SPS vs. solar/wind/hydrogen debate (Long Post)

I have partially read your article (and saved it for future reference) and
it appears to reference a lot of very useful data on solar and wind power
as well as SPS. What bothers me is the assumption that environmentalists
are anti-space, anti-technology, and anti-SPS. I have a very strong
interest in space, and an equally strong interest in environmental issues
and do not find them in serious conflict. I don't know is SPS will turn
out to be a useful form of energy but I support the research that would
help us determine if it would be the case.

-- Larry

TangoMan wrote:
(I'm looking for info, links and criticism to strengthen the case of SPS vs.
terrestrial solar and wind power that I present below so I appeal to the
resident experts who frequent this group.

I've just finished a debate on this over at the SSI Yahoo!Group. Rather than
do this again I'd rather have a thread of debate that I can direct
environmentalists to.

I acknowledge that limited solar/wind implementation is beneficial but the
environmentalist position I'm arguing against is total solar/wind/hydrogen
and no electrical grid.

For those who have the stamina to digest this tome, I'd appreciate comments
on how to strengthen the case for SPS.)

Thanks, TangoMan

snippitites est

very interessting article - thank you .. !

however:

green != luddite

servus

markus

"Larry Gales" wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.56.0311222322220.2968@homecomps...
I have partially read your article (and saved it for future reference) and
it appears to reference a lot of very useful data on solar and wind power
as well as SPS. What bothers me is the assumption that environmentalists
are anti-space, anti-technology, and anti-SPS. I have a very strong
interest in space, and an equally strong interest in environmental issues
and do not find them in serious conflict. I don't know is SPS will turn
out to be a useful form of energy but I support the research that would
help us determine if it would be the case.

-- Larry

I'm probably catching some environmentalists in a big net that I don't mean
to catch.

Even the fellow I had the debate with doesn't deserve the frustration I'm
characterizing regarding environmentalists, because he's pro-space.

Maybe you've had better luck in the circles you move in, but so many of the
environmentalists I've encountered are part of a bigger philosophical
movement and the environment isn't really at the top of their agenda though
it is the overt symbol of what binds them.

There's something beyond environmental concerns that draws these people into
their social circles. The one's I've sparred with get boxed into a logical
corner when confronted with some environmental solution that still leaves
their "world changing paradigm" unresolved. SPS is an example of that.

Present a hypothetical, doesn't have to be SPS. Give them clean energy in
abundance, for instance, and yet they're still opposed to 'materialism' and
still favor energy conservation, wind power, bicycling, etc.

I'm all in favor of environmental protections, clean air, not raping the
land and the sea for their resources, and thus consider myself attracted to
an environmental message yet I have absolutely nothing in common in my other
views with people who label themselves environmentalists.

Maybe the term 'environmentalist' is too broad. Maybe the term I should be
using for that subset that I'm characterizing in my post, is gaians. Make of
it what you will.

TangoMan

ENVIRONMENTALIST HYPOCRISY TOWARDS THE ENVIRONMENT

Solar Power Satellites are built from orbital resources and thus any mining
and fabricating have absolutely no impact on the Earth's ecology.

To calculate the environmental impact created from the construction of SPS
we'd need to determine how many orbital launches will be required to
establish the mining and refining infrastructure in orbit. Once that is
complete then only a fraction of each SPS will have to be launched from
Earth.

Where do the orbital resources come from if not the moon? If from the
moon, why not use them where they are found?

A detailed reference that compares all forms of terrestial and space
power (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, etc. and SPS,
and LSP (lunar solar power) can be found in the book "Innovative
energy solutions to CO2 Stabilization," 2002, Ch 9 pp 345-410 by D.R.
Criswell

I would like to see an independent peer review of the technical and
cost extimates from this research, which is the result of twenty-five
years of effort. I am thinking of a ~$5-$10 million 1-2 year study.

On 23 Nov 2003 05:16:12 -0800, (Gary Heidenreich)
wrote:

Where do the orbital resources come from if not the moon? If from the
moon, why not use them where they are found?

