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

...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 14th 09, 11:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default ...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  
Old December 15th 09, 01:29 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Androcles[_23_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default ...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  
Old December 15th 09, 01:31 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Peter Fairbrother
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default ...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  
Old December 15th 09, 01:31 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Androcles[_23_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default ...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  
Old December 15th 09, 01:54 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default ...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  
Old December 15th 09, 01:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default ...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  
Old December 15th 09, 02:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default ...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  
Old December 15th 09, 02:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Autymn D. C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 255
Default ...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  
Old December 15th 09, 02:12 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Peter Fairbrother
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default ...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  
Old December 15th 09, 02:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Autymn D. C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 255
Default ...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

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
...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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:22 AM.


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.