> Hello, Victoria,
>
> While Charles raises an important issue regarding frequencies
> assignment, I suspect we will find that the biggest obstacle to SPS is
> the successful introduction of solar power "shingles" at a price that
> many homeowners can afford. These have been on the market for about a
> year.
>

Cost is a completely different issue than Victoria was discussing.
So I have changed the name of this thread accordingly.

I can summarize it like this:

SPS will never compete on price with fossil fuels.

SPS will never compete on price with nuclear power.

1) SPS versus fossil fuels:

Disadvantages / Risks of fossil fuels:
a) big balance of trade defecit to import them
b) reliance on unstable political region of the world
c) hence high military cost to maintain peace on oil producing regions
and defend the energy assetts
d) greenhouse gases and global warming.

SPS could be come viable if the energy consuming nations change their
policies as a result of one or more of the four factors listed above.

2) SPS versus nuclear power.

Disadvantages / Risks of nuclear power:

a) security risk of transporting and storing fissile materials, risk of
terrorist hjaking
b) risk of leakage of radioactive materials from reactors
c) risk of reactor meltdown / explosion (e.g. Chernobyl)
d) security risk of transporting and storing radioactive, risk of
terrorist hjaking
e) risk of leakage of radioactive waste into the biosphere.

SPS could be come viable if the energy consuming nations change their
policies as a result of one or more of the four factors listed above.
Fox example, nuclear power might be made relatively safe in developed
countries, but in undeveloped countries we would see a much higher risk
of accidents, and security problems.

For SPS to become viable, they will have to stop using both nuclear
power and fossil fuels.

After that, we then enter a debate about SPS versus terrestrial
renewable sources (wind, terrestrial solar, etc).

My summary is as follows.

Only one source of terrestrial renewable energy has enough capacity to
supply the world's energy needs, and that is terrestrial solar. The
other renewable sources simply do not have enough capacity.

There are many pros and cons, I can actually imagine a mix of
terrestrial and space solar power, they can service different types of
markets. Here are some interesting numbers which William Mook posted
to Usenet in July 2000:

>
> At the latitudes of North America the Sun during high noon at summer
> radiates about 600 watts per square meter incident radiation normal to
> a surface oriented to the sun. In space there is about 1,370 watts per
> square meter. So, more than half is lost. The space value varies plus
> or minus 15 watts per square meter primarily in the UV region due to
> changes on the surface of the Sun.
>
> Of course in winter months and at sunrise and sunset more energy is
> absorbed by the atmosphere, reducing the amount of power available per
> unit area by half again as much. (only 250 watts/square meter getting
> through!)
>
> And at night and on overcast days, things are worse yet.
>
> In most parts of the US there are between 1500 and 2000 hours of
> sunlight a year. There are 8766 hours in a year. So, about 5/6 to 4/5
> of the time the sun is unsuable. Then add the atmospheric losses and
> you find that 19/24 to 9/10 of the sunlight available per unit area is
> actually available on the Earth's surface.
>
> Tracking the sun in space is much easier than tracking the sun on the
> ground. So, on the ground you don't do that. This limits your
> conversion efficiency so your collector area increases for a given
> pwoer output by an order of 3 or 4. Also, ground based collectors must
> withstand gravity and weather. This triples costs again! So, overall
> a square meter in space can be equivalent to 288 square meters on the
> ground worst case, or 30 square meters best case.
>
> Then, you've got the added inefficiencies and costs of energy storage.
> To take energy and make fuel is not 100% efficient. And to take fuel
> and make energy is not 100% efficient. Furthermore, the equipment to
> do this conversion and storage is not free. Finally, the conversion
> equipment must be sized for peak solar output, so is not as economic as
> it might otherwise be. Assuming 30% efficiencies for each step and a
> doubling again of the capital costs to make fuels of solar power, we
> have another 28.89 fold increase (1/.3 x 1/.3 x 2) meaning solar based
> power requires 832 times the cost on Earth for collector, and energy
> management than an equivalent power in space.

We also need to consider the environmental impact of popular power
storage systems on which terrestrial solar power systems completely
depend, it is actually a very high price. Most commercial batteries,
e.g. NiCd and Lead-Acid, contain highly toxic materials. This
represents a massive toxic waste problem, on the same scale of dealing
with nuclear waste.

However, the numbers above are not complete. They ignore two more
things: 1) the transmission losses of SPS and 2) launch costs for SPS

Here is a nice summary of the SPS losses presented by Tom Musgave to
this SSI list in June 2001:

DC to RF 0.85
Antenna 0.98
Atmosphere 0.98
Energy Collection 0.88
RF to DC 0.89
DC to RF 0.85
Antenna 0.98
Atmosphere 0.98
Energy Collection 0.88
RF to DC 0.89
Grid .97

=.97*.85*.98*.98*.88*.89*.85*.98*.98*.88*.89*.97
=.385 = 38.5%

Bottom line then is as follows:

Take the ratio of 832 to 1, multiply by 38.5 %, we get:

Space solar power has a performance per square meter advantage of 290 to
one over terrestrial solar power, if we ignore launch costs.

Colin continued:
> By themselves, they don't really compete yet, the market is not that
> big. It is the trend that I expect will scare off investment in SPS.
>

Yes Colin, but you have missed the reason. Neither terrestrial solar
power (e.g. shingles) nor SPS can compete with fossil fuels on
price. About ~80% (?) of US energy is presently supplied by fossil
fuels. Terrestrial solar power will never compete with that, neither
will SPS.

If fossil fuel usage is stopped, then we have a different debate.

> Why would anybody put up the huge $$$ for SPS when windpower is now
> financially competitive with nuclear?
>

On the one hand, SPS will never compete with land-based windpower on
price.

On the other hand, land-based windpower does not have the capacity to
supply the world's energy needs.

Ocean based windpower is one possibility, but that is dominated by the
high cost of long distance power transmission, in which case SPS is
highly competititve.

>
> What will be the impact on power production when fuel cells finally
> commercialize at the home scale?
>

Fuel cells are irrelevant, they are simply another way of processing
fossil fuels, with all the same problems, advantages and disadvatanges.

> When I can spend a few hundred dollars a year to add incremental arrays
> to my house, or spend ten thousand to pave the whole rooftop with solar
> power shingles, why would I support SPS?
>

Excellent question.

Some reasons were given above, e.g. SPS gives 24/7 power with no
expensive
power storage, and one square metere of SPS collector is worth 290
square metres of terrestrial collector (if we ignore launch costs).

>
> Yes, SPS might help the aluminum smelter down the highway, but that's
> his problem. I've got mine.

Your personal problems are not the driver. The driver is global
macroeconomics.

To extend your example:

You need the Aluminum from the smelter, you are buying their products.
And billions of people around the world need the Aluminum also.

>
> Successful, economically competitive ground-based solar power, wind
> power, fuel cells and other alternative energy sources will continue to
> seriously undermine SPS venture capital for at least a generation unless
> we get REALLY cheap access to space--mature space elevator cheap!
>

Fuel cells are irrelevant, they are just another way of processing
fossil fuels.

The terrestrial versus space solar power debate is the most relevant.
We should certainly discuss this some more.

But keep in mind that neither of them will compete with nuclear and
fossil fuels.

> I can summarize it like this:
>
> SPS will never compete on price with fossil fuels.
>
> SPS will never compete on price with nuclear power.

I agree with your statement, but with the following proviso, that
SPS with no space infrastructure or space industry in orbit will
never compete on price with the two aforementioned energy sources.

Now, in a FANTASY WORLD, where both the oil industry and the nuclear
industry had to be developed from scratch, I would have doubts as to
whether SPS could never compete on price.

If in the future, by some unforeseen circumstances, a space
industry/infrastructure can develop that the SPS isn't responsible
for, then do you still hold your two statements to be true?

Let's say, a decade from now, earth governments are scared by the
very near miss of a NEO, and decide to industrialize space and
create colonies off-planet, yada yada yada. Now we have
infrastructure/industry out there and SPS can be a free rider on the
existing facilities, much like oil and nuclear are in today's
economy.

>
> My summary is as follows.
>
> Only one source of terrestrial renewable energy has enough
capacity to
> supply the world's energy needs, and that is terrestrial solar.
The
> other renewable sources simply do not have enough capacity.
>
> There are many pros and cons, I can actually imagine a mix of
> terrestrial and space solar power, they can service different
types of
> markets. Here are some interesting numbers which William Mook
posted
> to Usenet in July 2000:
>
> > At the latitudes of North America the Sun during high noon at
summer
> > radiates about 600 watts per square meter incident radiation
normal to
> > a surface oriented to the sun. In space there is about 1,370
watts per
> > square meter. So, more than half is lost. The space value varies
plus
> > or minus 15 watts per square meter primarily in the UV region
due to
> > changes on the surface of the Sun.
> >
> > Of course in winter months and at sunrise and sunset more energy
is
> > absorbed by the atmosphere, reducing the amount of power
available per
> > unit area by half again as much. (only 250 watts/square meter
getting
> > through!)
> >
> > And at night and on overcast days, things are worse yet.
> >
> > In most parts of the US there are between 1500 and 2000 hours of
> > sunlight a year. There are 8766 hours in a year. So, about 5/6
to 4/5
> > of the time the sun is unsuable. Then add the atmospheric losses
and
> > you find that 19/24 to 9/10 of the sunlight available per unit
area is
> > actually available on the Earth's surface.
> >
> > Tracking the sun in space is much easier than tracking the sun
on the
> > ground. So, on the ground you don't do that. This limits your
> > conversion efficiency so your collector area increases for a
given
> > pwoer output by an order of 3 or 4. Also, ground based
collectors must
> > withstand gravity and weather. This triples costs again! So,
overall
> > a square meter in space can be equivalent to 288 square meters
on the
> > ground worst case, or 30 square meters best case.
> >
> > Then, you've got the added inefficiencies and costs of energy
storage.
> > To take energy and make fuel is not 100% efficient. And to take
fuel
> > and make energy is not 100% efficient. Furthermore, the
equipment to
> > do this conversion and storage is not free. Finally, the
conversion
> > equipment must be sized for peak solar output, so is not as
economic as
> > it might otherwise be. Assuming 30% efficiencies for each step
and a
> > doubling again of the capital costs to make fuels of solar
power, we
> > have another 28.89 fold increase (1/.3 x 1/.3 x 2) meaning solar
based
> > power requires 832 times the cost on Earth for collector, and
energy
> > management than an equivalent power in space.
>
> We also need to consider the environmental impact of popular power
> storage systems on which terrestrial solar power systems completely
> depend, it is actually a very high price. Most commercial
batteries,
> e.g. NiCd and Lead-Acid, contain highly toxic materials. This
> represents a massive toxic waste problem, on the same scale of
dealing
> with nuclear waste.
>
> However, the numbers above are not complete. They ignore two more
> things: 1) the transmission losses of SPS and 2) launch costs for
SPS
>
> Here is a nice summary of the SPS losses presented by Tom Musgave
to
> this SSI list in June 2001:
>
> DC to RF 0.85
> Antenna 0.98
> Atmosphere 0.98
> Energy Collection 0.88
> RF to DC 0.89
> DC to RF 0.85
> Antenna 0.98
> Atmosphere 0.98
> Energy Collection 0.88
> RF to DC 0.89
> Grid .97
>
> =.97*.85*.98*.98*.88*.89*.85*.98*.98*.88*.89*.97
> =.385 = 38.5%
>
> Bottom line then is as follows:
>
> Take the ratio of 832 to 1, multiply by 38.5 %, we get:
>
> Space solar power has a performance per square meter advantage of
290 to
> one over terrestrial solar power, if we ignore launch costs.

Is this correct? In going back to the original Tom Musgrave post on
this list, I see that the discussion thread was beamed power from
earth station, to space rectenna, back to earth station, and that's
what the efficiency ratios above refer to.

By my calculation, the numbers for a SPS to rectenna scenario should
be as follows:

DC to RF 0.85 Conversion at the SPS
Antenna 0.98 Power sent from SPS
Atmosphere 0.98 Atmospheric attneuation
Energy Collection 0.88 Earth Rectenna Efficiency
RF to DC 0.89 Conversion at the Rectenna
Grid .97 Convert DC to AC with Inverter

Thus, .85*.98*.98*.88*.89*.97 = 62.02%

Then take the ratio 832:1 mentioned above, multiply it by 62%, we
get:

Space solar power has a performance per square meter advantage of
516:1 over terrestrial solar power, if we ignore launch costs.

> >
> > Take the ratio of 832 to 1, multiply by 38.5 %, we get:
> >
> > Space solar power has a performance per square meter advantage of
> 290 to
> > one over terrestrial solar power, if we ignore launch costs.
>
> Is this correct? In going back to the original Tom Musgrave post on
> this list, I see that the discussion thread was beamed power from
> earth station, to space rectenna, back to earth station, and that's
> what the efficiency ratios above refer to.
>
> By my calculation, the numbers for a SPS to rectenna scenario should
> be as follows:
>
> DC to RF 0.85 Conversion at the SPS
> Antenna 0.98 Power sent from SPS
> Atmosphere 0.98 Atmospheric attneuation
> Energy Collection 0.88 Earth Rectenna Efficiency
> RF to DC 0.89 Conversion at the Rectenna
> Grid .97 Convert DC to AC with Inverter
>
> Thus, .85*.98*.98*.88*.89*.97 = 62.02%
>
> Then take the ratio 832:1 mentioned above, multiply it by 62%, we
> get:
>
> Space solar power has a performance per square meter advantage of
> 516:1 over terrestrial solar power, if we ignore launch costs.
>

Ooops yes you are right. Good catch ! (Blush).

Hello, All.

I like the SPS concept also, especially using NEO resources.

We need to be pragmatic about the competition, however, and there is a
great deal of that already in existence, in several cases implementing
third or fourth generation solutions that are now or soon will be
competitive with both nuclear and fossil fuel.

Solar photovoltaic technology has increased efficiency per unit cost
every year for the last several decades and seems likely to continue to
do so for the next few decades. Several promising technologies seem
likely to lead to extrudable plastic sheets that are far cheaper than
anything produced yet. Even if these prove to be a failure, the trend
is clear. Costs of ground-based solar improve continuously. This
attracts financial and technical backing into the existing, growing
ground-based solar photovoltaic industry.

