|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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” |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs
|
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 |