[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', 'H')ow much will the resulting electricity cost considering the $/kliogram to get something into LEO?

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('challenge', 'I')n the abstract of his book "The oil age is over" (2004) of Matt Savinar, the author states

[Devil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('challenge', 'I')n the abstract of his book "The oil age is over" (2004) of Matt Savinar, the author states

[challenge]

Thanks for the reactions so far.

I couldn't find the old archives that mr/mrs Devil refers to, but I am certainly intersted in them.

In the linksuggested by John Denver, it is clear that is spoken to the same technique called SSP. It might be that the article is a bit outdated or following the USGS timeframe of depletion of oilreserves and for that reason is suggesting that the technique still has to wait a long time. The article is of 2000 and the peak oil discussion and the barrelprice have already been going up much higher than inflation index!
I wander, sometimes techniques of influencing earth temperature or building on the moon are suggested but these suggestions always end in a problem of time, technique en especially money (perhaps these suggestions should not be followed, since the SSP technique is called rather simple).
Since te reception of solar radiation in space is 8 times higher then at the earthsurface, it seams interesting to state for several techniques a oilprice horizon, showing which technique is feasible, rather then referrring to possibly overtime articles.

Martien Pieters

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Devil', 'W')here he is wrong is his forecast that it "won't see the light of day for several decades". IMHO, it won't see the light of day, period, full stop, end of story. If you wish my views on beaming electrical energy from space to earth, look through the archives.

[JayHMorrison]

The cost of putting anything is orbit is huge. I think it is something like $10,000 per pound right now. So just from the cost perspective of putting something in orbit, that would seem to make this concept very inefficient. Perhaps if we had a working space elevator the numbers would change. But that is clearly not happening anytime soon.

This entire concept just produces electricity. And it appears we are just discussing a few hundred MW. That is not much electricity.

There is not a shortage of electricity. The issue is more about a shortage of oil/nat gas and it's key use as a transportation fuel and feedstock for chemicals and fertilizers

[challenge]

Well done John Denver,
It could save a lot of time if a good reference is done.
On the site that John has linked to there also is an article "Satellite Data Shows It's Getting Warmer and Wetter"
posted: 01:59 pm ET
28 January 2000that states:

New satellite data shows that Earth's atmosphere has grown warmer and wetter over the past 11 years, with the amount of water vapor increasing 2 percent.

In a study appearing in the January 27 issue of the journal Nature, researchers compared measurements of sea surface temperature, air temperature and humidity from three satellites.

"The three satellites combined provide some of the strongest evidence so far of a climate trend of increasing air temperature and humidity," said Frank Wentz, a physicist at Remote Sensing Systems. "Water vapor is really the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and has a greater influence on global warming than carbon dioxide, but we're not sure whether this increase of water in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in global warming."

Comparing the three data sets showed an expected outcome, according to Wentz and his colleagues: As air temperature increases, the atmosphere is able to hold more water; and as the Earth's global temperature increases, the amount of water in the atmosphere would be expected to increase.

The data came from instruments aboard the Advanced Very High-Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR), the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and a Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSMI).

Wentz cautioned that 11 years is a very short time to observe changes in global climate. The study did not consider any possible human contributions to climate change.

end quote..

I believe that incoming solar radiation through the clouds will be less at the soilsurface in the long run, if more clouds are formed in atmosphere. This could give us extra reasons for the use of extra terrestal/spaceborn techniques like SSP. I used to work regularly with the NOAA/AVNRR satelite and I will ask my former collaegue at the Duth Meteorological Office (KNMI) if after 15 years this may be a general accepted view.

Regards, Martien

[Frank]

There's a lot of things we can do here on Spaceship Earth before we should be worrying about beaming down solar energy from space! It might be worthwhile if the collection factor was improved by a factor of 1,000 or so but 8?! Hardly worthwhile! How would you distribute it? We've got enough problems with the grid as is.

Concentrating solar cells can be used right here on earth with cooling water acting as a source of heat. Some concentrators focus energy on a stirling engine design which doubles conversion efficiency compared to solar cells.

People will have to learn that their standard of living will change, like it or not.

[JayHMorrison]

If we are only talking about a few hundred MW, that could be achieved with a modest conservation effort. Have everyone in the USA unplug their TV when they are not watching it and it would save the equivalent of two Hoover dams worth of electricity.

Phantom power draw is huge. The convienence of having a small current running in our electronics, so that the remote control can turn it on at any time, is a massive amount of electricity when you add up all of our electronics.

