Jim Davis' Questions re Space Power Network

William Mook wrote:
The USA could develop a power network around the satellite
systems I've described. With that the US could then develop
widespread ballistic transport, and then using low cost space
access deploy large networks of communications satellites.
Beyond that, harvest materials from the asteroid belt to feed a
growing off-world infrastructure to meet global material needs
using telerobotics and telecommunications. We could have this
in place in less than 10 years.

William,

When you make claims such as these to the various relevant financial,
industrial, and government players they surely don't take your word
for all this. Have your claims been discussed in scientific and
engineering circles? If so, where? Has a consensus formed in these
circles that your scheme is realistic and feasible?

I must say that if your claims are all that you say it's surprising
that the only place you see them discussed is on usenet by you.

Jim Davis

* * * *

Global Power Network

Project Echo produced two, large, spherical passive satellites that
were launched in 1960 and 1964.

Echo 1: sphere, 100 ft diameter, 166 lb
Echo 2: sphere, 135 ft diameter, 547 lb

Made of highly reflective mylar inflated by nitrogen at low pressure.
Most of this weight was the inflation mechanism and gas.

In metric terms this was

Echo 1: 30.5 meters diameter, 2,920 sq meter surface area, 75.5 kg,
38.7 sqm/kg
Echo 2: 41.2 meters diameter, 5,321 sq meter surface area, 248.6 kg,
21.4 sqm/kg

Since the area of a sphere is 4x the area of a disc the same size we
have 'collector' areas of 1/4th the numbers given above.

Inflatable solar concentrators have been built. Air Force Reasearch
Laboratory's CP-1 concentrator is shown here

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_YoCIFkM3GQ8/So...ector-demo.jpg

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...sZC0_2YSGHOMOw

Here a 4m x 6m oval massing 20 kg concentrates light 2,400x. This is
1 sq m per kg.

I have developed a similar device built on a larger scale that acts as
a concentrator to concentrate sunlight to a thin film device operating
at 1,600x solar intensity and achieve 20 sq m/kg. The Falcon 1
rocket which lifts 8.6 metric tons to LEO will put up a collector
that's 172,000 sq m in area. A disk 468 meters in diameter that
intercepts 236 MW of solar energy.

A target satellite that consists of millions of hexagonal MEMS
elements each 750 um across and 708 um thick that self-assemble to
form a disk 11.7 meters in diameter and 708 um thick. This disc is
only 156.2 kg and is launched with the concentrator.

Each MEMS element contains a sandwich that consists of

1) a high efficiency multi-junction photovoltaic supply connected to
2) a MEMS based free electron laser element using electro-static
structures that act as wigglers capped by
3) a phase conjugate window.

236 MW of sunlight is converted to 125 MW IR laser energy operating in
the 1,000 nm IR 'window' in the atmosphere. The IR laser energy is
sent simultaneously to 100 receivers on the ground each 4 meters in
diameter each generating 1.25 MW peak output. These receivers are
made of crystalline silicon and are 98% efficient at converting the
band-gap matched IR laser energy to DC electricity. They operate 24/7
whenever the sky is clear. Placed in locations that are largely clear
of clouds, they operate more or less continuously at full power.

The system once it achieves orbit inflates and uses solar sailing
techniques to navigate from LEO to GEO. At GEO the MEMS disk carrier
is released and unfolds assembling near the focal point. The
concentrator rotates to maintain the MEMS disk at the focal point.
The MEMS disk moves and rotates to maintain desired power output.
Structured laser light is sensed to provide feedback for active
position control to maintain efficiency. Light pressure is
manipulated to control orientation and position and maintain orbit,
without use of propellant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWuL4sZ3ppY

Buyers of receivers pay $1.25 million per receiver and $100 per hour
of operation. ($0.08 per kWh) 8,766 hours per year translate to an
income of $876,600 per year per receiver and with 100 receivers each
satellite generates $125 million in immediate sales and $87.66 million
per year in power sales. With a life expectancy of 25 years this is
$2,192 million over its useful life. The revenue discounted at 6.5%
per annum over the 25 years is worth $1,070 million the day it begins
operating.

The development cost of the concentrator and MEMS device is less than
$2 billion. The recurring cost of each satellite is $200 million.
The cost of the launch on a falcon 1 is $50 million. $20 million for
the ground stations. Three satellites of this type are sold to
achieve break even.

So, this is an interesting business model, and the scale of things
needed to do to prove it out are reasonable and achievable in the
private sector.

Once a few satellites were successfully operating two satellites
consisting of the thin film self assembled MEMS devices

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/agi...s-smaller.html
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...a/display.aspx

Each of the two satellites are 60 meters in diameter. One solar
sails to GEO. The other solar sails 3 million km away - to Lagrange
point 1. There an experiment is done. To beam the solar energy from
the L1 satellite to the GEO satellite and then reform the beam at GEO
to beam it to two 1.25 MW ground stations.

Success with this program leads to building larger launchers capable
of putting up 695 tons to LEO. These have been designed in some
detail and are described briefly here;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30877060/E...Launch-Vehicle

With this sort of launch capability the size of the satellite system
is expanded to 5 km in diameter power levels rise to 10,000 MW and the
PV/FEL 'target' is 125 m in diameter. 8,000 beams at 1.25 MW each are
formed simultaneously and beamed to ground stations. The value of
the satellite is 80x the earlier satellite. With reusable launch
hardware, and learning curve effects, costs are only 5x greater.

The dual satellite system is increased in size as well. Two 600 m
diameter companion satellites each 340 tons are launched into orbit.
One solar sails to GEO, the other solar sails to Jupiter! Why
Jupiter? At Jupiter the roving satellite executes a slingshot
maneuver to bring it to zero velocity relative to the sun. There it
falls into the sun. At 3.75 million km from the sun, ambient sunlight
is 1,600x what it is on Earth. The system unfolds and is held in
position by light pressure navigating. It beams 220,000 MW to its
companion satellite in GEO which is then reformed and sent to 220
million receivers 1 kW each, only a few cm across. These receivers
may be in motion or stationary.