Asteroid resources have a lower energy cost to obtain and use, but
take longer to reach the mining/refining/construction sites.

Lunar-based solar power is plagued by the same restrictions as
terrestrial solar power. Namely, the sun shines on a given area for
only a certain amount of time. On earth, the amount of time varies
from a 50/50 split of daylight/night, to a few hours of daylight...
the moons' cycle is 2 weeks of light, and two weeks of darkness.
Unless you build your collectors at the poles, you're not going to get
any benefit. This could be done... but as power demand increases, and
you add more collector area to the site, you're *eventually* going to
reach a point where the new collectors you install are going to be
only partially illuminated.

Then there's the question of aiming the power beams. The earth
rotates faster than the moon orbits, so you can't aim your
transmission beam at a fixed point on the earth. In order to get the
power from the moon to the earth, you'd need a series of relay
satellites in GSO, to transfer the beam to your rectenna site. Why
not just collect the solar energy in GSO, and beam it down directly?

(Len Lekx) wrote in message news:3fc0cbd0.843052836@nntp...
On 23 Nov 2003 05:16:12 -0800, (Gary Heidenreich)
wrote:

Where do the orbital resources come from if not the moon? If from the
moon, why not use them where they are found?

Asteroid resources have a lower energy cost to obtain and use, but
take longer to reach the mining/refining/construction sites.

Lunar-based solar power is plagued by the same restrictions as
terrestrial solar power. Namely, the sun shines on a given area for
only a certain amount of time. On earth, the amount of time varies
from a 50/50 split of daylight/night, to a few hours of daylight...
the moons' cycle is 2 weeks of light, and two weeks of darkness.
Unless you build your collectors at the poles, you're not going to get
any benefit. This could be done... but as power demand increases, and
you add more collector area to the site, you're *eventually* going to
reach a point where the new collectors you install are going to be
only partially illuminated.

That is absolutely true. The questions are where to find the "fuel"
and what is the ultimate costs of this "fuel" and its transformation
into electric power delivered to earth.


Then there's the question of aiming the power beams. The earth
rotates faster than the moon orbits, so you can't aim your
transmission beam at a fixed point on the earth. In order to get the
power from the moon to the earth, you'd need a series of relay
satellites in GSO, to transfer the beam to your rectenna site. Why
not just collect the solar energy in GSO, and beam it down directly?

Good, valid questions. To supply the earth with 20 TWe in ~ 2050
would be an enormous undertaking. The reference I gave is itself only
a 60 page summary of many years of work by many people; it maintains
that the cheapest and most mass efficient way to achieve 20 TWe is
using lunar solar power. I quote from section 9.4

"LSP does not have the mechanical directness of SSPS. To achieve the
lowest cost of energy the LSP system needs microware orbital
redirectors about the earth. Compared to an SSPS the specific-mass of
beam redirectors can be very low for the power they project to the
rectenna. This is because the LSP orbital redirectors can achieve far
higher efficiiency in retransmitting or reflecting microwave than can
an SSPS in converting sunlight into microwaves. Also, the LSP
microwave reflectors can be much smaller in area than an SSPS that
transmits an equal level of power. This is becasue the LSP orbital
unit can be illuminated by microwave beams in space that are more
intense than solar intensity. LSP requires the smallest amount of
equipment and final materials of any of the power systems..."

Many people think terrestial sources (whether oil, gas, coal, nuclear,
solar, biomass, wind, hydro, etc.) are sufficient for at least the
next century and cheaper than off the earth resources. I would like to
believe that but I have doubts, especially if the increase required
for all the world's population is considered.

Some people would like to develop low cost heavy lift reusable launch
vehicles
and put SPS into GEO orbits. If this is the cheapest way to generate
20TWe, I'm all for it.

Unfortunately, I don't see an openness or willinglness in our leaders
to think long term.

On 23 Nov 2003 11:54:47 -0800, (Gary Heidenreich)
wrote:

lowest cost of energy the LSP system needs microware orbital
redirectors about the earth. Compared to an SSPS the specific-mass of
beam redirectors can be very low for the power they project to the
rectenna. This is because the LSP orbital redirectors can achieve far

The masses might be lower, but the aiming and interconnecting would
be a logistical nightmare. Which redirector is collecting the
microwave beam at any given time, and how many others is it passing
through to reach its' intended target rectenna?

higher efficiiency in retransmitting or reflecting microwave than can
an SSPS in converting sunlight into microwaves. Also, the LSP

I don't follow that reasoning. By introducing redirectors (or
reflectors, or whatever design is developed...) you're introducing
another transmission-loss to the system. If you use reflectors,
they'd have to be phase-conjugate to reflect the greatest amount of
energy in an undispersed pattern... and that will probably require an
*active* system to coordinate. *Every* link from generator to
end-user involves transmission losses.

Imagine, for example, that a power-beam from the moon needs to
reach a rectenna on the opposite side of the earth. You beam the
energy to one redirector, which redirects the beam with (say) 95%
efficiency. It goes to another redirector which is directly above the
rectenna, so you lose another 5%. Thus, if only two redirectors are
utilized, you're only receiving 90% of the beamed power. So your
lunar-based generator would have to put out 10% more microwave energy
than an orbiting SPS, in order to attain the same output to the
receiving power-grid. Putting the generator in orbit saves two steps,
and a 10% loss in efficiency.

microwave reflectors can be much smaller in area than an SSPS that
transmits an equal level of power. This is becasue the LSP orbital
unit can be illuminated by microwave beams in space that are more
intense than solar intensity. LSP requires the smallest amount of
equipment and final materials of any of the power systems..."

This makes no sense to me. The solar-to-microwave conversion has
to take place SOMEWHERE, and the solar flux is the same in GEO as it
is on the lunar surface, so lunar-surface solar farms don't seem to
make that much difference, as opposed to a GEO satellite.

believe that but I have doubts, especially if the increase required
for all the world's population is considered.

Not only due to the growth in population, but the demands that the
entire world be brought up to Western levels of use. Nobody wants to
LOWER their standard of living, do they...? :-)

Unfortunately, I don't see an openness or willinglness in our leaders
to think long term.

Absolutely true! Our so-called 'Leaders' can't seem to be able to
plan for any terms longer than the next election. A sad state of
affairs, really...

In article ,
(Gary Heidenreich) wrote:

Where do the orbital resources come from if not the moon?

Well, NEAs. But I agree that the Moon is more likely.

If from the moon, why not use them where they are found?

I see that proposal discussed now and then, but I don't see how it makes
as much sense. The Moon is not at fixed position in the sky, nor does
any point on it receive continuous sunlight, or sunlight from a fixed
direction. All of those problems are avoided (almost completely) by a
satellite in GEO. And it doesn't strike me as substantially harder to
build it there than to build it on the lunar surface.

A detailed reference that compares all forms of terrestial and space
power (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, etc. and SPS,
and LSP (lunar solar power) can be found in the book "Innovative
energy solutions to CO2 Stabilization," 2002, Ch 9 pp 345-410 by D.R.
Criswell

Thank you for the reference, I'll add that to my list. ...Er, I'm
embarassed to say that I can't find this. Would you have an ISBN number?

I would like to see an independent peer review of the technical and
cost extimates from this research, which is the result of twenty-five
years of effort. I am thinking of a ~$5-$10 million 1-2 year study.

Well I certainly would love to see that too.

- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Joe Strout wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Gary Heidenreich) wrote:

Where do the orbital resources come from if not the moon?

Well, NEAs. But I agree that the Moon is more likely.

If from the moon, why not use them where they are found?

I see that proposal discussed now and then, but I don't see how it makes
as much sense. The Moon is not at fixed position in the sky, nor does
any point on it receive continuous sunlight, or sunlight from a fixed
direction. All of those problems are avoided (almost completely) by a
satellite in GEO. And it doesn't strike me as substantially harder to
build it there than to build it on the lunar surface.

