Comments on: Solar Power From Outer Space Could Reduce Fossil Fuel Dependence http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/ Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More. Fri, 25 May 2012 14:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Uncle B http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-2762 Uncle B Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:06:35 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-2762 Grandiose! Magnififabolous! "Manhattan Project" scale! and look at the ka-Ka that got us into! a bomb to destroy all mankind, Cowboys! and fission waste we cannot cope with to this day! First, we must try the small. known stuff, and get it right, like the Wind Corridor, and South Western deserts filled with Solar Thermal Power Plants Producing, and perhaps even annexing or renting desert from Mexico for mirrors! Offshore Wind Power, well studied, feasible, and can source enough power for the whole nation, in perpetuity, gets a blind eye? Not spectacular, or risky enough? Dumb-ass Yankee Doodles! Get on with it! Do what you have to do and forget the pie in the sky Bull Shiite! Put your rockets away, they are expensive, low return toys! Build the Wind Turbines, the Solar Mirrors, and the power infrastructures you desperately and most immediately need! Plan them so as they can continue development even through your economic downturns, and so that corporate greed and capitalist's ravenous appetites can't hurt them, through socialist government policies, so they don't collapse in GM(American) style defeat! And, Get on with it! before it is too late! Before we are "Third World" with no means to proceed - we may be too late already! Most American capital has fled our shores to Asia, to build a new powerful counter-society there,with capital earned and having sweat equity here! stolen by the shyster capitalist uber rich from us for a % ROI, no patriotism involved! We were sucked in by contract, and while we planned "Moon Walks" and depended on depleting Arab oil, instead of Solar, Wind, Wave, Tidal, geo-Thermal and super insulation technologies! Will China do perpetual Solar, Wave, Wind tidal, geo thermal and super insulation projects in practical manner, while we foolishly cavort on Mars, prancing and planting flags on indefensible folly for egomaniac reasons alone? while we try to build "Death Beams" in space to aim at ourselves for power? The dreams of nine year olds? Just how energy starved does America get before it grows up and does the right things? Will we make it or revel in our follies til it is too late? Put down the "Bong" America! Time of reckoning? When the next downturn comes! Soon enough! Grandiose! Magnififabolous! “Manhattan Project” scale! and look at the ka-Ka that got us into! a bomb to destroy all mankind, Cowboys! and fission waste we cannot cope with to this day! First, we must try the small. known stuff, and get it right, like the Wind Corridor, and South Western deserts filled with Solar Thermal Power Plants Producing, and perhaps even annexing or renting desert from Mexico for mirrors! Offshore Wind Power, well studied, feasible, and can source enough power for the whole nation, in perpetuity, gets a blind eye? Not spectacular, or risky enough? Dumb-ass Yankee Doodles! Get on with it! Do what you have to do and forget the pie in the sky Bull Shiite! Put your rockets away, they are expensive, low return toys! Build the Wind Turbines, the Solar Mirrors, and the power infrastructures you desperately and most immediately need! Plan them so as they can continue development even through your economic downturns, and so that corporate greed and capitalist’s ravenous appetites can’t hurt them, through socialist government policies, so they don’t collapse in GM(American) style defeat! And, Get on with it! before it is too late! Before we are “Third World” with no means to proceed – we may be too late already! Most American capital has fled our shores to Asia, to build a new powerful counter-society there,with capital earned and having sweat equity here! stolen by the shyster capitalist uber rich from us for a % ROI, no patriotism involved! We were sucked in by contract, and while we planned “Moon Walks” and depended on depleting Arab oil, instead of Solar, Wind, Wave, Tidal, geo-Thermal and super insulation technologies! Will China do perpetual Solar, Wave, Wind tidal, geo thermal and super insulation projects in practical manner, while we foolishly cavort on Mars, prancing and planting flags on indefensible folly for egomaniac reasons alone? while we try to build “Death Beams” in space to aim at ourselves for power? The dreams of nine year olds? Just how energy starved does America get before it grows up and does the right things? Will we make it or revel in our follies til it is too late? Put down the “Bong” America! Time of reckoning? When the next downturn comes! Soon enough!

]]> By: Uncle B http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-18419 Uncle B Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:06:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-18419 Grandiose! Magnififabolous! "Manhattan Project" scale! and look at the ka-Ka that got us into! a bomb to destroy all mankind, Cowboys! and fission waste we cannot cope with to this day! First, we must try the small. known stuff, and get it right, like the Wind Corridor, and South Western deserts filled with Solar Thermal Power Plants Producing, and perhaps even annexing or renting desert from Mexico for mirrors! Offshore Wind Power, well studied, feasible, and can source enough power for the whole nation, in perpetuity, gets a blind eye? Not spectacular, or risky enough? Dumb-ass Yankee Doodles! Get on with it! Do what you have to do and forget the pie in the sky Bull Shiite! Put your rockets away, they are expensive, low return toys! Build the Wind Turbines, the Solar Mirrors, and the power infrastructures you desperately and most immediately need! Plan them so as they can continue development even through your economic downturns, and so that corporate greed and capitalist's ravenous appetites can't hurt them, through socialist government policies, so they don't collapse in GM(American) style defeat! And, Get on with it! before it is too late! Before we are "Third World" with no means to proceed - we may be too late already! Most American capital has fled our shores to Asia, to build a new powerful counter-society there,with capital earned and having sweat equity here! stolen by the shyster capitalist uber rich from us for a % ROI, no patriotism involved! We were sucked in by contract, and while we planned "Moon Walks" and depended on depleting Arab oil, instead of Solar, Wind, Wave, Tidal, geo-Thermal and super insulation technologies! Will China do perpetual Solar, Wave, Wind tidal, geo thermal and super insulation projects in practical manner, while we foolishly cavort on Mars, prancing and planting flags on indefensible folly for egomaniac reasons alone? while we try to build "Death Beams" in space to aim at ourselves for power? The dreams of nine year olds? Just how energy starved does America get before it grows up and does the right things? Will we make it or revel in our follies til it is too late? Put down the "Bong" America! Time of reckoning? When the next downturn comes! Soon enough! Grandiose! Magnififabolous! “Manhattan Project” scale! and look at the ka-Ka that got us into! a bomb to destroy all mankind, Cowboys! and fission waste we cannot cope with to this day! First, we must try the small. known stuff, and get it right, like the Wind Corridor, and South Western deserts filled with Solar Thermal Power Plants Producing, and perhaps even annexing or renting desert from Mexico for mirrors! Offshore Wind Power, well studied, feasible, and can source enough power for the whole nation, in perpetuity, gets a blind eye? Not spectacular, or risky enough? Dumb-ass Yankee Doodles! Get on with it! Do what you have to do and forget the pie in the sky Bull Shiite! Put your rockets away, they are expensive, low return toys! Build the Wind Turbines, the Solar Mirrors, and the power infrastructures you desperately and most immediately need! Plan them so as they can continue development even through your economic downturns, and so that corporate greed and capitalist’s ravenous appetites can’t hurt them, through socialist government policies, so they don’t collapse in GM(American) style defeat! And, Get on with it! before it is too late! Before we are “Third World” with no means to proceed – we may be too late already! Most American capital has fled our shores to Asia, to build a new powerful counter-society there,with capital earned and having sweat equity here! stolen by the shyster capitalist uber rich from us for a % ROI, no patriotism involved! We were sucked in by contract, and while we planned “Moon Walks” and depended on depleting Arab oil, instead of Solar, Wind, Wave, Tidal, geo-Thermal and super insulation technologies! Will China do perpetual Solar, Wave, Wind tidal, geo thermal and super insulation projects in practical manner, while we foolishly cavort on Mars, prancing and planting flags on indefensible folly for egomaniac reasons alone? while we try to build “Death Beams” in space to aim at ourselves for power? The dreams of nine year olds? Just how energy starved does America get before it grows up and does the right things? Will we make it or revel in our follies til it is too late? Put down the “Bong” America! Time of reckoning? When the next downturn comes! Soon enough!

]]> By: Paul http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-2761 Paul Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:21:46 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-2761 This project has been on the shelf since the 70s for a good reason, The cost of the 100s of estimated rocket launched required to ship materials and workers alone makes this whole project not viable. If the only advantage it offers is a never setting sun, it will always be cheaper to build solar plants on the ground. This project has been on the shelf since the 70s for a good reason, The cost of the 100s of estimated rocket launched required to ship materials and workers alone makes this whole project not viable. If the only advantage it offers is a never setting sun, it will always be cheaper to build solar plants on the ground.

]]> By: Paul http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-18418 Paul Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:21:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-18418 This project has been on the shelf since the 70s for a good reason, The cost of the 100s of estimated rocket launched required to ship materials and workers alone makes this whole project not viable. If the only advantage it offers is a never setting sun, it will always be cheaper to build solar plants on the ground. This project has been on the shelf since the 70s for a good reason, The cost of the 100s of estimated rocket launched required to ship materials and workers alone makes this whole project not viable. If the only advantage it offers is a never setting sun, it will always be cheaper to build solar plants on the ground.

]]> By: Jim http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-2760 Jim Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:58:37 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-2760 Sounds pretty lossy with the beam down energy dissipating with the square of the distance. Better to hang giant mirrors and do all of the transduction on the ground. Isn’t this just another source of global warming though? Sounds pretty lossy with the beam down energy dissipating with the square of the distance. Better to hang giant mirrors and do all of the transduction on the ground. Isn’t this just another source of global warming though?

]]> By: Jim http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-18417 Jim Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:58:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-18417 Sounds pretty lossy with the beam down energy dissipating with the square of the distance. Better to hang giant mirrors and do all of the transduction on the ground. Isn’t this just another source of global warming though? Sounds pretty lossy with the beam down energy dissipating with the square of the distance. Better to hang giant mirrors and do all of the transduction on the ground. Isn’t this just another source of global warming though?

]]> By: C.RRAJASEKHARAN http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-2759 C.RRAJASEKHARAN Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:30:26 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-2759 I feel that whatever technology we might be looking at,as an alternative source of fuel against fossil fuel,it's worth attempting.May be solar energy could be the key to this.At global level,the U.N. may constitute a fund for funding research and building proto type equipments and satellites which would enable harvest of solar energy from space with minimal loss in transmission and supply to the electricity grid.This is is the crying need for the whole world particularly in the context of rising fuel prices and rapid depletion in fossil fuel.Along side, on a minuscule level we could seriously attempt harvesting efficiently solar fuel or any other alternative power driven mechanism for our transportation needs etc. It could be attempted on a war footing again by resorting to global funding.Let's hope and pray that this becomes a reality as soon as possible. I feel that whatever technology we might be looking at,as an alternative source of fuel against fossil fuel,it’s worth attempting.May be solar energy could be the key to this.At global level,the U.N. may constitute a fund for funding research and building proto type equipments and satellites which would enable harvest of solar energy from space with minimal loss in transmission and supply to the electricity grid.This is is the crying need for the whole world particularly in the context of rising fuel prices and rapid depletion in fossil fuel.Along side, on a minuscule level we could seriously attempt harvesting efficiently solar fuel or any other alternative power driven mechanism for our transportation needs etc. It could be attempted on a war footing again by resorting to global funding.Let’s hope and pray that this becomes a reality as soon as possible.

]]> By: Keith Henson http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-2758 Keith Henson Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:20:13 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-2758 I have been up on power sats since 1975 when the just formed L5 Society presented the concept at the Limits to Growth Conference near Huston. In those days we were expecting to get around the high cost of lifting power sat parts to orbit by using materials from the moon. Didn't work out--partly because the price of oil went down for a few decades. Now that it is back up, people are starting to look again. If you work through the numbers, you can make dollar a gallon liquid fuels with penny a kWh power. The cost of power is at least 5 times too high. Penny a kWh is physically possible if you can get the cost of lifting power sat parts into GEO down to $100 a kg. Does such a low price violate physical laws? No. The cost in energy is only 15 kWh/kg, $1.50 for average consumer power in the US. If we had cable strong enough (and we might get it) a $100 billion moving cable space elevator written off over ten years would get the cost down to $10/kg. The best price expected out of rockets is around $500/kg. If you look at why, it's largely the cost of aerospace hardware and the rocket equation which says you can only deliver one part in sixty of the take off mass into GEO with even the best chemical rockets Ablative laser propulsion takes a lot of energy, but the performance in terms of propellant is excellent. Lasers don't give a lot of thrust and launching from earth with a laser is not easy. But if you combine the high thrust of rockets and a really big laser it looks like sub $100/kg to GEO is within our grasp. How it would work is a fully reusable 300 ton rocket (less than a Boeing 747) would take off every 15 minutes. It would accelerate straight up to about 2.1k/sec and release a 50 ton vehicle, one half payload and the other half propellant for the laser. An 8 GW laser is enough to accelerate the combination to orbital velocity in the 15 minutes before it reenters the earth's atmosphere. If the laser cost $10 a watt, then it would cost $80 billion. But spread over ten years and a 8/10th of a billion kg per year, the cost is only ten dollars/kg. The rocket stage can deliver this payload to sub orbital for well under $50/kg. Considering that the oil bill for the US alone is over $700 billion a year, big as this project is, it might be a bargain. Keith Henson http://htyp.org/Dollar_a_gallon_gasoline hkhenson(at)rogers(dot)com I have been up on power sats since 1975 when the just formed L5 Society presented the concept at the Limits to Growth Conference near Huston.

In those days we were expecting to get around the high cost of lifting power sat parts to orbit by using materials from the moon. Didn’t work out–partly because the price of oil went down for a few decades. Now that it is back up, people are starting to look again.

If you work through the numbers, you can make dollar a gallon liquid fuels with penny a kWh power. The cost of power is at least 5 times too high. Penny a kWh is physically possible if you can get the cost of lifting power sat parts into GEO down to $100 a kg.

Does such a low price violate physical laws? No. The cost in energy is only 15 kWh/kg, $1.50 for average consumer power in the US. If we had cable strong enough (and we might get it) a $100 billion moving cable space elevator written off over ten years would get the cost down to $10/kg.

The best price expected out of rockets is around $500/kg.

If you look at why, it’s largely the cost of aerospace hardware and the rocket equation which says you can only deliver one part in sixty of the take off mass into GEO with even the best chemical rockets

Ablative laser propulsion takes a lot of energy, but the performance in terms of propellant is excellent. Lasers don’t give a lot of thrust and launching from earth with a laser is not easy. But if you combine the high thrust of rockets and a really big laser it looks like sub $100/kg to GEO is within our grasp.

How it would work is a fully reusable 300 ton rocket (less than a Boeing 747) would take off every 15 minutes. It would accelerate straight up to about 2.1k/sec and release a 50 ton vehicle, one half payload and the other half propellant for the laser.

An 8 GW laser is enough to accelerate the combination to orbital velocity in the 15 minutes before it reenters the earth’s atmosphere. If the laser cost $10 a watt, then it would cost $80 billion. But spread over ten years and a 8/10th of a billion kg per year, the cost is only ten dollars/kg. The rocket stage can deliver this payload to sub orbital for well under $50/kg.

Considering that the oil bill for the US alone is over $700 billion a year, big as this project is, it might be a bargain.

Keith Henson

http://htyp.org/Dollar_a_gallon_gasoline

hkhenson(at)rogers(dot)com

]]> By: Keith Henson http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-18416 Keith Henson Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:20:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-18416 I have been up on power sats since 1975 when the just formed L5 Society presented the concept at the Limits to Growth Conference near Huston. In those days we were expecting to get around the high cost of lifting power sat parts to orbit by using materials from the moon. Didn't work out--partly because the price of oil went down for a few decades. Now that it is back up, people are starting to look again. If you work through the numbers, you can make dollar a gallon liquid fuels with penny a kWh power. The cost of power is at least 5 times too high. Penny a kWh is physically possible if you can get the cost of lifting power sat parts into GEO down to $100 a kg. Does such a low price violate physical laws? No. The cost in energy is only 15 kWh/kg, $1.50 for average consumer power in the US. If we had cable strong enough (and we might get it) a $100 billion moving cable space elevator written off over ten years would get the cost down to $10/kg. The best price expected out of rockets is around $500/kg. If you look at why, it's largely the cost of aerospace hardware and the rocket equation which says you can only deliver one part in sixty of the take off mass into GEO with even the best chemical rockets Ablative laser propulsion takes a lot of energy, but the performance in terms of propellant is excellent. Lasers don't give a lot of thrust and launching from earth with a laser is not easy. But if you combine the high thrust of rockets and a really big laser it looks like sub $100/kg to GEO is within our grasp. How it would work is a fully reusable 300 ton rocket (less than a Boeing 747) would take off every 15 minutes. It would accelerate straight up to about 2.1k/sec and release a 50 ton vehicle, one half payload and the other half propellant for the laser. An 8 GW laser is enough to accelerate the combination to orbital velocity in the 15 minutes before it reenters the earth's atmosphere. If the laser cost $10 a watt, then it would cost $80 billion. But spread over ten years and a 8/10th of a billion kg per year, the cost is only ten dollars/kg. The rocket stage can deliver this payload to sub orbital for well under $50/kg. Considering that the oil bill for the US alone is over $700 billion a year, big as this project is, it might be a bargain. Keith Henson http://htyp.org/Dollar_a_gallon_gasoline hkhenson(at)rogers(dot)com I have been up on power sats since 1975 when the just formed L5 Society presented the concept at the Limits to Growth Conference near Huston.

In those days we were expecting to get around the high cost of lifting power sat parts to orbit by using materials from the moon. Didn’t work out–partly because the price of oil went down for a few decades. Now that it is back up, people are starting to look again.

If you work through the numbers, you can make dollar a gallon liquid fuels with penny a kWh power. The cost of power is at least 5 times too high. Penny a kWh is physically possible if you can get the cost of lifting power sat parts into GEO down to $100 a kg.

Does such a low price violate physical laws? No. The cost in energy is only 15 kWh/kg, $1.50 for average consumer power in the US. If we had cable strong enough (and we might get it) a $100 billion moving cable space elevator written off over ten years would get the cost down to $10/kg.

The best price expected out of rockets is around $500/kg.

If you look at why, it’s largely the cost of aerospace hardware and the rocket equation which says you can only deliver one part in sixty of the take off mass into GEO with even the best chemical rockets

Ablative laser propulsion takes a lot of energy, but the performance in terms of propellant is excellent. Lasers don’t give a lot of thrust and launching from earth with a laser is not easy. But if you combine the high thrust of rockets and a really big laser it looks like sub $100/kg to GEO is within our grasp.

How it would work is a fully reusable 300 ton rocket (less than a Boeing 747) would take off every 15 minutes. It would accelerate straight up to about 2.1k/sec and release a 50 ton vehicle, one half payload and the other half propellant for the laser.

An 8 GW laser is enough to accelerate the combination to orbital velocity in the 15 minutes before it reenters the earth’s atmosphere. If the laser cost $10 a watt, then it would cost $80 billion. But spread over ten years and a 8/10th of a billion kg per year, the cost is only ten dollars/kg. The rocket stage can deliver this payload to sub orbital for well under $50/kg.

Considering that the oil bill for the US alone is over $700 billion a year, big as this project is, it might be a bargain.

Keith Henson

http://htyp.org/Dollar_a_gallon_gasoline

hkhenson(at)rogers(dot)com

]]> By: mthomas http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-2757 mthomas Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:56:07 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-2757 Space-Based Microwave Power is the way to go. http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16477 Space-Based Microwave Power is the way to go.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16477

]]> By: mthomas http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-18415 mthomas Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:56:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-18415 Space-Based Microwave Power is the way to go. http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16477 Space-Based Microwave Power is the way to go.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16477

]]> By: Sam http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-2756 Sam Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:33:39 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-2756 Are there any pros/cons to capturing sunlight from above the Earth's atmosphere? Does the atmosphere change the light in a positive or negative way, to make it more or less powerful? Also, a list of points was made by "still_required". To your points about losing power in light transfer over such a great distance - we should keep in mind that we could create a light collection grid the size of Africa (or maybe Rhode Island) in space if we wanted to. No limit on real-estate to build on! Are there any pros/cons to capturing sunlight from above the Earth’s atmosphere? Does the atmosphere change the light in a positive or negative way, to make it more or less powerful?

Also, a list of points was made by “still_required”. To your points about losing power in light transfer over such a great distance – we should keep in mind that we could create a light collection grid the size of Africa (or maybe Rhode Island) in space if we wanted to. No limit on real-estate to build on!

]]> By: Sam http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-18414 Sam Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:33:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-18414 Are there any pros/cons to capturing sunlight from above the Earth's atmosphere? Does the atmosphere change the light in a positive or negative way, to make it more or less powerful? Also, a list of points was made by "still_required". To your points about losing power in light transfer over such a great distance - we should keep in mind that we could create a light collection grid the size of Africa (or maybe Rhode Island) in space if we wanted to. No limit on real-estate to build on! Are there any pros/cons to capturing sunlight from above the Earth’s atmosphere? Does the atmosphere change the light in a positive or negative way, to make it more or less powerful?

Also, a list of points was made by “still_required”. To your points about losing power in light transfer over such a great distance – we should keep in mind that we could create a light collection grid the size of Africa (or maybe Rhode Island) in space if we wanted to. No limit on real-estate to build on!

]]> By: Maury Markowitz http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-2755 Maury Markowitz Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:54:56 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-2755 This stupid idea just never goes away. Fact 1: solar cells are MORE EFFICIENT on Earth than in space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell Estimate 2: solar panel installs on Earth are around $9 per Watt installed. (personal experience) Fact 3: solar panels are about 20 Watts per pound. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=735164&id=3&qs=No%3D40%26Ne%3D35%26Ns%3DPublicationYear%257C0%26N%3D4294967096%2B4294966789 Fact 4: price-per-pound to GEO orbit is around $10,000 or more. http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf Conclusion 1: excluding EVERYTHING else,looking at JUST the cost of transportation means, SPS's will generate electricity at $500 per Watt (10000/20) absolute minimum. Conclusion 2: in order to be competitive, SPSs will need to use transportation systems that are at least two orders of magnitude cheaper. In 50 years of space flight, prices continue to go UP, not down. Conclusion 3: duh! Maury This stupid idea just never goes away.

Fact 1: solar cells are MORE EFFICIENT on Earth than in space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell

Estimate 2: solar panel installs on Earth are around $9 per Watt installed. (personal experience)

Fact 3: solar panels are about 20 Watts per pound.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=735164&id=3&qs=No%3D40%26Ne%3D35%26Ns%3DPublicationYear%257C0%26N%3D4294967096%2B4294966789

Fact 4: price-per-pound to GEO orbit is around $10,000 or more.

http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf

Conclusion 1: excluding EVERYTHING else,looking at JUST the cost of transportation means, SPS’s will generate electricity at $500 per Watt (10000/20) absolute minimum.

Conclusion 2: in order to be competitive, SPSs will need to use transportation systems that are at least two orders of magnitude cheaper. In 50 years of space flight, prices continue to go UP, not down.

Conclusion 3: duh!

Maury

]]> By: Maury Markowitz http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/28/solar-power-from-outer-space-could-reduce-fossil-fuel-dependence/#comment-18413 Maury Markowitz Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:54:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=745#comment-18413 This stupid idea just never goes away. Fact 1: solar cells are MORE EFFICIENT on Earth than in space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell Estimate 2: solar panel installs on Earth are around $9 per Watt installed. (personal experience) Fact 3: solar panels are about 20 Watts per pound. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=735164&id=3&qs=No%3D40%26Ne%3D35%26Ns%3DPublicationYear%257C0%26N%3D4294967096%2B4294966789 Fact 4: price-per-pound to GEO orbit is around $10,000 or more. http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf Conclusion 1: excluding EVERYTHING else,looking at JUST the cost of transportation means, SPS's will generate electricity at $500 per Watt (10000/20) absolute minimum. Conclusion 2: in order to be competitive, SPSs will need to use transportation systems that are at least two orders of magnitude cheaper. In 50 years of space flight, prices continue to go UP, not down. Conclusion 3: duh! Maury This stupid idea just never goes away.

Fact 1: solar cells are MORE EFFICIENT on Earth than in space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell

Estimate 2: solar panel installs on Earth are around $9 per Watt installed. (personal experience)

Fact 3: solar panels are about 20 Watts per pound.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=735164&id=3&qs=No%3D40%26Ne%3D35%26Ns%3DPublicationYear%257C0%26N%3D4294967096%2B4294966789

Fact 4: price-per-pound to GEO orbit is around $10,000 or more.

http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf

Conclusion 1: excluding EVERYTHING else,looking at JUST the cost of transportation means, SPS’s will generate electricity at $500 per Watt (10000/20) absolute minimum.

Conclusion 2: in order to be competitive, SPSs will need to use transportation systems that are at least two orders of magnitude cheaper. In 50 years of space flight, prices continue to go UP, not down.

Conclusion 3: duh!

Maury

]]>