At this point each satellite launch provides a substantial amount of
power to a substantial number of people. Today the world consumes 17
trillion watts of energy. Most of this comes from

28 billion barrels of crude oil
5.5 billion tons of coal
1.1 billion tons of natural gas

which produce over 40 billion tons of CO2 when burned.

ALL this energy may be provided from space using only 77 satellites.
Since burning fuel is notoriously inefficient fewer satellites can do
more useful work than is done with burning fuel. Everyone
everywhere consuming energy at the same rate as Americans do today is
supported with fewer than 700 satellites.

In this way as much money can be earned as is earned by the Middle
East Oil Rich Kingdoms ($2.6 trillion per year) and growing to 10x
that figure!

A fleet of five heavy lift launchers described above support daily
launches of satellite pairs. Two years of launches once things are
set up, puts enough satellites in place to supply the entire world
with abundant low cost solar pumped laser energy.

MEMS based jets and rockets have been around for over a decade. These
are developed into propulsive skins that encase a vehicle in highly
safe reliable and controllable propulsion of high efficiency. Laser
energy beamed from space provides unlimited energy. This makes
possible aircraft and spacecraft of tremendous capabilities.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyM...V2005_3650.pdf
http://www.vbox7.com/play:63c5ddf8

This provides privately owned, personal ballistic transport to
everyone on Earth and gives everyone low cost access to orbit.

On Jun 7, 8:30*am, William Mook wrote:
William Mook wrote:
The USA could develop a power network around the satellite
systems I've described. *With that the US could then develop
widespread ballistic transport, and then using low cost space
access deploy large networks of communications satellites.
Beyond that, harvest materials from the asteroid belt to feed a
growing off-world infrastructure to meet global material needs
using telerobotics and telecommunications. * We could have this
in place in less than 10 years.

William,

When you make claims such as these to the various relevant financial,
industrial, and government players they surely don't take your word
for all this. Have your claims been discussed in scientific and
engineering circles? If so, where? Has a consensus formed in these
circles that your scheme is realistic and feasible?

I must say that if your claims are all that you say it's surprising
that the only place you see them discussed is on usenet by you.

Jim Davis

* * * *

Global Power Network

Project Echo produced two, large, spherical passive satellites that
were launched in 1960 and 1964.

Echo 1: sphere, 100 ft diameter, 166 lb
Echo 2: sphere, 135 ft diameter, 547 lb

Made of highly reflective mylar inflated by nitrogen at low pressure.
Most of this weight was the inflation mechanism and gas.

In metric terms this was

Echo 1: 30.5 meters diameter, 2,920 sq meter surface area, 75.5 kg,
38.7 sqm/kg
Echo 2: 41.2 meters diameter, 5,321 sq meter surface area, 248.6 kg,
21.4 sqm/kg

Since the area of a sphere is 4x the area of a disc the same size we
have 'collector' areas of 1/4th the numbers given above.

Inflatable solar concentrators have been built. *Air Force Reasearch
Laboratory's CP-1 concentrator is shown here

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_YoCIFkM3GQ8/So...gs/9xdlRaZqd0Y...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...ntrs.nasa.gov/....

Here a 4m x 6m oval massing 20 kg concentrates light 2,400x. * This is
1 sq m per kg.

I have developed a similar device built on a larger scale that acts as
a concentrator to concentrate sunlight to a thin film device operating
at 1,600x solar intensity and achieve 20 sq m/kg. * *The Falcon 1
rocket which lifts 8.6 metric tons to LEO will put up a collector
that's 172,000 sq m in area. *A disk 468 meters in diameter that
intercepts 236 MW of solar energy.

A target satellite that consists of millions of hexagonal MEMS
elements each 750 um across and 708 um thick that self-assemble to
form a disk 11.7 meters in diameter and 708 um thick. *This disc is
only 156.2 kg and is launched with the concentrator.

Each MEMS element contains a sandwich that consists of

1) a high efficiency multi-junction photovoltaic supply connected to
2) a MEMS based free electron laser element using electro-static
structures that act as wigglers capped by
3) a phase conjugate window.

236 MW of sunlight is converted to 125 MW IR laser energy operating in
the 1,000 nm IR 'window' in the atmosphere. *The IR laser energy is
sent simultaneously to 100 receivers on the ground each 4 meters in
diameter each generating 1.25 MW peak output. *These receivers are
made of crystalline silicon and are 98% efficient at converting the
band-gap matched IR laser energy to DC electricity. *They operate 24/7
whenever the sky is clear. *Placed in locations that are largely clear
of clouds, they operate more or less continuously at full power.

The system once it achieves orbit inflates and uses solar sailing
techniques to navigate from LEO to GEO. *At GEO the MEMS disk carrier
is released and unfolds assembling near the focal point. *The
concentrator rotates to maintain the MEMS disk at the focal point.
The MEMS disk moves and rotates to maintain desired power output.
Structured laser light is sensed to provide feedback for active
position control to maintain efficiency. *Light pressure is
manipulated to control orientation and position and maintain orbit,
without use of propellant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUk...?v=jWuL4sZ3ppY

Buyers of receivers pay $1.25 million per receiver and $100 per hour
of operation. ($0.08 per kWh) *8,766 hours per year translate to an
income of $876,600 per year per receiver and with 100 receivers each
satellite generates $125 million in immediate sales and $87.66 million
per year in power sales. *With a life expectancy of 25 years this is
$2,192 million over its useful life. *The revenue discounted at 6.5%
per annum over the 25 years is worth $1,070 million the day it begins
operating.

The development cost of the concentrator and MEMS device is less than
$2 billion. *The recurring cost of each satellite is $200 million.
The cost of the launch on a falcon 1 is $50 million. *$20 million for
the ground stations. *Three satellites of this type are sold to
achieve break even.

So, this is an interesting business model, and the scale of things
needed to do to prove it out are reasonable and achievable in the
private sector.

Once a few satellites were successfully operating two satellites
consisting of the thin film self assembled MEMS devices

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/agi...Qoy6eMAykJ:htt...

