Solar power sats without colonies...

I found when I did the arithmetic, the projected costs of the panels
and the launch costs worked out very roughly the same. So the costs
seem lower than terrestial *and* more reliable.

In addition, the economies of scale that you inevitably get on the
panels is good too.

On 11/3/05, Dan Wylie-Sears wrote:
> I haven't checked out the details at all, but relatively small-scale
> SPS without colonies sounds plausible at first glance. (By
> relatively small scale, I mean compared to the terawatts of global
> demand.)
>
> But first SPS has to beat ground-based solar. I'm dubious that the
> factor of four gained from full-strength sunlight 24-7 is enough to
> outweigh launch costs, unless we can get by with launching only a
> small fraction of the mass and using space resources for the rest.
> The amount of area on the ground isn't a real problem in the medium
> term: it's less than we already have paved.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@...m, Ian Woollard
> wrote:
> >
> > I did some maths a few months back. I got some answers that
> surprised
> > me. I then checked out the Fresh Look study for SPS, and there were
> > some notes that agreed with my analysis.
> >
> > It looks like Solar Power Sats are actually economic, with no need
> for
> > lunar launch infrastructure.
> >
> > Basically, I took a Falcon I, and asked- how often could I launch
> it?
> > Then I did the maths, and extrapolated the economies of scale on
> the
> > hardware and launch infrastructure of the Falcon I.
> >
> > The launch costs fell below about $500/kg which is reckoned to be
> the
> > breakeven cost for SPS to be viable.
> >
> > I then did a similar thing for solar panels.
> >
> > Result: Energy costs of about $0.05/kWh for 4 4GW SPS; dropping
> lower
> > if you build multiple stations.
> >
> > This assumes very high launch rates however- dozens of launches per
> > day. Analysis of the Falcon I suggests that it may be possible
> (it's
> > not dissimilar to a V2 in size, and the Germans managed quite a
> lot of
> > launches per day; so it's not totally without precedent and it
> seems
> > likely the same techniques would work for the Falcon I.)
> >
> > The economics get even better if you use Russian launchers or
> > something (Chinese :-) or Indian labour); because the cost of
> labour
> > is much lower...
> >
> > The downside is that it doesn't involve launching any people at
> all.
> > The upside is that it would cause the launch costs to plummet and
> that
> > in itself can open space.
> >
> > --
> > -Ian Woollard
> >
> > "People are brilliantly stupid, and stupidly brilliant"-Robin
> Abrahams
> >

-Ian Woollard

"People are brilliantly stupid, and stupidly brilliant"-Robin Abrahams