Windpower has also increased efficiency per unit cost over the last
several decades. It is now competitive with nuclear and there are
rather more new windpower installations each year than there are new
nuclear ones. The eventual clean-up of windpower sites is also likely
to be much less costly than nuclear. Again, this attracts financial and
technical backing into the existing, growing windpower industry.

Both of the above technologies lend themselves readily to different
scales of unit. One can purchase a 5kw windturbine for that vacation
home in the Cascades or drive past a multi-turbine, multi-megawatt
installation in the Columbia valley. One can visit the new
multi-turbine site in the Irish Sea, or another off the coast of
Denmark. Again, the financial and technical resources are already
there, and more are moving in that direction. It doesn't hurt that the
legal and local obstacles are REALLY trivial compared with legal and
local obstacles to nuclear or coal fired powerplants.

Neither ground-based solar nor windpower have a significant portion of
today's world energy market. It appears that will change over the next
decade, even if only currently planned projects with currently available
technology are completed. It also appears likely that portion will
continue to change and change in favor of both solar and windpower.
Tidal power may also prove itself during that timeframe. Who knows what
other ground-based solutions may become available?

There are issues, such as what happens when the wind does not blow or
the sun does not shine. Many people who install solar power or
windpower will deliberately remain on the public power network, "running
the meter backwards" with their surplus. They will simply tap the
public power network when they need it.

Also, this is where fuel cells might become important. Not today, but
possibly within ten years, they could become the storage solution of
choice for home and business. Running the fuel cell "in reverse" to
store hydrogen on site should prove much more efficient than nicad
batteries or lead-acid...IF we solve that nasty expensive platinum
catalyst issue.

Of course, all of this new technology will have many applications in
space, too, but we should not lose sight of the facts. The facts are
that people are purchasing and installing these technologies today.
Businesses are investing in these technologies, at many different scales
of application, today.

I really believe we will find that the people we must sell on the
concept of SPS are just plain too busy with too many proven alternatives
to spend a lot of time or money looking at unproven alternatives to
fossil fuel and nuclear power.

So what does that mean for SPS?

I propose that if there is a sound financial opportunity for SPS it will
probably be as a centralized provider of power for platforms in space
and installations on Luna. This should allow the sort of
"piggy-backing" on other projects' budgets that would enable us to
demonstrate technology, build up a revenue stream based on contractual
agreements and create the basic infrastructure in space.

Then, when that inevitable future power shortage threatens Californian
or Italian or Thai public power networks, the energy brokers can tap a
proven 24/7 solar power supply without violating any "green" sourcing
regulations.

All they have to do is pay up front and tell us where they plan to build
their rectanna farm.

Colin Keizer

Sorry Colin I can't resist a good natured critique. As I've learned
from others on this list, sometimes my writing style seems harsh, so
I'm assuring you that that isn't my intention.

> Hello, All.
>
> I like the SPS concept also, especially using NEO resources.
>
> We need to be pragmatic about the competition, however, and there
is a
> great deal of that already in existence, in several cases
implementing
> third or fourth generation solutions that are now or soon will be
> competitive with both nuclear and fossil fuel.
>
> Solar photovoltaic technology has increased efficiency per unit
cost
> every year for the last several decades and seems likely to
continue to
> do so for the next few decades. Several promising technologies
seem
> likely to lead to extrudable plastic sheets that are far cheaper
than
> anything produced yet. Even if these prove to be a failure, the
trend
> is clear. Costs of ground-based solar improve continuously. This
> attracts financial and technical backing into the existing, growing
> ground-based solar photovoltaic industry.

I take the above as "motherhood" statements. There's nothing here to
disagree with because there are no facts presented to bolster your
position.

Personally, I like the thrust and parry of dialogue. I often abandon
a position I start a thread with, just look back over the last day
for examples of that, because other members present very cogent
arguments in support of their positions. I too will hold fast to my
position if I can address the concerns members raise, again look at
the last week in this forum.

You raised some issues in your first post to this topic, and you've
received some fairly detailed and, IMHO, well argued responses, yet
you don't address those issues.

If your purpose is to convince members of your position, well, I'm
not convinced, because you haven't refuted the points raised
earlier, nor even addressed them. IMHO, you're not making a case for
your postion, you're just telling us what your dream of the future
is, your idealogy.

I found Charles Radley's response, and the material from William
Mook and Tom Musgrave that he cited, to be very convincing. Please
address his points to show the weakness in his argument. Now that is
something I would eagerly read!

>
> Windpower has also increased efficiency per unit cost over the last
> several decades. It is now competitive with nuclear and there are
> rather more new windpower installations each year than there are
new
> nuclear ones. The eventual clean-up of windpower sites is also
likely
> to be much less costly than nuclear. Again, this attracts
financial and
> technical backing into the existing, growing windpower industry.

Yes, you're right here too, but once again don't argue your case,
you're just cheerleading the cause despite the arguments made
against it. Come on fire something specific and convincing at us :)
Let's have some fun! You're still comparing nuclear to wind/solar. I
don't think anyone has disagreed with you.

>
> Both of the above technologies lend themselves readily to different
> scales of unit. One can purchase a 5kw windturbine for that
vacation
> home in the Cascades or drive past a multi-turbine, multi-megawatt
> installation in the Columbia valley. One can visit the new
> multi-turbine site in the Irish Sea, or another off the coast of
> Denmark. Again, the financial and technical resources are already
> there, and more are moving in that direction. It doesn't hurt
that the
> legal and local obstacles are REALLY trivial compared with legal
and
> local obstacles to nuclear or coal fired powerplants.

Again there's little to argue with here but you're not making a
case. You're just showing us that you're a believer in the cause.
This is like all the libertarians peppering these lists with
manifesto statements but never providing the rationales for the
positions.

>
> Neither ground-based solar nor windpower have a significant
portion of
> today's world energy market. It appears that will change over the
next
> decade, even if only currently planned projects with currently
available
> technology are completed.

Surely you jest. I've recently spent a lot of time visiting the
various State Utility Commissions websites and its quite clear that
solar/wind projects make up only a small handfull of projects
compared to the oil/gas/coal power plants under development or
environmental study, or in permit stage.

Your mention of the Cascades and Columbia Valley indicate some
knowledge of Washington State, so take a look at this site:

http://www.effwa.org/highlighters/v11_n24.php

or consider the Sumas II (sorry I've lost the reference to this
website) natural gas plant located right on the Washington/Canadian
border and polluting into their valley air zone, and pissing off the
Canadians in order to supply more power to Seattle a few hundred
miles away. Why not wind or solar there?

Here are others sites:

http://www.wisconsinenergy.com/ptf/ptf.htm
http://www.pgecorp.com/news/releases/000419r1.html
http://www.intergen.com/81299pr.html
http://texas.construction.com/TXCN/TXjuly02/TXindustrialnws-
July02.htm

It also appears likely that portion will
> continue to change and change in favor of both solar and windpower.

Why does it appear likely? Show me something to back that up other
than faith.

> Tidal power may also prove itself during that timeframe. Who
knows what
> other ground-based solutions may become available?

Yes it may, but that doesn't sway me in the least. You're just
writing of your hopes and dreams.

> There are issues, such as what happens when the wind does not blow
or
> the sun does not shine. Many people who install solar power or
> windpower will deliberately remain on the public power
network, "running
> the meter backwards" with their surplus. They will simply tap the
> public power network when they need it.
>

Let's think this through, shall we. Why would people invest many
thousands of dollars into personal power infrastructure, have to
maintain it, and still have to be connected to the main power grid
so as to have power on the rainy/windless days. Also, consider the
civic battles that took place to get rid of unsightly household
antennas in days of old. Now, what are suburbs going to look like
with windmills in peoples back yards? Yuch!

It's also easy to write that people can just connect to the power
grid to use power when they need it, but the power generation
backing that grid has to come from power plants that are designed
for specific output. You can't have it both ways: on shady days the
grid will have power to supply all homes but on sunny days we'll
sell solar and wind power to the grid. What do you think they'll use
it for? They've already designed their power capacity for all of the
people to have enough power on the windless/cloudy days and every
night, so I'm not sure why they would be buying power on the days
the grid is serving a lower demand.

> Also, this is where fuel cells might become important. Not today,
but
> possibly within ten years, they could become the storage solution
of
> choice for home and business.

Why, I don't need storage for my home or business. I'm connected to
the public utility. I like it when I don't have to go out in
miserable weather to fix my power lines when they go down. I'd hate
it if during a windstorm a branch flies into my windmill, or a bird,
and I've got to foot the bill for repair. Or after a hailstorm
having to repair my solar cells. Or tinkering with all the equipment
in my personal power plant. I like to just flip a switch and have
power and rely on a utility's economy of scale to provide me with
power at a cost I could never match.

Running the fuel cell "in reverse" to
> store hydrogen on site should prove much more efficient than nicad
> batteries or lead-acid...IF we solve that nasty expensive platinum
> catalyst issue.

You're really expanding the infrastructure each homeowner is going
to have to have to meet the goal you're proposing. To me, this is
just making the whole ideology even less appealing.

> Of course, all of this new technology will have many applications
in
> space, too, but we should not lose sight of the facts. The facts
are
> that people are purchasing and installing these technologies today.
> Businesses are investing in these technologies, at many different
scales
> of application, today.
>
You'll really have to work hard to convince me that windmills in
space will find a use :) Seriously though, yes, people are buying
these technologies, but so what. You haven't yet addressed the
shortfalls of these technologies or countered the points raised in
previous posts.

