Space Solar Power Looks For Shortcuts

"Advocates of space solar power (SSP) continue
to refine their ideas for harnessing the Sun's energy,
beaming it to Earth and plugging it into the power
grid. The benefits are obvious—a clean source of
energy that can power the planet's infrastructure
without relying on the dwindling fossil reserves that
drive the often-savage global economy we have
today. Less obvious are the obstacles, but papers
presented at the 63rd International Astronautical
Congress in Naples, Italy, this month indicate
some very good minds are at work on the
problems, with some very interesting results."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....p21-507017.xml

On 10/24/2012 2:14 PM, wrote:
"Advocates of space solar power (SSP) continue
to refine their ideas for harnessing the Sun's energy,

$0.08 / kWhr

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 8:49:36 PM UTC-7, David Spain wrote:
On 10/24/2012 2:14 PM, wrote: "Advocates of space solar power (SSP) continue to refine their ideas for harnessing the Sun's energy, $0.08 / kWhr

From the article in the original post:

"Solar Power Satellite by means of Arbitrarily Large Phased
Array (SPS-Alpha). The idea “represents a very
different architecture for SPS, using a hyper-modular approach
in which all platform elements can be mass-produced, and none
are larger than a 'smallsat,'” he writes. “This could enable
significantly lower development time/cost, much greater ease of
manufacturing at lower cost, and significantly higher
reliability.”

Basically, mass-produced “intelligent”
spacecraft weighing 100-300 kg (220-660 lb.) would assemble
themselves into a constellation shaped to collect, convert and
transmit solar energy through the “hive” of other spacecraft
to a transmitter array assembled in the same fashion (see
illustration). Mankins says the idea is based on the behavior of
bees and ants."

Does this "Hive" approach sound feasible?

On 10/30/2012 4:06 PM, wrote:

Does this "Hive" approach sound feasible?


With current launch tech, no.

Right now the -biggest- problem is not orbital assembly, it's
cost-per-pound to LEO/GEO.

The -second- biggest problem is how to do large assemblies in orbit
once you've solved the first problem. IMHO a much easier nut to crack
once you've solved #1.

The -third- biggest problem is doing all this at a cost competitive
price per kWhr with terrestrial generation alternatives. Until #1 and #2
are addressed you won't have an answer for #3, and until you have that
SPS remains just a pipe dream.

There are no "shortcuts" around the above three, at least for commercial
SPS.

We've been over this time and again. If we had an FAQ I'd just refer you
to FAQ summary number so-and-so, but I suspect you know this too.

Dave

On 10/31/2012 10:49 AM, David Spain wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:06 PM, wrote:

Does this "Hive" approach sound feasible?

With current launch tech, no.

Right now the -biggest- problem is not orbital assembly, it's
cost-per-pound to LEO/GEO.

The -second- biggest problem is how to do large assemblies in orbit
once you've solved the first problem. IMHO a much easier nut to crack
once you've solved #1.

The -third- biggest problem is doing all this at a cost competitive
price per kWhr with terrestrial generation alternatives. Until #1 and #2
are addressed you won't have an answer for #3, and until you have that
SPS remains just a pipe dream.

There are no "shortcuts" around the above three, at least for commercial
SPS.

I think your are looking at this from the wrong angle, or maybe from
the wrong side of the gravity well. I don't think your biggest problem
will we solved by building more efficient rockets. It will be solved
by using raw material from the asteroid belt or something like that.
A SPS is necessarily done on a big scale, and on that scale, moving
a small asteroid is not such a big problem.

Of course, having smelting and manufacturing operations in space is
itself quite a problem. But at some point, we will want to solve that
problem. When that problem will be solved, moving the mass and
assembling the SPS will probably seem as small problems. Until then
SPS, will always look like a pie in the sky. After we do have
manufacturing operations in space and we do build SPS, then I'm not
quite sure what it will look like, maybe it will still look like a pie
in the sky :-/

We've been over this time and again. If we had an FAQ I'd just refer you
to FAQ summary number so-and-so, but I suspect you know this too.

Yes!


Alain Fournier

On 10/31/2012 12:06 PM, Alain Fournier wrote:
I think your are looking at this from the wrong angle, or maybe from
the wrong side of the gravity well. I don't think your biggest problem
will we solved by building more efficient rockets. It will be solved
by using raw material from the asteroid belt or something like that.

But that problem won't be solved until I can get to those asteroid belts
w/o spending nearly $1B each time I want to get out there. So yes I
disagree with you and claim that efficient rockets ARE THE #1 problem.

SLS isn't going to do that for me. Nothing on the drawing boards for
the foreseeable future will either. I can't look from the 'other' side
if I can't get there from here.

We've been over this time and again. If we had an FAQ I'd just refer you
to FAQ summary number so-and-so, but I suspect you know this too.

Yes!


Alain Fournier


Agreed! Would be nice to have, but I don't have the time for it either.
Too bad.

Dave

Hence my $0.08/kW-hr standard response.

If you don't know what this means you don't understand SPS.

Dave

David Spain wrote:
Hence my $0.08/kW-hr standard response.

If you don't know what this means you don't understand SPS.

The "formula" doesn't change, but you may want to plug-in $0.10/kW-hr
based on http://www.eia.gov/beta/enerdat/#/to...2&geo=g&freq=A
(assuming that comes through OK)

Of course, there is the usual wriggle-room of "But electricity in
placename is actually other rate!" and I'm sure some will try to
take it.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 10/31/2012 2:33 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
David Spain wrote:
Hence my $0.08/kW-hr standard response.

If you don't know what this means you don't understand SPS.

The "formula" doesn't change, but you may want to plug-in $0.10/kW-hr
based on http://www.eia.gov/beta/enerdat/#/to...2&geo=g&freq=A
(assuming that comes through OK)

Of course, there is the usual wriggle-room of "But electricity in
placename is actually other rate!" and I'm sure some will try to
take it.

rick jones


Took a quick look, not clear to me if these average 'retail' prices are
for just generation or include generation + distribution + etc.

Distribution charges would not change even for SPS.

My $0.08/kWH figure is for generation only (as it gets broken down on my
electric bill). Actually last bill shows $0.071/kWH and supposedly
(according to what I read in the paper) my part of the country has one
the highest generation charges per customer that there is. So depending
upon where you live your numbers could be even lower, which is worse for
SPS; which when I last checked range from an unrealistically optimistic
(IMHO) $1 to (still low) $6/kWH. Quite a spread and that's just a crude
estimate from largely hand-waving.

Just to give folks and idea of what we are talking about.

My avg. monthly consumption is currently running about 50kWH but goes
higher in cold weather.

Dave

On Oct 31, 4:58*pm, David Spain wrote:
On 10/31/2012 2:33 PM, Rick Jones wrote:

David Spain wrote:
Hence my $0.08/kW-hr standard response.

If you don't know what this means you don't understand SPS.

The "formula" doesn't change, but you may want to plug-in $0.10/kW-hr
based onhttp://www.eia.gov/beta/enerdat/#/topic/7?agg=0,1,2&geo=g&freq=A
(assuming that comes through OK)

Of course, there is the usual wriggle-room of "But electricity in
placename is actually other rate!" and I'm sure some will try to
take it.

rick jones

Took a quick look, not clear to me if these average 'retail' prices are
for just generation or include generation + distribution + etc.

Distribution charges would not change even for SPS.

My $0.08/kWH figure is for generation only (as it gets broken down on my
electric bill). Actually last bill shows $0.071/kWH and supposedly
(according to what I read in the paper) my part of the country has one
the highest generation charges per customer that there is. So depending
upon where you live your numbers could be even lower, which is worse for
SPS; which when I last checked range from an unrealistically optimistic
(IMHO) $1 to (still low) $6/kWH. Quite a spread and that's just a crude
estimate from largely hand-waving.

Just to give folks and idea of what we are talking about.

My avg. monthly consumption is currently running about 50kWH but goes
higher in cold weather.

Dave

these numbers of costs per KWH will all change once a nuke plant melts
down in the US.... this event is guaranteed to occur in the future
because nothing man makes works perfectly

Wipe out a big part of our country will make SSP a sudden favorite