A web page with recent testimony to the US Congress related to solar energy:
"Our industry is at a critical decision point. While clean energy
industries soar worldwide, the US is increasingly left behind. Worldwide
solar production in 2003 was more than 760 million watts, up from just
over 550 million in 2002. However, the US produced just 109 megawatts-
the first US production decline in recent memory. We must stop this
trend, before we become dependent on importing yet another source of energy.
The overall industry is supercharged; world PV production is now
doubling almost every two years. Bell Labs produced the first watt of
commercial PV in 1954, and we expect to produce more than one billion
watts in 2004. However, increasingly, that production occurs in Japan
and Germany .
Leaving aside environmental and energy security concerns, this is a
major issue. The Renewable Energy Policy Project estimates that each
megawatt of solar produced supports 35.5 jobs over ten years more than
any other energy source. At that rate, a solar industry which continues
to grow at current rates would support more than 100,000 jobs by 2020;
an industry half the size of General Motors.
...
The DOE PV research program has been a major reason why solar
manufacturing prices have dropped by more than half in the last ten
years alone. At left DOE's PV Roadmap is now predicting that solar
electricity will be available for less than $.08 /kWh within the next
ten years .
...
Continuing advances in crystalline silicon technologies could bring
prices down by half again, while DOE's Systems-Driven Approach squeezes
optimum efficiency and reliability out of every part of the solar
system, from panels to connectors to inverters. Meanwhile, the Thin Film
Partnership is beginning large-scale commercialization of their
products, which use much less raw material and more rapid
continuous-line production processes. Equally exciting are the
generation beyond next nanostructured and organic solar cells being
developed by many domestic companies and labs these flexible cells
offer the possibility of manufacturing millions of watts of solar on
machines similar to today's printing presses, out of chemicals we
currently use to make paint and toothpaste.
...
If we are to meet DOE's goal of PV-generated electricity for $.06 /kWh
by 2020, funding needs to be increased substantially. SEIA requests $100
million for the photovoltaics program in total."
====
Also, a proposal to add baseline solar to the grid:
http://www.seia.org/news/releases/release09030310percentsolution.htm
"EIA today cited several key reforms that should be part of the energy
bills efforts to address the blackout, and which could be done for
one-tenth of the estimated $100 billion grid fix price tag. Chief among
the recommendations is to direct investments to technologies that allow
businesses, homeowners and farmers to generate their own electricity,
known as self-generation or distributed generation."
====
So PV is truly a dynamic industry these days, growing exponentially
(well, at least outside the USA).
Anyway, I just don't see how SSPS can hope to compete with this sort of
momentum happening right now -- not next decade, not thirty years from
now, but right now. People are puttng up solar panels locally now, and
as they get cheaper, there will only be more of them on Earth. And yes
there will be scaling issues both for the grid and for local energy
storage and for recycling and for maintenance as Tangoman aptly points
out -- and they will IMHO likely be dealt with as they present themselves.
I still believe in the importance of space settlement for several
reasons, but I just don't see power generation (or most of the other
economic proposals such as SSI outlines here
http://www.ssi.org/research_update.html beyond SSPS like platinum
retrieval from NEOs or space tourism) as being viable options that lead
to space settlement on a large scale. IMHO it is time to drop the
business oriented approach for a philanthropic/volunteer one. Not to say
SSI doesn't fund some spectacular and worthwhile basic research related
to space settlement, by the way. The single launch of a self-replicating
seed idea remains very much in terms of SSI's orginal vision - but the
issue is perhaps just pursuing it more directly by philanthropy and
volunteerism. Perhaps the real issue is in a sense "capitalism vs.
philanthropy" driving space settlement -- with the implication of
corporate colonies vs. free societies?
Gerry O'Neill was always one to examine new ideas skeptically and yet
openly and contemplatively, and I think perhaps if he were looking at
current price/performance curves for ground-based PV and current and
projected technological advances related to cleaner manufacturing of
such PV systems projected forward thirty years as opposed to what was
available in the late 1970s, he might be moving SSI in some very
different directions these days (especially inspired by new ideas in
computing and collaboration). Perhaps the deeper question is whether SSI
as a legacy focuses on honoring just the concrete ideas of SSPS etc. as
opposed to the deeper spirit behind creating those ideas in the first
place. What would Gerry O'Neill as a physicist and economic analyst say
in 2004 given all these advances in ground based PV technology and
GNU/Linux type collaboration concepts in terms of future SSI directions?
Sadly, we'll never know, but we can always speculate.
--Paul Fernhout
I don't personally think it is ever appropriate to abandon the
business approach. I feel this way because the real money is in the
investment world. The challenge of wannabe spacers is creating a deal
attractive to investors that overcomes the high costs of space
launch. That stated, I've toyed with the idea of creating a non-
profit that covers the costs of space launch by compound interest.
This entity would simply compound the donations until it can create a
launch service solely by the interest. Launch prices would then be
determined solely by the market. Launches would be auctioned to the
highest bidder. Profits would be rolled into increasing launch
capacity which would decrease launch prices. The important point is
the entity sustains itself on the compound interest, not on profits
from the launch services.
Joe
--- In ssi_list@... "isildurbane"
> costs of space launch by compound interest. This entity would
> simply compound the donations until it can create a launch service
> solely by the interest.
Under English Common Law, non-profits, foundations and other
entities that manage endowments are prohibited by law from
establishing perpetual endowments. They must distribute a few
percent of their endowment after they've been established for a
while. This is a very sensible prohibition for the tax favored
treatment of donations is to establish a public good, not to
accumulate capital for an endless period.
