1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Valence to supply marine battery systems

Home Forums Community Dreaming / Crazy Ideas / Speculation Valence to supply marine battery systems

This topic contains 34 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of i_is_j_smith i_is_j_smith 4 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 31 through 35 (of 35 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #8849
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Eelco wrote:
    Space based solar is patently ridiculous.

    Like living on the ocean in a floating city? ;)

    Eelco wrote:
    First, geostationary satelites experience night just as much as we do on earth,

    Incorrect. The Earth’s rotation axis is inclined in respect to the ecliptic, so the cone of the Earth’s shadow misses the plane of the geostationary orbit (which is at zero inclination). Only twice a year, during the spring and autumn equinox, does a satellite in geostationary orbit fall into the shadow cone. Each of these occultation periods lasts for 45-50 days and the satellite is only occulted for 71 minutes a day. The solution is to put two satellites in orbit a short distance from each other and you will have at least one in total sunlight 100% of the time.

    Eelco wrote:
    second, a majority of solar radiation makes it to the surface, so its not like there are huge gains to be made.

    Again, incorrect. Only about 2/3 of the Sun’s energy reaches the Earth’s surface. Also, a land-based solar station is in sunlight a tiny fraction of the time that a solar satellite is. You have to factor in not only darkness but weather variables, atmospheric interference, and the oblique angle of the sun’s rays.

    The big issue is power reliability. Ground-based solar needs a huge buffer system because the amount of power it generates varies constantly. A large cloud moves over the area and BAM you are suddenly generating 10% less power. With space-based solar you have 100% of the power all the time regardless of the weather, month, or time of day. For instance, with a ground-based solar system in New York you might be able to collect 2600 BTU/sq ft/day in June, but you will only be collecting 800 BTU/sq ft/day in January. Space-based solar does not have this variability.

    It all makes me very sad. If we took a small percentage of the money wasted on fusion power research over the decades and put that into space-based solar we would all be living with cheap, clean, unlimited electrical energy right now. Now that is what I call “patently ridiculous”

    #8851
    Avatar of Ken Sims
    Ken Sims
    Keymaster
    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    It all makes me very sad. If we took a small percentage of the money wasted on fusion power research over the decades and put that into space-based solar we would all be living with cheap, clean, unlimited electrical energy right now. Now that is what I call “patently ridiculous”

    I agree that space-based solar has the potential to generate a lot of power. But how does one get it safely, efficiently, and cheaply down to earth?

    #8857
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Ken wrote:
    But how does one get it safely, efficiently, and cheaply down to earth?

    I posted some links on the second and third pages of this thread that will give you a good rundown of the technology, but I think this site http://permanent.com/p-sps.htm has a pretty good explanation of the theory behind SPS and the possible environmental and health effects of the microwave beam.

    #8859
    Avatar of Ken Sims
    Ken Sims
    Keymaster
    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    Ken wrote:

    But how does one get it safely, efficiently, and cheaply down to earth?

    I posted some links on the second and third pages of this thread that will give you a good rundown of the technology, but I think this site http://permanent.com/p-sps.htm has a pretty good explanation of the theory behind SPS and the possible environmental and health effects of the microwave beam.

    [/quote]

    They make it sound simple, but I suspect that in practicality it’s going to come down to: safely, efficiently, and cheaply – choose any two.

    #8862
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    The ground-based rectenna will be very cheap to build…there are no moving parts, nothing to break down, and you can even use the land underneath it for agriculture. But the satellite certainly won’t be cheap…putting anything into space (especially GEO) is very expensive right now. The satellite itself isn’t all that expensive…it’s just a sterling engine, a heat exchanger, a big reflective surface, and the radio transmitter. These are all on-the-shelf items that don’t need any expensive development. It’s just a matter of scale.

    But even though the satellite will be expensive to build, launch and maintain, the costs need to be put into perspective. How much does it cost to run a nuclear power station per year, including the mining and processing of the ore and removal and storage of waste? How much money is being invested in fusion research right now? The answer is BILLIONS. You just take the money from those projects and put them into space-based power…simple.

    And as space-based applications get cheaper the costs just keep decreasing. It’s a perfect cycle: as space-based power becomes cheaper it allows cheaper access to space which allows more space-based solar systems which makes space-based power even cheaper which allows even cheaper access to space…..ad infinitum.

Viewing 5 posts - 31 through 35 (of 35 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate