|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
Uncle Al wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote: Uncle Al wrote: 80% bull**** business plan number for RF conversion At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of, by radiation alone. Sylvia. Given 0% carbon footprint, 80 MW continuous ground heating cannot add to Global Warming. Besides, it is add over a broad area. It's not like lighting a candle or grilling a steak - both of which are Enviro-whiner atrocities. I wasn't talking about on the ground. If the space side conversion of generated power to microwaves is only 80% efficient, then there's 20% loss in heat. That heat has to be got rid of, or the system will melt. Given that it's in a vacuum, the heat has to be got rid of entirely by radiation. Sylvia. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
"Rick Jones" wrote in message ... In sci.space.history Androcles wrote: Everyone else is new to rocket science except Rick Jones, he's been around rockets since 1814. "And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam, In full glory reflected now shines in the stream: 'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." -- Francis Scott Key, 1814 Francis always did have a way with words. You'll be 200 years old in 4 years, Jones. No wonder you know so much about rocket science. Your flattery of those of us in the peanut gallery is apreciated, if perhaps premature... It's never to early to be sarcastic. Energy company engineers don't know a thing about vehicle science, they don't work for Ford or GM. I doubt they can even drive a car - especially if the new electronic ignition system with the radio controlled switch designed by Osama bin Laden is still secret and unpatented. Still, never mind, as long as it works on a test drive you'd buy one, eh? Such a trusting soul... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
Sylvia Else wrote:
Uncle Al wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: Uncle Al wrote: 80% bull**** business plan number for RF conversion At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of, by radiation alone. Sylvia. Given 0% carbon footprint, 80 MW continuous ground heating cannot add to Global Warming. Besides, it is add over a broad area. It's not like lighting a candle or grilling a steak - both of which are Enviro-whiner atrocities. I wasn't talking about on the ground. If the space side conversion of generated power to microwaves is only 80% efficient, then there's 20% loss in heat. That heat has to be got rid of, or the system will melt. Given that it's in a vacuum, the heat has to be got rid of entirely by radiation. For physics reasons (in order to get a small enough beam spread) the transmitter will need to be 0.5-1 km across, regardless of power; and there is no real reason why it should not be made from heat-tolerant materials, excepting maybe some of the electronics. Even for my proposed 100 GW systems, cooling the transmitter isn't a big problem. No external cooling systems are needed, just sunshades. Indeed if it can operate at a few hundred C even sunshades are not required. [One reason why I am in favour of very large systems is that the Earth and space antennae are about the same size regardless of power (within reason) - so it's best to put a whole lot of power through the system - means fewer Earth stations are required. For instance half a dozen 100 GW systems could provide the US's entire electricity needs, and have extra left over for eg electric transport - and only need six receiving stations, each about 15 miles across.] -- Peter Fairbrother |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... Uncle Al wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: Uncle Al wrote: 80% bull**** business plan number for RF conversion At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of, by radiation alone. Sylvia. Given 0% carbon footprint, 80 MW continuous ground heating cannot add to Global Warming. Besides, it is add over a broad area. It's not like lighting a candle or grilling a steak - both of which are Enviro-whiner atrocities. I wasn't talking about on the ground. If the space side conversion of generated power to microwaves is only 80% efficient, then there's 20% loss in heat. That heat has to be got rid of, or the system will melt. Given that it's in a vacuum, the heat has to be got rid of entirely by radiation. Sylvia. It had to arrive entirely by radiation. Didn't you know the Sun is hot? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... Jonathan wrote: "Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology works, citing intellectual property concerns. Meaning it wouldn't stand up to the inevitable expert scrutiny if they got a patent. Maybe, but keeping a secret could mean fraud or it could mean a breakthrough, we don't know for sure. If they have a breakthrough, they should get a patent on it, ASAP. As long as it's merely secret, they're exposed to industrial espionage, accidental leaks, you name it. They claim to have a patented 'system'. But that's all I found, no details. ":Solaren's patented SSP plant design uses...." "We are currently supporting the CPUC regulatory filing process, and plan to provide additional details about our SSP pilot plant project in early Summer 2009." http://www.next100.com/2009/04/inter...en-ceo-gar.php But the electric company P G & E, one of the largest utilities in the nation, while considering the contract should be privy to the details of the technology. It wouldn't be the first time that people who should have known better got taken for a ride. See But there is significance to be found in all this. The 'Big Question' in building a vibrant space faring future is when will the market place be able to make 'Big Money' in space. Which would vastly accelerate the move into space. The answer to that question is stated clearly by P G &E in it's filing. "PG&E believes that potential, significant benefits to its customers from a successful space solar installation outweigh the challenges associated with a new and unproven technology." http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariff...LEC_3449-E.pdf /When the benefits exceed the risks/.....THAT'S..when the market place can make a successful pitch to investors, and start the ball rolling. Even with the low risk contract, the key point is that P G & E has pledged to buy the product in advance. That's a big help in finding investors and an advantage over most start ups. A biotech, for instance often spends hundreds of millions of dollars in the hope their product pans out and finds a buyer later. The energy start ups, it appears, will be able to find buyers and agree upon prices before they've printed their first circuit board. It seems energy just might become that next large market for space activities. And that is a good thing for our future. Very Good! http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-240493.html which is about the Pixelon video-streaming compression scam. Sylvia. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