A detailed reference that compares all forms of terrestial and space
power (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, etc. and SPS,
and LSP (lunar solar power) can be found in the book "Innovative
energy solutions to CO2 Stabilization," 2002, Ch 9 pp 345-410 by D.R.
Criswell

Thank you for the reference, I'll add that to my list. ...Er, I'm
embarassed to say that I can't find this. Would you have an ISBN number?

I would like to see an independent peer review of the technical and
cost extimates from this research, which is the result of twenty-five
years of effort. I am thinking of a ~$5-$10 million 1-2 year study.

Well I certainly would love to see that too.

- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

I apologize. The ISBN number is listed below.

Related Areas: Earth, Environment & Atmospheric Sciences
Engineering

New titles email
For updates on new titles in:

Earth, Environment & Atmospheric Sciences
Engineering



Cambridge University Press

Innovative Energy Strategies for CO2 Stabilization

Edited by Robert G. Watts
£60.00

July 2002 | Hardback | 468 pages 102 line diagrams 3 half-tones 36
tables | ISBN: 0521807255

In stock | Stock level updated: 21 Nov 17:58 GMT


The vast majority of the world's climate scientists believe that the
build-up of heat-trapping CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to global
warming unless we burn less fossil fuels. At the same time, energy
must be supplied in increasing amounts for the developing world to
continue its growth. This book discusses the feasibility of
increasingly efficient energy use and the potential for supplying
energy from sources that do not introduce CO2. The book analyzes the
prospects for Earth-based renewables: solar, wind, biomass,
hydroelectricity, geothermal and ocean energy. It then discusses
nuclear fission and fusion, and the relatively new idea of harvesting
solar energy on satellites or lunar bases. It will be essential
reading for all those interested in energy issues, including engineers
and physicists (electrical, mechanical, chemical, industrial,
environmental, nuclear), and industrial leaders and politicians. It
will also be used as a supplementary textbook on advanced courses on
energy.

Contributors
Donald J. Wuebbles, Atul K. Jain, Robert G. Watts, Robert J. Lempert,
Michael E. Schlesinger, Susan J. Hassol, Neil D. Strachan, Hadi
Dowlatabadi, Walter Short, Patrick Keegan, Gene D. Berry, Alan D.
Lamont, Robert Krakowski, Richard Wilson, Arthur W. Molvik, John L.
Perkins, David R. Criswell, David W. Keith


Email friend about this title

Contents
1. Concerns about climate change and global warming Donald J.
Wuebbles, Atul K. Jain and Robert G. Watts; 2. Posing the problem
Robert G. Watts; 3. Adaptive strategies for climate change Robert J.
Lempert and Michael E. Schlesinger; 4. Energy efficiency: a little
goes a long way Susan J. Hassol, Neil D. Strachan and Hadi
Dowlatabadi; 5. The potential of renewable energy to reduce carbon
emissions Walter Short and Patrick Keegan; 6. Carbonless
transportation and energy storage in future energy systems Gene D.
Berry and Alan D. Lamont; 7. What can nuclear power accomplish to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Robert Krakowski and Richard Wilson;
8. Nuclear fusion energy Arthur W. Molvik and John L. Perkins; 9.
Energy prosperity within the twenty-first century and beyond: options
and the unique roles of the Sun and the Moon David R. Criswell; 10.
Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect David W. Keith;
Index.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:29:53 -0800, in a place far, far away, Larry
Gales made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I have partially read your article (and saved it for future reference) and
it appears to reference a lot of very useful data on solar and wind power
as well as SPS. What bothers me is the assumption that environmentalists
are anti-space, anti-technology, and anti-SPS. I have a very strong
interest in space, and an equally strong interest in environmental issues
and do not find them in serious conflict. I don't know is SPS will turn
out to be a useful form of energy but I support the research that would
help us determine if it would be the case.

It depends on what kind of environmentalist you are. If you're an
environmentalist who hates humanity and technology (who tend to be
"watermelons"--green on the outside and red on the inside), then
you'll be opposed to any massive clean sources of energy.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: