appear "technically
feasible" within a decade or two based on
technologies now in the laboratory, a study group
of the Paris-headquartered International Academy
of Astronautics said.


Such a project may be able to achieve economic
viability in 30 years or less, it said, without laying
out a road map or proposing a specific architecture."


See:


http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/1...y-solar-idUKTR...


Nothing new about this. *If someone can come up with a cheap launcher
then they're viable. *If we keep on throwing away a multimillion dollar
rocket on every launch they won't ever be.


William Mook claims to offer cheap reusable launchers.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #29  
Old November 17th 11, 05:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs

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”
 




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 03:30 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.