[challenge]

Frank,
you are right in some aspects, though in the 1979 proposal of NASA a 5 GW SPS centrals was proposed.
http://www.spaceref.com/redirect.ref?ur ... ml&id=2558
the page is the first form a list of SPS-items on page:
http://www.spaceref.com/directory/futur ... atellites/

At that time the costs of building of these SPS-centrals were rather high. nearely 100 Billion Dollar roughly. In the proposals it seems that a lot of labor had to be done on installing the PV-arrays in space.

You also mentioned that by concentrating of sunarrays a much better performance can be obtained.
It seems to me that using ultra light alluminiumfoil sheets with pneumaticly inflated supports (like in some tents nowadays used) the labor required is really little and the weight of the foilmirror extremely low to carry in the spacecraft. The concentrated sunrays can as you decribe it be used in to PV-cells or in a "stirling engine".

The difference in recieved energy between terrestrial and spaceborne centrals is shown at page 8 of the next publication: http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/pub ... Sept02.pdf
If at you look at the miserable required budget of only 3.1 Million Dollar for SPS research at Nasa (2002), it seems that Nasa is in a deplorable situation nowadays (already).

One other quote from John Mankins, Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies
Office of Space Flight
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
before the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Committee on Science
House of Representatives

on October 24, 1997

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NASA Mankins', 'T')he global markets for energy are real. If the high-risk technologies needed to enable space power systems to be technically feasible are matured, then private sector capitalization of such ventures should be far more viable than could have been dreamed in 1980.

[challenge]

From Liamj I recieved in my private mailbox some interesting new links with SSP-plans in 2004 of Nasa (second link). Liamj also states some questions about SSP that I thougth necessary to discuss in this group.
here we go: Regards, Martien

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', ' ')Hi Martien,

I admit to knowing little about SSP & CSP, but on your recommendation have spent some time looking further into it, via
http://www.wronkiewicz.net/ssp/
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/ ... 212743.pdf
http://www.fpsboard.org/forums/attachme ... jan_05.pdf
http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/

I'm still not convinved there is even potential here. The two questions that immediately sprang to my mind were:
How to keep putting (how many/weight?) satellites up there when rockets run on lots of high quality oil?
What impact will increasing the planets energy input have on climate and and biophysical services? Small e.g., a beam of microwaves would have to have definite heating effect on various layers of atmosphere, locally reducing rainfall.

Neither of these were answered or even adequately addressed by the info I found. If you have any better info on those questions I'd gladly think further. Indeed, if you want to write a decent current summary of tech & hurdles, we at energybulletin.net would happily put online for our readers for their consideration.
Personally I think energy is not our problem, culture is, and more energy would only lead us to more rapid destruction of what little remains. Searching for hightech solutions to cultural/enviro probs has got us this far, but climate chng, crashing fisheries, eroding/salinising/acidifying soils, all point to tech only deferring probs to next generation. I work in very high tech industry, so its hard to admit, but tech is part of the problem, IMHO, not the solution.
Regards
Liam

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', 'P')ersonally I think energy is not our problem, culture is, and more energy would only lead us to more rapid destruction of what little remains. Searching for hightech solutions to cultural/enviro probs has got us this far, but climate chng, crashing fisheries, eroding/salinising/acidifying soils, all point to tech only deferring probs to next generation. I work in very high tech industry, so its hard to admit, but tech is part of the problem, IMHO, not the solution.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', 'T')he cost of putting anything is orbit is huge. I think it is something like $10,000 per pound right now.

[challenge]

John,

I think for this matter it could be intersting to calculate how much it would cost to install say 10 of these SSP's in space. The thing is that always all costs of a series is put in the first instrument. With the high cost for launching and one of the major posts of high launching is loss of the rocket, a reusable rocket could be much more cost-efficient. And I don't believe that it is only intersting for NY, with our actual returns for sustainable energy (wind) in the Netherlands (0.07 - 0.09 Eurocent/kWh), this is at least the double price of top levelprices (peakshaving) in NY.

Martien

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Devil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('challenge', 'I')n the abstract of his book "The oil age is over" (2004) of Matt Savinar, the author states

[EnviroEngr]

Viable short term?

[challenge]

To turn back to the subject. John Denver and I did still have some interesting questions, so I today sent an Email to Lee Mason of the GRC Nasa research center to find out some cost - revenue items on SSP's nowadays.

