Dust down those orbital power plans

The Australian Government has, for reasons that have much to do with
politics, and little to do with the environment, decided to throw $Au 10
billion into the bottomless pit that is renewable energy.

Lest it all get turned into yet more solar panels and windfarms, I
invite all comers to submit their plans for orbital power satellites. At
least then we might get some technological advance for our money, even
though I doubt we'd actually see any orbital power.

Sylvia.

On 11/07/2011 10:41 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
The Australian Government has, for reasons that have much to do with
politics, and little to do with the environment, decided to throw $Au 10
billion into the bottomless pit that is renewable energy.

Lest it all get turned into yet more solar panels and windfarms, I
invite all comers to submit their plans for orbital power satellites. At
least then we might get some technological advance for our money, even
though I doubt we'd actually see any orbital power.

Sylvia.

How can a SSPS be more efficient than PV on roofs? Also, it will help
the environment - I'm studying sustainability at the moment for a future
career.

PV isn't the only way of generating electricity. Queensland (an
Australian state) is going to get several 250mW solar thermal power
plants - small by coal standards, but it helps. ST (Solar Thermal)
could also be installed on factory and warehouse roofs for power
production (look up SEGS - Solar Electricity Generating System) for
about half the cost per kW of PV (solar cells); ST is just not as pretty
as PV, especially if the PV is BIPV (Building-Integrated Photo Voltaic).

Also, there is TDP (my favourite subject; that I first learned about on
one of the sci.space groups in 2003) that can economically turn
agriculture and forestry waste into liquid fuels for transport; gas for
heating/electricity production and carbon-rich solids (commonly known as
'bio-char') for soil improvement. A TDP plant can pay for itself in
less than three years - with just the sale of oil at $60/bbl - petrol
(gasoline to Americans) would cost about $0.80 per litre compared to the
current price of $1.30ish.

Now, what's the payback period for an SSPS and how many do we need?

How do we economically get the power down to the users on Earth?

What are the environmental risks of getting the power down to the users
on Earth?

Someone a couple of months ago suggested using laser-powered LV's for
payload to LEO - fine, until you try to find the electricity to power
those HUGE lasers! Those three questions above have never been answered
adequately; please try.

On 11/07/2011 5:33 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 11/07/2011 10:41 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
The Australian Government has, for reasons that have much to do with
politics, and little to do with the environment, decided to throw $Au 10
billion into the bottomless pit that is renewable energy.

Lest it all get turned into yet more solar panels and windfarms, I
invite all comers to submit their plans for orbital power satellites. At
least then we might get some technological advance for our money, even
though I doubt we'd actually see any orbital power.

Sylvia.

How can a SSPS be more efficient than PV on roofs? Also, it will help
the environment - I'm studying sustainability at the moment for a future
career.

Well, it does have the advantage of not being subject to the vagaries of
the weather, and (if not in LEO) is in sunlight for most of the time -
it has no significant night time. The economics of surface PV are
complicated by the need to include the cost of backup generation
capacity (the cost is usually ignored by proponents).


PV isn't the only way of generating electricity. Queensland (an
Australian state) is going to get several 250mW solar thermal power
plants - small by coal standards, but it helps. ST (Solar Thermal) could
also be installed on factory and warehouse roofs for power production
(look up SEGS - Solar Electricity Generating System) for about half the
cost per kW of PV (solar cells); ST is just not as pretty as PV,
especially if the PV is BIPV (Building-Integrated Photo Voltaic).

Solar thermal has some advantage in terms of being able to deliver power
overnight, but still has the limitation that weather can render it
powerless.


Also, there is TDP (my favourite subject; that I first learned about on
one of the sci.space groups in 2003) that can economically turn
agriculture and forestry waste into liquid fuels for transport; gas for
heating/electricity production and carbon-rich solids (commonly known as
'bio-char') for soil improvement. A TDP plant can pay for itself in less
than three years - with just the sale of oil at $60/bbl - petrol
(gasoline to Americans) would cost about $0.80 per litre compared to the
current price of $1.30ish.

Now, what's the payback period for an SSPS and how many do we need?