> I really believe we will find that the people we must sell on the
> concept of SPS are just plain too busy with too many proven
alternatives
> to spend a lot of time or money looking at unproven alternatives to
> fossil fuel and nuclear power.

So, they weren't too busy decades ago to look at the unproven
techologies of solar and wind? Why are they too busy today but
weren't too busy in previous years?

The people we have to sell on the concept are not the homeowners,
they are political leaders and business executives. Speaking as a
member of the latter group, I can say that the technical facts make
a compelling case. Now all that needs to be done is to make the
economics appealing, which they're currently not. As for SPS being
an unproven technology, look back through the archives of this forum
and you'll discover a plethora of resources which do a very good job
indeed of proving the technology.

>
> So what does that mean for SPS?
>
> I propose that if there is a sound financial opportunity for SPS
it will
> probably be as a centralized provider of power for platforms in
space
> and installations on Luna. This should allow the sort of
> "piggy-backing" on other projects' budgets that would enable us to
> demonstrate technology, build up a revenue stream based on
contractual
> agreements and create the basic infrastructure in space.
>
> Then, when that inevitable future power shortage threatens
Californian
> or Italian or Thai public power networks, the energy brokers can
tap a
> proven 24/7 solar power supply without violating any "green"
sourcing
> regulations.

Chicken or egg? It doesn't matter whether one's personal vision of
SPS sees it as the driver of orbital development or the beneficiary.
That's a whole other thread.

>
> All they have to do is pay up front and tell us where they plan to
build

Colin,

You raise some excellent points, but have missed some key issues.

> Hello, All.
>
> I like the SPS concept also, especially using NEO resources.
>
> We need to be pragmatic about the competition, however, and there is a
> great deal of that already in existence, in several cases implementing
> third or fourth generation solutions that are now or soon will be
> competitive with both nuclear and fossil fuel.
>

I am not convinced of that, your discussion below does not really support
that conclusion.

>
> Solar photovoltaic technology has increased efficiency per unit cost
> every year for the last several decades and seems likely to continue to
> do so for the next few decades. Several promising technologies seem
> likely to lead to extrudable plastic sheets that are far cheaper than
> anything produced yet. Even if these prove to be a failure, the trend
> is clear. Costs of ground-based solar improve continuously. This
> attracts financial and technical backing into the existing, growing
> ground-based solar photovoltaic industry.

These advances will also help space based solar power.

>
> Windpower has also increased efficiency per unit cost over the last
> several decades. It is now competitive with nuclear and there are
> rather more new windpower installations each year than there are new
> nuclear ones. The eventual clean-up of windpower sites is also likely
> to be much less costly than nuclear. Again, this attracts financial and
> technical backing into the existing, growing windpower industry.

Windpower does not have the capacity to supply the world's energy needs. It
will remain a small niche market.

> there, and more are moving in that direction. It doesn't hurt that the
> legal and local obstacles are REALLY trivial compared with legal and
> local obstacles to nuclear or coal fired powerplants.
>

Indeed. Also, remember the high legal cost of the toxic waste dumps needed
for all the lead-acid and NiCd batteries.

>
> Neither ground-based solar nor windpower have a significant portion of
> today's world energy market. It appears that will change over the next
> decade, even if only currently planned projects with currently available
> technology are completed. It also appears likely that portion will
> continue to change and change in favor of both solar and windpower.

Windpower will expand, but will not be a significant portion of the global
energy supply.

Solar will not become significant, until somebody figures out how to solve
the power storage problem.

>
> Tidal power may also prove itself during that timeframe. Who knows what
> other ground-based solutions may become available?
>

Can you say, vaporware ?

>
> There are issues, such as what happens when the wind does not blow or
> the sun does not shine.

Well, the power stops, right ? So we will need either massive power storage
systems, or oil or nuclear (or some combination).

> Many people who install solar power or
> windpower will deliberately remain on the public power network, "running
> the meter backwards" with their surplus. They will simply tap the
> public power network when they need it.
>

Um, and where does the energy come from on the public network ?

It is fossil fuel or nuclear.

>
> Also, this is where fuel cells might become important. Not today, but
> possibly within ten years, they could become the storage solution of
> choice for home and business. Running the fuel cell "in reverse" to
> store hydrogen on site should prove much more efficient than nicad
> batteries or lead-acid...IF we solve that nasty expensive platinum
> catalyst issue.
>

An expensive solution, not competitive with fossil fuels for the next hundred
years or two.

What will be different in ten years versus today ?

Hint-1, think back over the last ten years.

Hint-2: installling air conditioning on my house a year ago nearly broke my
household budget.
Had I known I was going to become laid off within a year I would have
deferred the expense and suffered the heat instead. Your fuel cell system
will cost an order of magnitude more than the air conditioning system which I
could not afford.

>
> Of course, all of this new technology will have many applications in
> space, too, but we should not lose sight of the facts. The facts are
> that people are purchasing and installing these technologies today.

Rich people, sure. But the huddled masses of humanity cannot afford it,
and never will. Myself included (dislocated high tech worker).

Most of huminity will always either
1) be dependent on centralized power sources (in the developed world), or
2) spend their lives collecting firewood (in the undeveloped world). Hmm,
picture a house in the third world made of mud and straw with solar panels on
the roof, cute eh ?

Also, note that most people do not own the roof they live under. You
cannot install solar panels on a roof you do not own (e.g. an apartment
building, student dorm, etc).

I do not see a big trend of landlords rushing to install solar panels on
their rental properties. Heck, most of them do not even bother with
routine maintenance.

And even though I own my own roof (my bank might dispute that point), local
zoning regulations prohibit me from installing solar panels. This is
increasingly common in new housing construction.

>
> Businesses are investing in these technologies, at many different scales
> of application, today.
>

A cynic would say that businesses invest in all sorts of daft things, e.g.
Y2K, dot coms, etc.

We need to consider the data objectively on its own merits without regard to
the latest stock market investment fad.

>
> I really believe we will find that the people we must sell on the
> concept of SPS are just plain too busy with too many proven alternatives
> to spend a lot of time or money looking at unproven alternatives to
> fossil fuel and nuclear power.
>

That is a given.

>
> So what does that mean for SPS?
>
> I propose that if there is a sound financial opportunity for SPS it will
> probably be as a centralized provider of power for platforms in space
> and installations on Luna. This should allow the sort of
> "piggy-backing" on other projects' budgets that would enable us to
> demonstrate technology, build up a revenue stream based on contractual
> agreements and create the basic infrastructure in space.
>
> Then, when that inevitable future power shortage threatens Californian
> or Italian or Thai public power networks, the energy brokers can tap a
> proven 24/7 solar power supply without violating any "green" sourcing
> regulations.
>
> All they have to do is pay up front and tell us where they plan to build
> their rectanna farm.
>

I actually agree with that last part and have proposed something similar on
the Artemis list over a year ago.

Here is something interesting I realized a couple of years ago.

The distance from L1 to Luna is about the same as the distance from Earth to
a geostationary satellite.

So we could put an SPS at lunar-L1 and supply one or more rectennas on the
Moon as a very efficient way to provide energy to a power hungry moon base.

Without making any modifications at all to that very SPS, it could easily be
manouvered from L1 to GEO to feed a terrestrial ground based recetenna. The
antenna design for L-1 to Luna will work equally well from GEO to Earth.

Interesting, eh.

> Also, this is where fuel cells might become important. Not today, but
> possibly within ten years, they could become the storage solution of
> choice for home and business. Running the fuel cell "in reverse" to
> store hydrogen on site should prove much more efficient than nicad
>

In the summer time, can I generate and store enough hydrogen to get me
through the winter ?

Hi Victoria.

Me too. Your writing style does not seem harsh. Requesting
substantiation for broad, unsupported statements is a reasonable
position for a group like this. It will take a looong while for me to
put all the supporting pieces together, though, so be patient.

You other folks out there, feel free to dive in and say "WHOA" if this
is too far off topic.

I've been investing, reading, surfing and wallowing in the general
subject of alternate energy for about three decades now. That's how I
came to know about SPS and the Space Studies Institute. I have no
professional experience in the field, just a History BA and a Geography
BA. Still, I have no doubt I can support with references some of the
statements I made. I'll try not to overkill the ones where you indicate
"motherhood and apple pie" agreement.

On topic, SSI-wise, I think my biggest concern in the SPS area is trying
to nail down just how much "appetite" there is in the
professional/technical/financial community for a challenge this big. It
seems to me that there are too many other projects with absolutely known
technical and financial parameters. Put "X" dollars into windpower and
you have an absolute certainty of "Y" average annual revenue return.
Yes, there are risks, but they are not unknowns. Some of them, like
wind availability, even have statistical profiles. Same is true for
solar and even for "clean" burning coal. Then again, we could both be
out in the cold if those new "inherently safe" pebble bed nuclear
reactors catch on. Just think...an entire generation of lawyers would
have lifelong careers out of that.

Much as I would prefer otherwise, I don't believe anybody can say that
SPS has well understood technical, professional or, especially,
financial parameters. It has not been done yet. The unknowns every
step of the way are still huge. Plus, there is still the obstacle of
reliable, inexpensive Earth to orbit transportation. All the ground
based solutions avoid that obstacle.

I'm looking forward to your "general" response to the above while I get
out my data shovel and plunge into the debris pile looking for some
references.

Colin Keizer

PS: Apologies to all for me failing to delete the bulk of the
"quote/reply" from my previous message.

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 06:49:46 -0000

Sorry Colin I can't resist a good natured critique. As I've learned
from others on this list, sometimes my writing style seems harsh, so
I'm assuring you that that isn't my intention.

Colin,

Let's see how well your data-shovel works :)

I would look forward to your response to the tag-team rebuttals
Charles and I mounted to your assertions. Charles presented a wealth
of information and I would characterize my approach to have been
more big picture.

From reviewing earlier posts I'm quite confident that Charles and I
both support the position that there are many hidden costs using
oil, coal, gas and nuclear, i.e. military to support oil nations and
routes, global warming, general pollution remediation, environmental
degradation from mining, pipelines, etc and many other issues. The
arguments are well presented in previous posts.

These costs are real but presently private sector decisionmakers
take don't account of them. They don't have to because the rule-
makers (the governments) have decided not to link the costs to the
sector. Rather we all pay the cost and the benefits accrue to the
producers.

If your advocacy of solar/wind stems from environmental concerns, I
see absolutely no way for you NOT to acknowledge the hidden costs of
oil, gas, coal, nuclear and remain logically consistent.

If you have concern about the envirnmental damage caused by oil &
gas, then surely you must have concern for the mining, refining,
processing, energy use, transportation needed to implement your
solution. Even the plastic solar sheets will result from a toxic
manufacturing process.

Except for the initial infrastructure in orbit and the manufacture
of the launch vehicles, almost all of the environmental damage on
behalf of SPS takes place off of the earth. Even the launch process
itself, consisting of Liquid H2 fuel and Liquid O2 oxidizer, results
in water vapor.

So on the environmental scorecard, we've got you beat hands down.
Also:

SPS has you beat on 24 hour a day delivery of power.
SPS has you beat on concentration of sunlight factors.
SPS has you beat on storage of electricity issues.

The only issue of substance left for the SPS community to tackle is
affordability. Make no mistake, that is a huge issue, and no one is
ducking it.

If the global decisionmakers actually did take into account the
hidden costs of dirty fuels, then I think that the case for SPS
would be almost certain of being made into reality.

> Much as I would prefer otherwise, I don't believe anybody can say
that
> SPS has well understood technical, professional or, especially,
> financial parameters. It has not been done yet. The unknowns
every
> step of the way are still huge.

I'lll leave this for others more knowledgeable than me to argue. My
understanding is that the technical issues of microwave power
transmission are well understood. See Charles' post earlier this
week regarding same. Further, it is my understanding that the
engineering challenges of constructing the SPS platform are also
well understood. The management challenge of marshalling all of the
necessary resources from non-existant orbital/lunar/NEO facilities
is still a major issue of study.

I can speak comfortably about the financial issues, though. Right
now, they suck. The standard model of private sector development
can't make a go of SPS. My unsupported contention is that if the
hidden costs of the dirty fuels were attributable to their users,
then the SPS would be within range of happening and I would be very
eager to professionally involve myself in the financial community
making the go/no-go decision on the SPS.

Writing philosophically, if you want to argue wind/solar
affordability on the same basis as SPS, then your postion would have
to fund all of the roads, mines, refineries, ships, worker housing,
farms for the worker's food, etc. You see, that's what the SPS
venture has to finance in order to bring SPS into being, but once
that infrastructure is there, imagine the other uses that it can be
put to. But will those other uses have to pay for it? No, it was all
paid for by SPS.

It is not entirely inconceivable that such infrastructure might be
established prior to SPS construction (I wouldn't place a bet on it
though, but it's not out of the realm of probability) and if that
did happen, then SPS wouldn't have to finance it, just like
solar/wind don't have to finance the society within which they are
constructed. Then, even without the hidden costs of dirty fuels
being attributable, the SPS will be within range of competition.

Plus, there is still the obstacle of
> reliable, inexpensive Earth to orbit transportation. All the
ground
> based solutions avoid that obstacle.

For the moment. But you can't presume to have technology benefit
your position but deny the same benefits to the SPS advocates.

At this point I'll leave it for others to continue with the
specifics of the SPS case.

Lastly, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes arguing for solar/wind
against SPS. :) I'm also curious if you'd be willing to concede that
SPS beats solar/wind on all issues other than affordability. Come
over to the Dark Side, Luke. Be one of us! Advocate the true
environmental energy and help us find a way to make it affordable.

Seriously though, I'm surprised that the wealth of data presented to
you thus far hasn't made you see the light :) How can you still be
a booster for solar/wind when all the facts work against you?

Speaking generally now, I sure hope that debate does sway people on
these lists. I'd hate to think that no matter how convincing a case
is made for a proposition, opinion aren't changed. What a waste that
would be.

So let's unleash the debate and see where we end up.