Each of the two satellites are 60 meters in diameter. * One solar
sails to GEO. *The other solar sails 3 million km away - to Lagrange
point 1. *There an experiment is done. *To beam the solar energy from
the L1 satellite to the GEO satellite and then reform the beam at GEO
to beam it to two 1.25 MW ground stations.

Success with this program leads to building larger launchers capable
of putting up 695 tons to LEO. *These have been designed in some
detail and are described briefly here;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/E...d-Heavy-Lift-L...

With this sort of launch capability the size of the satellite system
is expanded to 5 km in diameter power levels rise to 10,000 MW and the
PV/FEL 'target' is 125 m in diameter. *8,000 beams at 1.25 MW each are
formed simultaneously and beamed to ground stations. * The value of
the satellite is 80x the earlier satellite. *With reusable launch
hardware, and learning curve effects, costs are only 5x greater.

The dual satellite system is increased in size as well. *Two 600 m
diameter companion satellites each 340 tons are launched into orbit.
One solar sails to GEO, the other solar sails to Jupiter! *Why
Jupiter? *At Jupiter the roving satellite executes a slingshot
maneuver to bring it to zero velocity relative to the sun. *There it
falls into the sun. *At 3.75 million km from the sun, ambient sunlight
is 1,600x what it is on Earth. *The system unfolds and is held in
position by light pressure navigating. *It beams 220,000 MW to its
companion satellite in GEO which is then reformed and sent to 220
million receivers 1 kW each, only a few cm across. *These receivers
may be in motion or stationary.

At this point each satellite launch provides a substantial amount of
power to a substantial number of people. *Today the world consumes 17
trillion watts of energy. *Most of this comes from

28 billion barrels of crude oil
5.5 billion tons of coal
1.1 billion tons of natural gas

which produce over 40 billion tons of CO2 when burned.

ALL this energy may be provided from space using only 77 satellites.
Since burning fuel is notoriously inefficient fewer satellites can do
more useful work than is done with burning fuel. * *Everyone
everywhere consuming energy at the same rate as Americans do today is
supported with fewer than 700 satellites.

In this way as much money can be earned as is earned by the Middle
East Oil Rich Kingdoms ($2.6 trillion per year) and growing to 10x
that figure!

A fleet of five heavy lift launchers described above support daily
launches of satellite pairs. * Two years of launches once things are
set up, puts enough satellites in place to supply the entire world
with abundant low cost solar pumped laser energy.

MEMS based jets and rockets have been around for over a decade. *These
are developed into propulsive skins that encase a vehicle in highly
safe reliable and controllable propulsion of high efficiency. *Laser
energy beamed from space provides unlimited energy. *This makes
possible aircraft and spacecraft of tremendous capabilities.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyM.../play:63c5ddf8

This provides privately owned, personal ballistic transport to
everyone on Earth and gives everyone low cost access to orbit.

While you're at it (alienating each and everyone on Earth), why don't
you tell Japan that they too are idiots?

http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme.../lunaring.html

It seems no matters what, you never like any ideas by others, no
matters what the consequences. Meanwhile, you've delivered less than
squat, and you even refuse to utilize the zero delta-V of Selene L1.

~ BG

On Jun 7, 8:30*am, William Mook wrote:
William Mook wrote:
The USA could develop a power network around the satellite
systems I've described. *With that the US could then develop
widespread ballistic transport, and then using low cost space
access deploy large networks of communications satellites.
Beyond that, harvest materials from the asteroid belt to feed a
growing off-world infrastructure to meet global material needs
using telerobotics and telecommunications. * We could have this
in place in less than 10 years.

William,

When you make claims such as these to the various relevant financial,
industrial, and government players they surely don't take your word
for all this. Have your claims been discussed in scientific and
engineering circles? If so, where? Has a consensus formed in these
circles that your scheme is realistic and feasible?

I must say that if your claims are all that you say it's surprising
that the only place you see them discussed is on usenet by you.

Jim Davis

* * * *

Global Power Network

Project Echo produced two, large, spherical passive satellites that
were launched in 1960 and 1964.

Echo 1: sphere, 100 ft diameter, 166 lb
Echo 2: sphere, 135 ft diameter, 547 lb

Made of highly reflective mylar inflated by nitrogen at low pressure.
Most of this weight was the inflation mechanism and gas.

In metric terms this was

Echo 1: 30.5 meters diameter, 2,920 sq meter surface area, 75.5 kg,
38.7 sqm/kg
Echo 2: 41.2 meters diameter, 5,321 sq meter surface area, 248.6 kg,
21.4 sqm/kg

Since the area of a sphere is 4x the area of a disc the same size we
have 'collector' areas of 1/4th the numbers given above.

Inflatable solar concentrators have been built. *Air Force Reasearch
Laboratory's CP-1 concentrator is shown here

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_YoCIFkM3GQ8/So...gs/9xdlRaZqd0Y...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...ntrs.nasa.gov/....

Here a 4m x 6m oval massing 20 kg concentrates light 2,400x. * This is
1 sq m per kg.

I have developed a similar device built on a larger scale that acts as
a concentrator to concentrate sunlight to a thin film device operating
at 1,600x solar intensity and achieve 20 sq m/kg. * *The Falcon 1
rocket which lifts 8.6 metric tons to LEO will put up a collector
that's 172,000 sq m in area. *A disk 468 meters in diameter that
intercepts 236 MW of solar energy.

A target satellite that consists of millions of hexagonal MEMS
elements each 750 um across and 708 um thick that self-assemble to
form a disk 11.7 meters in diameter and 708 um thick. *This disc is
only 156.2 kg and is launched with the concentrator.

Each MEMS element contains a sandwich that consists of

1) a high efficiency multi-junction photovoltaic supply connected to
2) a MEMS based free electron laser element using electro-static
structures that act as wigglers capped by
3) a phase conjugate window.

236 MW of sunlight is converted to 125 MW IR laser energy operating in
the 1,000 nm IR 'window' in the atmosphere. *The IR laser energy is
sent simultaneously to 100 receivers on the ground each 4 meters in
diameter each generating 1.25 MW peak output. *These receivers are
made of crystalline silicon and are 98% efficient at converting the
band-gap matched IR laser energy to DC electricity. *They operate 24/7
whenever the sky is clear. *Placed in locations that are largely clear
of clouds, they operate more or less continuously at full power.

The system once it achieves orbit inflates and uses solar sailing
techniques to navigate from LEO to GEO. *At GEO the MEMS disk carrier
is released and unfolds assembling near the focal point. *The
concentrator rotates to maintain the MEMS disk at the focal point.
The MEMS disk moves and rotates to maintain desired power output.
Structured laser light is sensed to provide feedback for active
position control to maintain efficiency. *Light pressure is
manipulated to control orientation and position and maintain orbit,
without use of propellant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUk...?v=jWuL4sZ3ppY

Buyers of receivers pay $1.25 million per receiver and $100 per hour
of operation. ($0.08 per kWh) *8,766 hours per year translate to an
income of $876,600 per year per receiver and with 100 receivers each
satellite generates $125 million in immediate sales and $87.66 million
per year in power sales. *With a life expectancy of 25 years this is
$2,192 million over its useful life. *The revenue discounted at 6.5%
per annum over the 25 years is worth $1,070 million the day it begins
operating.

The development cost of the concentrator and MEMS device is less than
$2 billion. *The recurring cost of each satellite is $200 million.
The cost of the launch on a falcon 1 is $50 million. *$20 million for
the ground stations. *Three satellites of this type are sold to
achieve break even.

So, this is an interesting business model, and the scale of things
needed to do to prove it out are reasonable and achievable in the
private sector.

Once a few satellites were successfully operating two satellites
consisting of the thin film self assembled MEMS devices

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/agi...Qoy6eMAykJ:htt...

Each of the two satellites are 60 meters in diameter. * One solar
sails to GEO. *The other solar sails 3 million km away - to Lagrange
point 1. *There an experiment is done. *To beam the solar energy from
the L1 satellite to the GEO satellite and then reform the beam at GEO
to beam it to two 1.25 MW ground stations.

Success with this program leads to building larger launchers capable
of putting up 695 tons to LEO. *These have been designed in some
detail and are described briefly here;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/E...d-Heavy-Lift-L...

With this sort of launch capability the size of the satellite system
is expanded to 5 km in diameter power levels rise to 10,000 MW and the
PV/FEL 'target' is 125 m in diameter. *8,000 beams at 1.25 MW each are
formed simultaneously and beamed to ground stations. * The value of
the satellite is 80x the earlier satellite. *With reusable launch
hardware, and learning curve effects, costs are only 5x greater.

The dual satellite system is increased in size as well. *Two 600 m
diameter companion satellites each 340 tons are launched into orbit.
One solar sails to GEO, the other solar sails to Jupiter! *Why
Jupiter? *At Jupiter the roving satellite executes a slingshot
maneuver to bring it to zero velocity relative to the sun. *There it
falls into the sun. *At 3.75 million km from the sun, ambient sunlight
is 1,600x what it is on Earth. *The system unfolds and is held in
position by light pressure navigating. *It beams 220,000 MW to its
companion satellite in GEO which is then reformed and sent to 220
million receivers 1 kW each, only a few cm across. *These receivers
may be in motion or stationary.

At this point each satellite launch provides a substantial amount of
power to a substantial number of people. *Today the world consumes 17
trillion watts of energy. *Most of this comes from

28 billion barrels of crude oil
5.5 billion tons of coal
1.1 billion tons of natural gas

which produce over 40 billion tons of CO2 when burned.

ALL this energy may be provided from space using only 77 satellites.
Since burning fuel is notoriously inefficient fewer satellites can do
more useful work than is done with burning fuel. * *Everyone
everywhere consuming energy at the same rate as Americans do today is
supported with fewer than 700 satellites.

In this way as much money can be earned as is earned by the Middle
East Oil Rich Kingdoms ($2.6 trillion per year) and growing to 10x
that figure!

A fleet of five heavy lift launchers described above support daily
launches of satellite pairs. * Two years of launches once things are
set up, puts enough satellites in place to supply the entire world
with abundant low cost solar pumped laser energy.

MEMS based jets and rockets have been around for over a decade. *These
are developed into propulsive skins that encase a vehicle in highly
safe reliable and controllable propulsion of high efficiency. *Laser
energy beamed from space provides unlimited energy. *This makes
possible aircraft and spacecraft of tremendous capabilities.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyM.../play:63c5ddf8

This provides privately owned, personal ballistic transport to
everyone on Earth and gives everyone low cost access to orbit.

Jim Davis was only reaffirming what others have been saying all along.

You need to work along with others, but obviously that's next to
impossible.

While you're at it (alienating each and everyone on Earth), why don't
you tell Japan that they too are idiots?

http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme.../lunaring.html

It seems no matters what, you never like any ideas or feedback by
others, no matters what the consequences. Meanwhile, you've delivered
less than squat, and you even refuse to utilize the zero delta-V of
Selene L1, much less the moon itself for anything. That moon/Selene
may as well not even exist, and the same goes for that extremely
nearby other planet, Venus.

~ BG

Something either works or it doesn't.
Something is either practical or it is not.

Blaming me for pointing out obvious problems, errors or
impracticalities doesn't make the problems errors or impracticalities
go away.

Reality is what reality is.

I provide realistic workable solutions based on physics and market
realities.

This is a major benefit.

Proposing unworkable, impractical or erroneous solutions is not.

On Jun 16, 10:26*pm, William Mook wrote:
Something either works or it doesn't.
Something is either practical or it is not.

Blaming me for pointing out obvious problems, errors or
impracticalities doesn't make the problems errors or impracticalities
go away.

Reality is what reality is.

I provide realistic workable solutions based on physics and market
realities.

This is a major benefit.

Proposing unworkable, impractical or erroneous solutions is not.

We each have deductive formulated interpretations and workable ideas,
but those pesky Semites in charge are still not playing along, are
they.

Some of your "unworkable, impractical or erroneous solutions" are
actually worse than mine. Meanwhile we need your green hydrogen
that's dirt cheap, as well as we still need millions of h2o2 tonnes/
year without creating CO2 or anything else toxic.

~ BG

On Jun 17, 2:27*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 16, 10:26*pm, William Mook wrote:

Something either works or it doesn't.
Something is either practical or it is not.

Blaming me for pointing out obvious problems, errors or
impracticalities doesn't make the problems errors or impracticalities
go away.

Reality is what reality is.

I provide realistic workable solutions based on physics and market
realities.

This is a major benefit.

Proposing unworkable, impractical or erroneous solutions is not.

We each have deductive formulated interpretations and workable ideas,
but those pesky Semites in charge are still not playing along, are
they.

Some of your "unworkable, impractical or erroneous solutions" are
actually worse than mine. *Meanwhile we need your green hydrogen
that's dirt cheap, as well as we still need millions of h2o2 tonnes/
year without creating CO2 or anything else toxic.

*~ BG

Blaming others is a way to trick yourself into doing nothing. In
reality, we are free to do whatever we like.

Solutions either work or they don't. Hydrogen from sunlight and water
at $200 per ton delivered is a viable alternative to all our primary
energy needs. Hydrogen peroxide is at best a compact portable power
source meeting at most 1.5% of our energy needs - displacing batteries
which they're better than - in portable applications. Hydrogen
peroxide cannot displace primary fuels or hydrogen since it takes a
primary source to make it (using sunlight for example) and it has far
less energy per unit mass or unit volume than primary fuel (but not so
for batteries which its superior to.)

On Jun 19, 7:17*am, William Mook wrote:
On Jun 17, 2:27*am, Brad Guth wrote:



On Jun 16, 10:26*pm, William Mook wrote:

Something either works or it doesn't.
Something is either practical or it is not.

Blaming me for pointing out obvious problems, errors or
impracticalities doesn't make the problems errors or impracticalities
go away.

Reality is what reality is.

I provide realistic workable solutions based on physics and market
realities.

This is a major benefit.

Proposing unworkable, impractical or erroneous solutions is not.

We each have deductive formulated interpretations and workable ideas,
but those pesky Semites in charge are still not playing along, are
they.

Some of your "unworkable, impractical or erroneous solutions" are
actually worse than mine. *Meanwhile we need your green hydrogen
that's dirt cheap, as well as we still need millions of h2o2 tonnes/
year without creating CO2 or anything else toxic.

*~ BG

Blaming others is a way to trick yourself into doing nothing. *In
reality, we are free to do whatever we like.

Just like yourself, proving that being right and even overly proven as
such doesn't mean squat.


Solutions either work or they don't. *Hydrogen from sunlight and water
at $200 per ton delivered is a viable alternative to all our primary
energy needs. *Hydrogen peroxide is at best a compact portable power
source meeting at most 1.5% of our energy needs - displacing batteries
which they're better than - in portable applications. *Hydrogen
peroxide cannot displace primary fuels or hydrogen since it takes a
primary source to make it (using sunlight for example) and it has far
less energy per unit mass or unit volume than primary fuel (but not so
for batteries which its superior to.)

I have nothing against your green hydrogen. However, I've wanted 70%
h2o2 made as clean and cheap as possible, starting off with 100e6
tonnes/year capacity and moving on up. Produced and sold as 50+% h2o2
for battery usage and most of the rest taken to 98+% grade for use
along with hydrocarbons. Even solid forms of h2o2 or at least frozen
99.5% as h2o2 ice seems doable and perfectly safe.

With h2o2 we wouldn't be using a 6th as much hydrocarbons, and the
burn would always be extremely clean, as well as zero NOx.

~ BG

Hydrogen peroxide is manufactured using the anthraquinone process.
This process is a cyclic operation where the alkyl anthraquinone is
reused.

The Synthesis Loop consists of sequential

(1) hydrogenation,
(2) filtration,
(3) oxidation and
(4) extraction stages

plus a number of ancillary processes.

Since hydrogen peroxide production requires hydrogen and oxygen to
start out with, the cost of hydrogen peroxide will always be higher
than the cost of hydrogen on a weight basis.

Furthermore, since hydrogen peroxide has less energy than hydrogen on
a weight basis, the cost of energy from hydrogen peroxide energy will
always be less than the cost of hydrogen energy.

The cost of hydrogen peroxide is about $1.50 per kg and a kg of
hydrogen peroxide has 2.7 MJ of energy.

A new high-productivity/high-yield process, based on an optimized
distribution of isomers of 2-amyl anthraquinone, has been developed by
Solvay.

In July 2008, this process allowed the construction of a "mega-scale"
single-train plant in Zandvliet (Belgium). The plant has an annual
production capacity more than twice that of the world's next-largest
single-train plant.

An even-larger plant is scheduled to come onstream at Map Ta Phut
(Thailand) in 2011.

http://www.solvaysemiconductor.com/a...470-2-0,00.htm

With my ultra-low cost hydrogen, costs for hydrogen will come down
further.

A ton of hydrogen is needed to make 17 tons of hydrogen peroxide.

H2 + O2 -- H2O2
2 32 34

Oxygen comes from air, so cost of hydrogen dominates.

A ton of hydrogen contains 143 Giga-Joules of energy.

A ton of hydrogen peroxide contains 2.7 Giga-Joules of energy at 100%
concentration.

Using a ton of hydrogen to make 17 tons of hydrogen peroxide leaves
you with 45.9 giga-joules of energy after starting out with 143 giga-
joules of energy. If we make hydrogen by electrolyzing water, we
start with 220 giga-joules of energy.

Today hydrogen costs $2,500 per metric ton when made from Natural
Gas. I sell it for less than $800 per metric ton made from sunlight
and water. So, costs will be 1/3 as much as they are today once I
have low cost hydrogen available on a large scale.

System Cost Energy Density

NiMH Battery $10.00/kg 0.4 Mega-Joules/kg

Hydrogen-peroxide $1.50 / kg 2.7 Mega-Joules/kg
($0.50/kg with low cost hydrogen)

Gallon of Gasoline $3.00/ gal 125 Mega-Joules/gal (46.4 MJ/kg)

Hydrogen $2.50/ kg 143 Mega-Joules/kg
($0.60/kg with low cost hydrogen)

You can see that hydrogen is a better value than gasoline as an energy
source. You can also see that hydrogen peroxide is a better value as
an energy source than batteries.