With a perspective that SSP receives 8 times more sunradiation, works continuously night and day and has enough alternatives to bring it in a low orbit and might perhaps do some peakshaving all over the world, I think politicians should review their 1997 decision. In 1997 US congress decided in favour of bringing man to Mars. But with nowadays prospects on oil reserves and price development as can be read all over the PO forum, a mix of all kind of terrestrial and spaceborn sustainable energy solutions for the near future may be more needed then these Mars experiments.
In the mean time I keep on doing most of my transport by bike (as a lot of Dutch people still do and a lot of chinese used to do).

If there's contact made to Nasa (Houston here!) I will send the information to this site,

Regards, Martien

[challenge]

John, I just checked on the latest NASA news on space transport, since you dicussed with JayHMorrison on putting SSP's in space orbit.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', 'T')he cost of putting anything is orbit is huge. I think it is something like $10,000 per pound right now.

[TrueKaiser]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('challenge', 'J')ohn, I just checked on the latest NASA news on space transport, since you dicussed with JayHMorrison on putting SSP's in space orbit.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', 'T')he cost of putting anything is orbit is huge. I think it is something like $10,000 per pound right now.

[JohnDenver]

A fascinating technology which may ease our energy worries in the future. Some possibilities:

-Focus sunlight onto a small spot on the earth, and use the heat to drive solar furnaces.
-Focus sunlight on the tar sands and melt them so they can be pumped out.
-Gather and transport wasted light (which would never strike the earth anyway) using mirrors, and concentrate it for power generation.

Mirrors in space may seems like an "out there" idea, but they aren't really. There already are many mirrors in space, in spy satellites and the Hubble telescope, for instance.

The Russians have already launched film-based mirrors into space, and illumined the dark part of the earth (i.e. the part where it is night), much as you would light up a spot on the wall with the reflection of your watch. The idea looks like this:




The Znamya 2 was successfully deployed in 1993. "The first illumination from space took place in the early hours before sunrise over Western Europe. A reflected spot of light of about 5 km in diameter traveled at a speed of 8 km/hour from southern France through Switzerland, Germany, Chec. Republic, Poland and disappeared in early sunlight in Byelorussia. Unfortunately, the weather was not favorable in Western Europe that morning due to heavy cloud coverage. Still, many people reported seeing a flash of light, such as a report from a weather station in the German Alps."
http://www.space-frontier.org/Events/Znamya/

In 1999, the Zanmya 2.5 became tangled during deployment and failed, but it did stir up a lot of controversy:

Headlines like: "Russians will attempt to banish night with artificial 'moon'"
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9902/03/space.mirror/

And criticisms: "But the horror that most people must surely feel at any scheme to abolish the night, even in selected areas of the planet, is a much deeper, more basic one. It is not based on practical, scientific or material objections, but is rather a reaction deep down in that ancient part of ourselves that is still tied to nature; to the ancient cycles of the seasons, the rise and fall of the birdsong and the grasses, the primal rhythm of night and day."
http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/newmoon.html

Clearly, any technology which already has the environmentalists horrified is not just some "out there" scheme on the drawing board. It's the ease with which it can be done which makes it so threatening. Furthermore, there is no way the genie is going to go back in the bottle because this technology (space mirrors) has such obvious utility in so many fields. The military is interested in big mirrors, because they can use them to build higher resolution spy satellites and "Star Wars" style missile defence systems. Astronomers are interested, because they want big mirrors for the next Hubble. Even commercial enterprises are interested -- they want to put advertising up there. Yet another idea is to flip the mirrors over, and use them to reflect sunlight away from the planet, thus enabling precise, reversible control of global temperatures.

Now, you may think that Znamya 2.5 failed and the Russians don't have it together, so we've heard the end of all this. But read this, and think again. The Russians are totally dominating the space industry. It is their most succesful export industry, and one of the main reasons is that they are running it as a business. Quick, dirty, reliable and cheap -- they're in it for the money, not the pooftah "science".

Personally, I could care less about the aesthetics. A big MickeyD's moon in the sky would be a small price to pay for a reliable energy source. And the big cities? Why not light them up all night with mirrors? They're already lit-up anyway. Nobody is even outside in the first place in cities like Las Vegas. They're all inside gambling and drinking and watching TV. So what it if it's daytime all the time? Just imagine all the energy you could save by turning out all those lights. It would probably have a powerful anti-crime effect as well. And nocturnal animals... Who cares? I hope we disturb their rhythms because the only nocturnal animals I see in the city (and I live in a big one) is huge rats infesting the garbage bags around 3AM in front of Kentucky Fried Chicken.