Androcles wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... Uncle Al wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: Uncle Al wrote: 80% bull**** business plan number for RF conversion At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of, by radiation alone. Sylvia. Given 0% carbon footprint, 80 MW continuous ground heating cannot add to Global Warming. Besides, it is add over a broad area. It's not like lighting a candle or grilling a steak - both of which are Enviro-whiner atrocities. I wasn't talking about on the ground. If the space side conversion of generated power to microwaves is only 80% efficient, then there's 20% loss in heat. That heat has to be got rid of, or the system will melt. Given that it's in a vacuum, the heat has to be got rid of entirely by radiation. Sylvia. It had to arrive entirely by radiation. Didn't you know the Sun is hot? Yes, and if the transmitter could run at the temperature of the surface of the sun, there'd be no problem. Sylvia. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote: Uncle Al wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: Uncle Al wrote: 80% bull**** business plan number for RF conversion At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of, by radiation alone. Sylvia. Given 0% carbon footprint, 80 MW continuous ground heating cannot add to Global Warming. Besides, it is add over a broad area. It's not like lighting a candle or grilling a steak - both of which are Enviro-whiner atrocities. I wasn't talking about on the ground. If the space side conversion of generated power to microwaves is only 80% efficient, then there's 20% loss in heat. That heat has to be got rid of, or the system will melt. Given that it's in a vacuum, the heat has to be got rid of entirely by radiation. For physics reasons (in order to get a small enough beam spread) the transmitter will need to be 0.5-1 km across, regardless of power; and there is no real reason why it should not be made from heat-tolerant materials, excepting maybe some of the electronics. Typically, the transmitting antenna would be a mesh to minimise the mass - the holes merely have to be small compared with the transmitted wavelength. But a mesh doesn't have a large surface area, which would be required to radiate away the heat. Even for my proposed 100 GW systems, cooling the transmitter isn't a big problem. No external cooling systems are needed, just sunshades. Indeed if it can operate at a few hundred C even sunshades are not required. What's the blackbody radiation per square metre at a few hundred Celsius? Sylvia. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
On Dec 13, 12:02*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
That's correct. The beam power density will be about one-fourth the intensity |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
tadchem wrote:
On Dec 13, 11:18 am, Peter Fairbrother wrote: tadchem wrote: [..] Nice, if there's somebody in orbit who can use 400 MW. If you want to use it planet-side, you have to get it down here. THAT creates problems. A storage device has mass, which brings all the transport problems of a safe re-entry and recovery. Anti-matter? A conduit would require materials with properties we have not developed yet. A beam would present an enormous safety and environmental hazard. You could cook an Airbus in milliseconds with a 400 megawatt microwave. That's about 200,000 heavy-duty microwave ovens - at once. Not so, actually - an Airbus weighs about 400 tons, call the exposure 1 kW/kg, or perhaps 1 degree C per second, so it would take several minutes, not milliseconds, before the Airbus might start losing structural strength. If it was flying rather than parked, the air would cool it so much that it wouldn't be affected at all. How long would the Airbus' avionics last in a 400 megawatt microwave beam? You can't fly those crates by the seat-of-the-pants. Knock out the electronic fly-by-wire systems and the plane becomes a brick. Indeed, the power level in the beam is above the FAA standards - aircraft would be required to avoid the area. However if there are only a few beams, say six in the US, and each exclusion area would be about 15 miles across, and probably located far from airports - not a big problem, eg you can't fly over Area 51 or whatever nowadays. I was just pointing out that the aircraft, even a composite one, wouldn't melt or anything like that! -- Peter Fairbrother |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
On Dec 13, 11:57*am, Uncle Al wrote:
* *3) Solar cell efficiency real world is no better than 20% with crystalline silicon. *80% bull**** business plan number for RF conversion, 80% bullh****^2 number for ground recovery. (0.2)(0.8)(0.8) = 13% orbita; insolation to ground electrical transfer, assuming absolute perfection. *Look up the solar constant for square mileage of solar cells required. 20% on Earth, and why silicon? * *4) After the power plant delivers 2.5x10^6 kW/hr of electricity it covers its launch energy. *After it delivers another 10^11 kW/hr of electricity at $0.10/kW/hr net profits, it covers its launch cost. smirk * *5) At 400 megawatts 24/7, the bottom of the hole reaches ground level - assuming no intermediate costs, after 28.52 years (including leap years). * *6) Add in amortization of the cost of materials, maintenannce, salaries, pensions, healthcare coverage, expense chits... and teh lfie of a soalr cell installation under solar hard UV, radiation, meteor showers, and orbital debris. *Ground solar cells last about 20 years. What happens after 20 years? Not much, square. -Aut |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
...Why Space Solar Power should be the future of NASA! | Jeff Findley | Policy | 62 | June 7th 09 09:53 PM |
Solar power from space... | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 1 | May 29th 09 12:56 PM |
Space Solar Power Gets A Boost | [email protected] | Policy | 26 | October 21st 07 03:57 PM |
Virgin Space Solar Power? | Joe Strout | Policy | 7 | October 4th 06 03:25 AM |
Zubrin's panning of space solar power in Entering Space | TomRC | Technology | 10 | February 25th 04 12:26 PM |