If only GEO we3e6 km in circumference (was Earth intercepts one part in)

> Nope. Not "quite a bit smaller" at all, not if all the energy needs are
> going to be met, instead of just baseline electrical energy needs.

Quite a bit smaller for the same total amount of energy delivered. I remember back in the day initially seeing a comparison between rectennas and ground-based solar arrays indicating the former would only take up 1/40 the land area as the latter for the same total amount of power overall. Then later I saw the number changed to 1/30. But even with the later estimate, we're far better off surrendering land to rectennas than to ground-based solar arrays.

> Also area for ground-based solar can be put on top of things that are
> already there: buildings, houses and parking lots.
But we can also put rectenna arrays above things that we couldn't put solar arrays, like croplands and ranchlands.

Regards,

Mike Combs
Internet Marketing Communications
903-868-6314

[E2E Logic http://www.ti.com/e2e-logic]

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of William
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:09 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: If only GEO were 3e6 km in circumference (was Earth intercepts one part in)

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
>> What would be the area of the ground antennas?
>
> Large, but quite a bit smaller than needed to generate the same power
> with ground solar.

Nope. Not "quite a bit smaller" at all, not if all the energy needs are
going to be met, instead of just baseline electrical energy needs.

That would require about 8 percent of the entire land area of the
lower-48 U.S.

Also area for ground-based solar can be put on top of things that are
already there: buildings, houses and parking lots.