Hydrogen peroxide is not a better energy source than hydrogen or
gasoline.

Even so, a hydrogen peroxide automobile can be made and it makes more
sense than a battery powered automobile.

A hybrid whose generator is run with a steam turbine powered by
hydrogen peroxide is perfectly doable. It can be re filled with
hydrogen peroxide made in the home from air and water - using
electricity from the grid.

A 72 mpg gasoline hybrid engine would be replaced with a 6 mpg
hydrogen peroxide steam turbine engine. A 300 mile range requires a
50 gallon capacity.

Each gallon of hydrogen peroxide constains 10.8 mega-joules of
energy. This requires 8 ounces of hydrogen made from a half gallon of
water using 14.4 kWh of electricity. At $0.10 per kWh this is $1.44
per gallon of hydrogen peroxide. Over 20 cents per mile fuel costs.

Refilling every 6 days on average (18,000 miles per year driving)
means 1 gallon must be made every 2.8 hours. This is 5.2 kW - 6x what
a typical home uses.

This is far less costly than a Tesla, more costly than a Toyota.

On Jun 20, 1:14*pm, William Mook wrote:
Hydrogen peroxide is manufactured using the anthraquinone process.
This process is a cyclic operation where the alkyl anthraquinone is
reused.

The Synthesis Loop consists of sequential

(1) hydrogenation,
(2) filtration,
(3) oxidation and
(4) extraction stages

plus a number of ancillary processes.

Since hydrogen peroxide production requires hydrogen and oxygen to
start out with, the cost of hydrogen peroxide will always be higher
than the cost of hydrogen on a weight basis.

Furthermore, since hydrogen peroxide has less energy than hydrogen on
a weight basis, the cost of energy from hydrogen peroxide energy will
always be less than the cost of hydrogen energy.

The cost of hydrogen peroxide *is about $1.50 per kg and a kg of
hydrogen peroxide has 2.7 MJ of energy.

A new high-productivity/high-yield process, based on an optimized
distribution of isomers of 2-amyl anthraquinone, has been developed by
Solvay.

In July 2008, this process allowed the construction of a "mega-scale"
single-train plant in Zandvliet (Belgium). The plant has an annual
production capacity more than twice that of the world's next-largest
single-train plant.

An even-larger plant is scheduled to come onstream at Map Ta Phut
(Thailand) in 2011.

http://www.solvaysemiconductor.com/a...,,14470-2-0,00...

With my ultra-low cost hydrogen, costs for hydrogen will come down
further.

A ton of hydrogen is needed to make 17 tons of hydrogen peroxide.

* H2 + O2 -- *H2O2
* *2 * * 32 * * * * * 34

Oxygen comes from air, so cost of hydrogen dominates.

A ton of hydrogen contains 143 Giga-Joules of energy.

A ton of hydrogen peroxide contains 2.7 Giga-Joules of energy at 100%
concentration.

Using a ton of hydrogen to make 17 tons of hydrogen peroxide leaves
you with 45.9 giga-joules of energy after starting out with 143 giga-
joules of energy. * If we make hydrogen by electrolyzing water, we
start with 220 giga-joules of energy.

Today hydrogen costs $2,500 per metric ton when made from Natural
Gas. *I sell it for less than $800 per metric ton made from sunlight
and water. * So, costs will be 1/3 as much as they are today once I
have low cost hydrogen available on a large scale.

System * * * * * * * * Cost * * * * * * * Energy Density

NiMH Battery * * * * $10.00/kg * * *0.4 Mega-Joules/kg

Hydrogen-peroxide $1.50 / kg * * 2.7 Mega-Joules/kg
($0.50/kg with low cost hydrogen)

Gallon of Gasoline *$3.00/ gal * *125 Mega-Joules/gal (46.4 MJ/kg)

Hydrogen * * * * * * * *$2.50/ kg * * *143 Mega-Joules/kg
($0.60/kg with low cost hydrogen)

You can see that hydrogen is a better value than gasoline as an energy
source. *You can also see that hydrogen peroxide is a better value as
an energy source than batteries.

Hydrogen peroxide is not a better energy source than hydrogen or
gasoline.

Even so, a hydrogen peroxide automobile can be made and it makes more
sense than a battery powered automobile.

A hybrid whose generator is run with a steam turbine powered by
hydrogen peroxide is perfectly doable. *It can be re filled with
hydrogen peroxide made in the home from air and water - using
electricity from the grid.

A 72 mpg gasoline hybrid engine would be replaced with a 6 mpg
hydrogen peroxide steam turbine engine. * *A 300 mile range requires a
50 gallon capacity.

Each gallon of hydrogen peroxide constains 10.8 mega-joules of
energy. *This requires 8 ounces of hydrogen made from a half gallon of
water using 14.4 kWh of electricity. *At $0.10 per kWh this is $1.44
per gallon of hydrogen peroxide. *Over 20 cents per mile fuel costs.

Refilling every 6 days on average (18,000 miles per year driving)
means 1 gallon must be made every 2.8 hours. *This is 5.2 kW - 6x what
a typical home uses.

This is far less costly than a Tesla, more costly than a Toyota.

The world as is needs a cheaper and better volume resource of 100e6
tonnes worth of HTP, and that's because of its daily consumption and
multiple uses as is that need to be expanded from 10e6 tonnes/year
100e6 tonnes/year. Is there something about this fundamental global
need for h2o2 that you still do not understand?

If you were in charge, would you outlaw the use of h2o2? (or somehow
replace it with your LH2/H2?)