The payback period depends, among other things, on the price that the
power can be sold for. I rather doubt that the price will ever be high
enough to allow payback. I've only made the suggestion on the basis that
if the money is going to be wasted anyway, it might as well be wasted in
a way that might have some spin-off benefit.


How do we economically get the power down to the users on Earth?

What are the environmental risks of getting the power down to the users
on Earth?

Someone a couple of months ago suggested using laser-powered LV's for
payload to LEO - fine, until you try to find the electricity to power
those HUGE lasers! Those three questions above have never been answered
adequately; please try.


I think the idea was completely debunked anyway, on the grounds that the
proposed numbers were totally wrong.

Sylvia.

On 11/07/2011 6:00 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11/07/2011 5:33 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 11/07/2011 10:41 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:


How can a SSPS be more efficient than PV on roofs? Also, it will help
the environment - I'm studying sustainability at the moment for a future
career.

Well, it does have the advantage of not being subject to the vagaries of
the weather, and (if not in LEO) is in sunlight for most of the time -
it has no significant night time. The economics of surface PV are
complicated by the need to include the cost of backup generation
capacity (the cost is usually ignored by proponents).

It _is_ subject to the vagaries of the weather - microwaves are absorbed
by clouds. Sure, pick a site for the rectenna where there are no clouds
- the same areas where there are no people. Then you have to take into
account the huge line losses (look up "voltage drop") on the power lines.




PV isn't the only way of generating electricity. Queensland (an
Australian state) is going to get several 250mW solar thermal power
plants - small by coal standards, but it helps. ST (Solar Thermal) could
also be installed on factory and warehouse roofs for power production
(look up SEGS - Solar Electricity Generating System) for about half the
cost per kW of PV (solar cells); ST is just not as pretty as PV,
especially if the PV is BIPV (Building-Integrated Photo Voltaic).

Solar thermal has some advantage in terms of being able to deliver power
overnight, but still has the limitation that weather can render it
powerless.

No. When there's no Sun available, the alternative energy source comes
into play - usually natural gas at the moment, but wood gas or another
biomass-derived fuel is used to heat the working fluid - that's why it
works when there's no Sun. That's the main reason for it being less
expensive than PV.



Also, there is TDP (my favourite subject; that I first learned about on
one of the sci.space groups in 2003) that can economically turn
agriculture and forestry waste into liquid fuels for transport; gas for
heating/electricity production and carbon-rich solids (commonly known as
'bio-char') for soil improvement. A TDP plant can pay for itself in less
than three years - with just the sale of oil at $60/bbl - petrol
(gasoline to Americans) would cost about $0.80 per litre compared to the
current price of $1.30ish.

Now, what's the payback period for an SSPS and how many do we need?

The payback period depends, among other things, on the price that the
power can be sold for. I rather doubt that the price will ever be high
enough to allow payback. I've only made the suggestion on the basis that
if the money is going to be wasted anyway, it might as well be wasted in
a way that might have some spin-off benefit.


How do we economically get the power down to the users on Earth?

What are the environmental risks of getting the power down to the users
on Earth?

Someone a couple of months ago suggested using laser-powered LV's for
payload to LEO - fine, until you try to find the electricity to power
those HUGE lasers! Those three questions above have never been answered
adequately; please try.


I think the idea was completely debunked anyway, on the grounds that the
proposed numbers were totally wrong.

Sylvia.


The money isn't going to be wasted; half is going to compensate for
increased power bills from the big power companies that are the main
source of carbon pollution. The other half is to be invested in
renewable energy. This will also encourage the big polluters to improve
things for their existing systems and eventually replace them with RE
(Renewable Energy) systems.

I remind you that we are not the first country to go this route -
Germany announced in May that they are eliminating nuclear power
altogether by 2020 - nine years away. The way they are doing that is to
increase the efficiency of their coal-fired power plants (technology
that can be used here in Australia) and also for more RE.

On 11/07/2011 11:26 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
The other half is to be invested in
renewable energy.

With a carbon price capturing the external cost of carbon emissions,
renewable energy schemes should not require public funds other than for
research and, if it gets that far, proof of concept, neither of which
requires the expenditure of $billions.

Hot rocks may make it on its own given the carbon price, but any money
spent on capitalising solar and wind is, as I said, wasted.

Sylvia.

On 11/07/2011 11:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11/07/2011 11:26 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
The other half is to be invested in
renewable energy.

With a carbon price capturing the external cost of carbon emissions,
renewable energy schemes should not require public funds other than for
research and, if it gets that far, proof of concept, neither of which
requires the expenditure of $billions.

Hot rocks may make it on its own given the carbon price, but any money
spent on capitalising solar and wind is, as I said, wasted.

Sylvia.


You might want to read this: http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/

I agree with government spending on RE, but the tax income from the 'Big
500' will be spent on RE, so industry is paying for RE roll-out.

On 12/07/2011 1:35 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 11/07/2011 11:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11/07/2011 11:26 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
The other half is to be invested in
renewable energy.

With a carbon price capturing the external cost of carbon emissions,
renewable energy schemes should not require public funds other than for
research and, if it gets that far, proof of concept, neither of which
requires the expenditure of $billions.

Hot rocks may make it on its own given the carbon price, but any money
spent on capitalising solar and wind is, as I said, wasted.

Sylvia.


You might want to read this: http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/


It's mostly propaganda.

I agree with government spending on RE, but the tax income from the 'Big
500' will be spent on RE, so industry is paying for RE roll-out.

There may be a clever piece of sleight of hand designed to appease the
Greens without actually spending money. Most of the money is for
"innovative" renewable energy schemes. As long as "innovative" is given
a reasonable meaning, the money won't be paid out to construct more of
the same solar and wind, and indeed may not be paid out at all in the
absence of some real innovation. The latter result may be the
government's intent.

Sylvia.

On 12/07/2011 8:44 AM, Jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia wrote in message
...
The Australian Government has, for reasons that have much to do with
politics, and little to do with the environment, decided to throw $Au 10
billion into the bottomless pit that is renewable energy.

Lest it all get turned into yet more solar panels and windfarms, I invite
all comers to submit their plans for orbital power satellites. At least
then we might get some technological advance for our money, even though I
doubt we'd actually see any orbital power.


This company says $300 million for the first scale demonstrater.
And some $14 billion for the first giga-watt class Space Solar
Power satellite. And all in five years or less. Roughly the same
cost and time needed to build a new nuclear plant.

http://spaceenergy.com/

Maybe I've missed it in the limited time I've spent looking for it on
the site, but I couldn't find even a rough analysis of the projected
costs. Even the most gullible guardians of public funds would likely be
suspicious of claims that have no supporting analysis whatsoever.

Sylvia.

On Jul 10, 5:41*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
The Australian Government has, for reasons that have much to do with
politics, and little to do with the environment, decided to throw $Au 10
billion into the bottomless pit that is renewable energy.

Lest it all get turned into yet more solar panels and windfarms, I
invite all comers to submit their plans for orbital power satellites. At
least then we might get some technological advance for our money, even
though I doubt we'd actually see any orbital power.

Sylvia.

First, super-insulated houses for all then everything else.

Then more efficient lighting, frigs, etc.

Then a better grid with storage such as compressed air or molten
sodium to drive generation when renewables are set, not blowing,
or not sloshing.

Don't forget geothermal by way of injection into dry wells that
might be possible as well.

Orbital power looks like an attractive target or perhaps a likely
target for orbital crap left over from creation given it's going to up
forever so to speak.

Then again it might work to have space power....................Trig

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...

http://spaceenergy.com/

Maybe I've missed it in the limited time I've spent looking for it on the
site, but I couldn't find even a rough analysis of the projected costs.
Even the most gullible guardians of public funds would likely be
suspicious of claims that have no supporting analysis whatsoever.


It's found on the TedX video on the left side of the homepage.
The estimates are at about minute 13 of the video. Except for the
silly stats about energy needs around the year 2100, it points out
very well all the various niches SSP should have a l l to itself.
There's plenty of markets out there for energy that travels as well
as SSP.

In particular, it's the only solar power source that can be directly
plugged into baseload power grids, terrestrial solar and most
green sources can't add to the grid, only reduce demand.
Not a small point.

Here's the direct link
http://spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation


Sylvia.