Of course you could compound during your establishment period but
I'd be very surprised if you could get IRS rulings to allow that
period to extend for the decades or centuries that would be need for
compounding to really work its magic.
Why not throw some numbers together and give us an idea of what
you're thinking?
TangoMan
--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"
>
> Under English Common Law, non-profits, foundations and other
> entities that manage endowments are prohibited by law from
> establishing perpetual endowments. They must distribute a few
> percent of their endowment after they've been established for a
> while. This is a very sensible prohibition for the tax favored
> treatment of donations is to establish a public good, not to
> accumulate capital for an endless period.
wasteful that they didn't save more. Maybe I'll rethink that. Now
that I've done a little reading on the subject I see that lowering
launch costs doesn't really fit the bill of nonprofits according to
law either. (scientific, charitable, educational, and literary) Maybe
just organize it as a contractual agreement between the users as a
means toward lowering launch costs? Contributions plus interest could
be used as a credit toward launches. Launches would still go to the
highest bidder but people who contribute more and earlier would have
an advantage. Any legal ramifications of doing it this way?
>
> Why not throw some numbers together and give us an idea of what
> you're thinking?
>
> TangoMan
Hmmm... I don't have any numbers to throw together. I think you
understand the basic concept. The organization's annual budget equals
the return on the contributions which allows selling the services at
any price. I could make up some numbers but I don't think it will
illustrate it any better. You all probably know already what compound
interest can do given enough time so I won't bore you with that.
Joe
--- In ssi_list@... "isildurbane"
> --- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"
> >
> > Under English Common Law, non-profits, foundations and other
> > entities that manage endowments are prohibited by law from
> > establishing perpetual endowments. They must distribute a few
> > percent of their endowment after they've been established for a
> > while. This is a very sensible prohibition for the tax favored
> > treatment of donations is to establish a public good, not to
> > accumulate capital for an endless period.
>
> Oh. Bummer. I stopped donating to charities because I thought it
was
> wasteful that they didn't save more. Maybe I'll rethink that. Now
> that I've done a little reading on the subject I see that lowering
> launch costs doesn't really fit the bill of nonprofits according
to
> law either. (scientific, charitable, educational, and literary)
Maybe
> just organize it as a contractual agreement between the users as a
> means toward lowering launch costs? Contributions plus interest
could
> be used as a credit toward launches. Launches would still go to
the
> highest bidder but people who contribute more and earlier would
have
> an advantage. Any legal ramifications of doing it this way?
>
> > Why not throw some numbers together and give us an idea of what
> > you're thinking?
> >
> > TangoMan
>
> Hmmm... I don't have any numbers to throw together. I think you
> understand the basic concept. The organization's annual budget
equals
> the return on the contributions which allows selling the services
at
> any price. I could make up some numbers but I don't think it will
> illustrate it any better. You all probably know already what
compound
> interest can do given enough time so I won't bore you with that.
>
> Joe
trust/foundation be established in the US. Go to the Turks and
Caicos, Isle of Man, Leichenstein, etc.
Here's a primer which describes the rule against perpetuities
established in English Common Law in 1620.
http://www.ideamarketers.com/library/article.cfm?
articleid315&wherefrom=PROFILE
Here is some info on Trusts established in the Turks and Caicos
which has suspended the law against perpetuities. Trusts can be
established for 100 years there.
http://www.caribcats.com/caribcats/dominica/trusts.html
Of course if you're counting on donations being tax deductable in
the US, then all of the above is for naught. If however, you can
accumulate a capital pool of $10 billion (non tax-deductable), then
setting up an offshore foundation, letting the capital compound for
50 years at an inflation adjusted rate of 9% will yield an endowment
of $740 billion. Then transfer the assets to a foundation and make
annual disbursements of 5% of the endowment and your foundation can
live forever. How much of a market effect will $37 billion have when
injected into the launch market?
TangoMan
--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"
>
> Here's some foood for thought. There's really no need that the
> trust/foundation be established in the US. Go to the Turks and
> Caicos, Isle of Man, Leichenstein, etc.
>
> Here's a primer which describes the rule against perpetuities
> established in English Common Law in 1620.
> http://www.ideamarketers.com/library/article.cfm?
> articleid315&wherefrom=PROFILE
>
> Here is some info on Trusts established in the Turks and Caicos
> which has suspended the law against perpetuities. Trusts can be
> established for 100 years there.
>
> http://www.caribcats.com/caribcats/dominica/trusts.html
open to it in the form of trusts but not all.
>
> Of course if you're counting on donations being tax deductable in
> the US, then all of the above is for naught. If however, you can
> accumulate a capital pool of $10 billion (non tax-deductable), then
> setting up an offshore foundation, letting the capital compound for
> 50 years at an inflation adjusted rate of 9% will yield an
endowment
> of $740 billion. Then transfer the assets to a foundation and make
> annual disbursements of 5% of the endowment and your foundation can
> live forever. How much of a market effect will $37 billion have
when
> injected into the launch market?
>
> TangoMan
Wow, you think big. I was more thinking on the scale 1 person can
accomplish. By grouping, it would just reduce the time before the
organization is functional. I guess I should have thrown out some
numbers...
Let's say an individual works for 40 years. He manages to save $1000
a month during that time. According to my financial calculator he
would have over $4 million at the end of the period assuming a 9%
return. If he continues to get 9% on his money he would receive $360
thousand annually. Is that enough to create and fund the launch
service I described? I doubt it but it would make a great retirement.
He leaves directions that after he dies his money is to compound for
another 50 years. This leaves $300 million and produces $27 million
to fund the organization. I think it would be doable.
Joe