Your green hydrogen that's 100% solar produced and thus relatively
renewable and dirt cheap is a terrific energy substance for some
future date, however as is it's nearly worthless because of its
complex and bulky storage requirements, plus similar or worse
transporting and/or distribution considerations, and its end-usage is
simply so limited to zelch, other than for underground mining, spendy
fuel cells and rocket fuel. Unlike HTP, there's almost no existing
commercial and consumer needs or the necessary logistics
infrastructure for accommodating your LH2 or H2. No doubt 50 years
from now when you're in charge because most everyone else is near
death and/or broke from hydrocarbon wars, whereas that LH2 and H2
logistics and all of its usage infrastructure will certainly exist for
those of that next generation w/o affordable hydrocarbons or Mook.

Do you have some secret plans for immortality, that'll keep your body
and mind going strong, long enough after Big Energy has imploded?

At least HTP can be reasonably stored for multiple long-term on-demand
usages as is, and there's already dozens of existing and essential
applications besides rocket fuel.

btw; why do you always methodically exclude HTP w/hydrocarbons, as
energy applications that'll always deliver the most clean bang per kg,
as well as per given volume or density, and without converting
atmosphere in NOx?

Here I thought you were the smart one.

~ BG

On Jun 20, 6:18*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:14*pm, William Mook wrote:



Hydrogen peroxide is manufactured using the anthraquinone process.
This process is a cyclic operation where the alkyl anthraquinone is
reused.

The Synthesis Loop consists of sequential

(1) hydrogenation,
(2) filtration,
(3) oxidation and
(4) extraction stages

plus a number of ancillary processes.

Since hydrogen peroxide production requires hydrogen and oxygen to
start out with, the cost of hydrogen peroxide will always be higher
than the cost of hydrogen on a weight basis.

Furthermore, since hydrogen peroxide has less energy than hydrogen on
a weight basis, the cost of energy from hydrogen peroxide energy will
always be less than the cost of hydrogen energy.

The cost of hydrogen peroxide *is about $1.50 per kg and a kg of
hydrogen peroxide has 2.7 MJ of energy.

A new high-productivity/high-yield process, based on an optimized
distribution of isomers of 2-amyl anthraquinone, has been developed by
Solvay.

In July 2008, this process allowed the construction of a "mega-scale"
single-train plant in Zandvliet (Belgium). The plant has an annual
production capacity more than twice that of the world's next-largest
single-train plant.

An even-larger plant is scheduled to come onstream at Map Ta Phut
(Thailand) in 2011.

http://www.solvaysemiconductor.com/a...,,14470-2-0,00...

With my ultra-low cost hydrogen, costs for hydrogen will come down
further.

A ton of hydrogen is needed to make 17 tons of hydrogen peroxide.

* H2 + O2 -- *H2O2
* *2 * * 32 * * * * * 34

Oxygen comes from air, so cost of hydrogen dominates.

A ton of hydrogen contains 143 Giga-Joules of energy.

A ton of hydrogen peroxide contains 2.7 Giga-Joules of energy at 100%
concentration.

Using a ton of hydrogen to make 17 tons of hydrogen peroxide leaves
you with 45.9 giga-joules of energy after starting out with 143 giga-
joules of energy. * If we make hydrogen by electrolyzing water, we
start with 220 giga-joules of energy.

Today hydrogen costs $2,500 per metric ton when made from Natural
Gas. *I sell it for less than $800 per metric ton made from sunlight
and water. * So, costs will be 1/3 as much as they are today once I
have low cost hydrogen available on a large scale.

System * * * * * * * * Cost * * * * * * * Energy Density

NiMH Battery * * * * $10.00/kg * * *0.4 Mega-Joules/kg

Hydrogen-peroxide $1.50 / kg * * 2.7 Mega-Joules/kg
($0.50/kg with low cost hydrogen)

Gallon of Gasoline *$3.00/ gal * *125 Mega-Joules/gal (46.4 MJ/kg)

Hydrogen * * * * * * * *$2.50/ kg * * *143 Mega-Joules/kg
($0.60/kg with low cost hydrogen)

You can see that hydrogen is a better value than gasoline as an energy
source. *You can also see that hydrogen peroxide is a better value as
an energy source than batteries.

Hydrogen peroxide is not a better energy source than hydrogen or
gasoline.

Even so, a hydrogen peroxide automobile can be made and it makes more
sense than a battery powered automobile.

A hybrid whose generator is run with a steam turbine powered by
hydrogen peroxide is perfectly doable. *It can be re filled with
hydrogen peroxide made in the home from air and water - using
electricity from the grid.

A 72 mpg gasoline hybrid engine would be replaced with a 6 mpg
hydrogen peroxide steam turbine engine. * *A 300 mile range requires a
50 gallon capacity.

Each gallon of hydrogen peroxide constains 10.8 mega-joules of
energy. *This requires 8 ounces of hydrogen made from a half gallon of
water using 14.4 kWh of electricity. *At $0.10 per kWh this is $1.44
per gallon of hydrogen peroxide. *Over 20 cents per mile fuel costs.

Refilling every 6 days on average (18,000 miles per year driving)
means 1 gallon must be made every 2.8 hours. *This is 5.2 kW - 6x what
a typical home uses.

This is far less costly than a Tesla, more costly than a Toyota.

The world as is needs a cheaper and better volume resource of 100e6
tonnes worth of HTP, and that's because of its daily consumption and
multiple uses as is that need to be expanded from 10e6 tonnes/year
100e6 tonnes/year. *Is there something about this fundamental global
need for h2o2 that you still do not understand?

If you were in charge, would you outlaw the use of h2o2? (or somehow
replace it with your LH2/H2?)

Your green hydrogen that's 100% solar produced and thus relatively
renewable and dirt cheap is a terrific energy substance for some
future date, however as is it's nearly worthless because of its
complex and bulky storage requirements, plus similar or worse
transporting and/or distribution considerations, and its end-usage is
simply so limited to zelch, other than for underground mining, spendy
fuel cells and rocket fuel. Unlike HTP, there's almost no existing
commercial and consumer needs or the necessary logistics
infrastructure for accommodating your LH2 or H2. *No doubt 50 years
from now when you're in charge because most everyone else is near
death and/or broke from hydrocarbon wars, whereas that LH2 and H2
logistics and all of its usage infrastructure will certainly exist for
those of that next generation w/o affordable hydrocarbons or Mook.

Do you have some secret plans for immortality, that'll keep your body
and mind going strong, long enough after Big Energy has imploded?

At least HTP can be reasonably stored for multiple long-term on-demand
usages as is, and there's already dozens of existing and essential
applications besides rocket fuel.

btw; *why do you always methodically exclude HTP w/hydrocarbons, as
energy applications that'll always deliver the most clean bang per kg,
as well as per given volume or density, and without converting
atmosphere in NOx?

Here I thought you were the smart one.

*~ BG

The world uses energy at a 17 trillion watt rate. This consists
primarily of 28.8 billion barrels of oil, 5.5 billion tons of coal,
and 1.1 billion tons of natural gas providing the bulk of this
energy.

Hydrogen peroxide has relatively strong oxidizing property, so it is
widely used in papermaking, and also in chemical industries such as
textiles, pesticides, medicines, as well as washing. Although hydrogen
peroxide is fairly stable in an acid environment, it is not suitable
for long-distance transport due to its corrosive nature.

At present, the global production capacity of hydrogen peroxide is
highly concentrated and mainly controlled by seven large-scale
enterprises, among which Solvay, Evonik Degussa and Arkema are the top
three.

There are 45 companies including many key and niche players worldwide.

Total market size for hydrogen peroxide is 5 million tons. To
supply energy at a 17 trillion watt rate from hydrogen peroxide which
onlly contains 2.7 Giga-Joules per ton requires the production of
198.7 billion tons of hydrogen peroxide. An increase of 39,740x

Can we do it?

Not with conventional sources of energy.

Hydrogen peroxide is made by combining hydrogen and oxygen

H2 + O2 -- H2O2
2 32 34

So, each ton of hydrogen peroxide requires 1/17th ton of hydrogen.
This is obtained from the shift reaction of methane (natural gas);

CH4 + 2 H2O -- 4 H2 + CO2
16 36 8 44

So, each ton of hydrogen peroxide requires 2/17th ton of natural gas
and produces 11/34th ton of CO2.

Since we only produce 1.1 billion tons of natural gas each year, at
most humanity can produce 9.35 billion tons of hydrogen peroxide. We
need 21.25x more. And the shift reaction produces CO2 every bit as
much as natural gas. Also, since 6.54 MJ of natural gas are consumes
for every 2.7 MJ of hydrogen peroxide produced, this is a waste of
over half the energy contained in the gas - doubling CO2 footprint for
a given energy usage.

We could produce hydrogen using solar energy and water on a massive
scale, and then use that hydrogen to make hydrogen peroxide, but since
1/17th ton of hydrogen contains 8.4 Giga-Joules of energy while the 1
ton of hydrogen peroxide it can make only contains 2.7 giga-joules of
energy, it makes more sense to use the hydrogen directly since we get
nearly 3x as much energy out of it that way.

At the present time the quickest way to reduce emissions while
building a substantial market for hyrogen infrastructure, is to burn
hydrogen in stationary applications, with gaseous hydrogen delivered
to these stationary locations via hydrogen pipeline, and then improve
the low-rank fuels stranded by this process with more hydrogen,
producing higher rank hydro-carbon fuels in the process. This lets us
reduce the cost of oil, which take wells out of production, and then,
we can reduce low rank fuel production as we increase hydrogen
production.

The 5.5 billion tons of coal is therefore easily replaced 897 million
tons of hydrogen made from sunlight and water. The 1.1 billion tons
of natural gas is replaced by 431 million tons of hydrogen. In the
process 23.2 billion tons of CO2 are avoided. An additional 458
million tons of hydrogen is combined with the stranded coal to produce
34.1 billion barrels of synfuels using the Bergius Process. The
natural gas is converted to 7 billion barrels of synfuels using the
Mobil Process. The low-rank crude oil is converted to 12 billion
barrels of synfuels using the Shell process. A total of 53.1 billion
barrels of liquid fuels fully displaces our current usage of 28.8
billion barrels of oil annually, and puts the oil companies out of
business - and gives us control of the coal and natural gas markets as
well while capturing all the profits of the energy companies.

To summarize;

1,400 million tons of solar hydrogen displaces all primary fuels
while reducing costs of those fuels and capturing a multi-trillion
dollar energy market.

11,690 million tons of solar hydrogen creates 198,700 million tons of
hydrogen peroxide to replace all energy forms with this caustic
liquid, requiring the conversion of all energy using equipment to the
use of this liquid.

Hydrogen peroxide can be used with MEMS and minature easily
constructed turbines to generate electricity on demand very
compactly. Since its energy density is 8x that of batteries and its
price is 1/10th the price of batteries, replacement of batteries with
hydrogen peroxide is compelling. The use of hydrogen peroxide on a
larger scale is not quite as compelling for the reasons stated.


Batteries are a $50 billion market. Secondary (rechargable) batteries
are a $7 billion market.

The largest uses of batteries are;

1,000 million cells - cell phones
600 million cells - Power Tools
400 million cells - PC
300 million cells - cordless phones

A MEMS based 'charger' that plugs into the wall to produce hydrogen
peroxide from air and water is possible - making a long life MEMs
power unit possible.

The battery for my laptop is;

Chemistry: Li-ion
Volt: 10.8V
Capacity: 6600mAh
Net Weight: 533.00 g
Dimension: 167.10 x 120.70 x 14.05 mm

This stores 256.6 kilojoules of energy.

A liter of hydrogen peroxide contains 2,900 kilojoules of energy.
Converted with 40% efficiency to electricity in a steam turbine
produces 1,160 kilojoules of electrical energy. So, 221.2 cc of
hydrogen peroxide are needed to equal the performance of the battery
described above.

14.05 x 120.70 x 130.44 mm tank contains 221.2 cc of H2O2. This
leaves 14.05 x 120.70 x 36.66 mm volume for the MEMS turbine generator
and other machinery. The resulting device will likely weigh 40% less
as well.

At $1.50 per kg - $0.35 per charge - by replacing the tank every 4
hours.

Tanks may be purchased pre-filled, or placed in a charging station to
be refilled as described with power from the grid.