.

unfortunately, the BEST comment has been CENSORED by CNN moderators:

-------

"Do you think beaming solar power down from space is feasible?"

absolutely NOT, and it's really incredible that so many peoples
(including several scientists!) STILL talk of "Space Solar Power"!
(and much more incredible that, so crazy projects, are FUNDED!)

assuming they'll find a safe, reliable and efficient way to send the
Space energy to the Earth... the "price" of this solar energy will be
VERY HIGH since it comes entirely from the costs of the
infrastructures, and, send a solar power plant in Space (at a price of
over $10,000 per kg.) NEVER will cost less than transport the SAME
solar panels in a desert!

also, you must ASSEMBLE these big panels in Space, and, to do that,
you need hundreds new Shuttles able to fly to a geosynchronous orbit
with costs that may boost to SEVERAL THOUSANDS TIMES HIGHER the price
to deploy them on Earth!

and, don't forget, that, you must (also) REPAIR them in Space (since
broken from thousands micrometeorites!) that (clearly) is NOT EASY
with power plants located at 36,000 km. from Earth's surface!

last, this kind of solar power plants can't be "strategic" for a
country, since, as (both) the China and USA sat's destroj tests have
clearly, shown, all things that fly in Space are extremely VULNERABLE
and easy to KILL from enemies!

then, it (not only) UNFEASIBLE but (also) VERY RISKY!

.

On May 31, 4:14 pm, gaetanomarano <m... at (no spam) gaetanomarano.it> wrote:

clueless again

Not sure what percentage of those replying in the comments section are
"laypeople" from the peanut gallery and how many are rocket
scientists, but some readers here might find:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/index.html

at least entertaining if not perhaps interesting as a reflection of
what some cross section of folks think about the topic.

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:38:02 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones

rick.jon... at (no spam) hp.com> wrote:
Not sure what percentage of those replying in the comments section are
"laypeople" from the peanut gallery and how many are rocket
scientists, but some readers here might find:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/index.html

at least entertaining if not perhaps interesting as a reflection of
what some cross section of folks think about the topic.

I tried to post a correction to the idiot who said "geosynchronous
orbit is in shadow 8-12 hours a day at some latitudes!"

CNN wouldn't post it.

Brian

Terrestrial solar power using conventional means is not economic
today. At $4 to $7 per peak watt, and 1700 hours of insolation per
year - and a 30 year life span - you have something like $0.35 to
$0.45 per kilowatt-hour just for the generation of electricity. Now,
you've got additional balance of system costs to store, retrieve and
transmit that power.

Even at today's high prices for fuel, we can generate electricity in a
coal fired generator 8,766 hours per year in response to demand, and
generate it for less than $0.04 per kilowatt-hour.

Space solar power had certain advantages and disadvantages. The
advantage is constant sunlight. Geosynchronous orbits are in nearly
constant sunlight, so, the solar panels on orbit are generating 8,766
hours per year. This is a 5x increase in capital utilization which
is a clear improvement. Transmission costs to any point visible from
the power satellite, are constant. Those appear to be technically
solveable at very low ADDED cost. The big cost factor is the cost of
the satellite and the cost of putting the satellite on orbit.

The cost of space power is approximately $100 per peak watt - which is
more than 20x the cost of terrestrial solar power, so even with a 5x
improvement in capital utilization - cost per kilowatt-hour is in the
$1.40 to $1.80 range. Not economic at all!!

So, I understand the objetions many make to investments in space solar
and even in terrestrial solar energy.

Even so, the potential of solar is tremendous - if we can find a way
to reduce these high capital costs.

Here is what I have done;

http://www.usoal.com
http://www.mokindustries.com

Lets talk terrestrial solar first, then we'll talk space solar.

Basically I have figured out how to concentrate sunlight reliably to a
tiny point using water filled lenses, and install a high intensity
solar cell at that point that generates electricity -and then use the
electricity and heat to break down water efficiently into hydrogen and
oxygen. I then capture the hydrogen and oxygen as I refill the lens
array. I make hydrogen for less than $200 per metric ton using my
system - when built in quantity. A square kilometer of my panels
produce 10 metric tons per hour of peak insolation. Total system
costs $38.5 million per square kilometer in quantity. Longevity - 30
years. I have already arranged the leasing of over 25,000 sq km of
lands - which are abandoned or spent or to be abandoned - surface
mines in sunny regions having more than 1,700 hours of insolation per
year. I am being paid to take these lands from their current owners
and reclaim them.

To fully populate these lands with my solar panels costs $962.5
billion and produces 425 million tons of hydrogen per year.

Hydrogen is an interesting gas, it can burn under conditions that all
other fuels burn - so, it can replace those fuels with minor changes
in burner design. A metric ton of the gas contains 143 gigajoules of
energy. A barrel of oil contains 6.1 gigajoules of energy. A ton
of coal contains 23 gigajoules of energy. A ton of natural gas
contains 55.1 gigajoules of energy. Since hydrogen burns under the
same conditions all these other fuels burn, we can say that one ton of
hydrogen is equal to;

23.4 barrels of crude oil
6.2 tons of coal
2.5 tons of natural gas

At $200 per ton for hydrogen, we can see that my system provides heat
in a way current industry can use it at a competitive price with all
these fuels, and earn substantial profits doing it!

The 25,000 sq km of lands in the USA that I have already organized
when populated with my panels will produce over 425 million tons of
hydrogen per year. The USA uses 1.1 billion tons of coal per
year. 177.4 million tons of hydrogen replaces that coal. Adding
another 120 million tons of hydrogen to that coal, along with 360
million tons of oxygen, converts that coal into 7.9 billion barrels of
liquid fuels. Since the USA uses 6.8 billion barrels of liquid fuels
per year, its easy to see that this process not only meets all the
USA's need for energy, using coal, but also allows the USA to export
oil. The USA uses 400 million tons of natural gas each year. 157
million tons of hydrogen gas replaces most of this consumption.
Adding another 400 million tons of oxygen to the natural gas, produces
800 million tons of methanol. This methanol is then dehydrated to
create 4.7 billion barrels of ios-octane - premium gasoline.

Solar energy used in this way, when combined with domestic production,
allows the USA to export as much oil each year as it now imports,
while earning a huge profit for the solar hydrogen producer.

So, we can see that by approaching things appropriately we can resolve
our energy difficulties.

So, do we need space solar?

Well, do we need anything really?

A better question to ask is can we benefit using space solar?

The answer to that is - can we reduce our energy costs by developing
space solar?

The answer to that is no -not with current technology.

What must be done to make space solar competitive?

This now is a useful question.

What must be done is

1) lower the cost of space access
2) lower the mass of the space solar power satellites

The first is achieved by doing five things;

1a) increasing the size of launchers
1b) making them reusable
1c) adequate launch infrastructure
1d) adequate flight rate
1e) adequate quantity (standardized design)

I have detailed elsewhere plans for a 7,000 metric ton launcher that
places 550 metric tons into LEO - and 250 metric tons into GEO - with
recovery of ALL the elements. These are built around 7 identical
flight elements, that are similar to a stretched space shuttle
External Tank - configured for reusability and recovery. The base of
each modified ET is equipped with an annular aerospike engine - built
around 5 -RS68 pumpsets- and each has cross-feed capabilities to
operate as a 3 stage system. A fleet of 5 vehicles, each comprised
of 7 elements - a total of 35 flight elements - permit weekly flight
rates. The entire fleet, including launch center is estimated to
cost $9 billion. With 150 flights per vehicle, a total of 750
launches over a 15 year period is supported. $29 million per launch
covers this fixed cost. Another $11 million per launch covers
recurring costs. This is $40 million per launch - for a fully
reusable system.

At 250 metric tons to GEO we've reduced costs to $160,000 per metric
ton. Well below the $10,000,000 per metric ton currently.

Lower the mass of power satellites.

As originally conceived powersats used silicon panels that drive
klystron type microwave emitters that beam energy to Earth based
dipole antennae that then feed DC power to a large grid which is then
inverted and used as a baseload replacement.

There are lots of challenges with this sort of approach;

2a) microwave wavelengths are large meaning large emitters and
recievers
2b) microwave energy in nature is nil meaning power levels are
restricted
2c) conventional silicon panels are quite massive over large areas

I have approached the problem this way;

I use a large thin film concentrator to illuminate multi-junction Ge/
GaAs/InPh wafers at high intensity. These wafers are equipped with
MEMs based free-electron-lasers that operate with a conjugate mirror
based fabrey perot cell to produce a power laser beam in response to
modest pilot beams arriving at the emitter window. In response to
pilot beams power beams are delivered safely and reliably to
terrestrial solar panel arrays. These arrays - which operate in the
infrared part of the solar spectrum - are illuminated with bandgap
matched laser energy which allows them to generate 16x as much energy
per unit area as they produce from terrestrial solar sources.

So, a square kilometer of terrestrial panels that produce 17,000
metric tons of hydrogen per year produces 272,000 metric tons of
hydrogen per year by adding a square kilometer of extra-terrestrial
concentrator. Since the mass is dominated by the thin film
concentrator - similar to this prototype

http://www.algor.com/news_pub/cust_app/srs/images/prototyl.jpg

A film 20 microns thick - with 2 layers - masses 48 tons per square
kilometer. At $5 million per ton - which is typical of satellite
construction costs - $240 million per square kilometer. At $250,000
per ton - which is typical of aircraft construction costs - we have
$12 million per square kilometer. At $160,000 per ton - which is the
launch costs we calculated above - we have $7.7 million per square
kilometer launch cost. At $10 million per ton - which is typical
launch costs today using expendable rockets - we have $480 million per
square kilometer.

We were making hydrogen at less than $200 per ton at $38.5 million per
sq kilometer. We increase output by 16x, so if costs are LESS than
16x or less than $616 million per sq kilometer - then, we're ahead
economically by beaming power from space to pre-existing large scale
terrestrial solar installations.

Expendable Launchers/Conventional Construction: $720 million /sq
km in space
Maximum Price for power sat to be beneficial: $616
million /sq km in space
Reusable Launchers/Conventional Construction: $247 million/
sq km in space
Reusable Launchers/Mass Construction: $20 million /
sq km in space

Since we're building 750 satellites in 15 years - it seems reasonable
we'd set up for large scale production of these satellites. At 48
tons per sq km - and 250 tons launch capacity - each satellites covers
5.2 sq km. A disk 2.57 km in diameter. Each intercepts of 7.1 GW
of solar energy and delivers 3.5 GW of laser energy to terrestrial
collectors in response to pilot beams.

These power satellites increase the output of hydrogen, while reducing
its cost, allowing the USA to dominate energy production throughout
the world.

Today the world uses

28.3 billion barrels of crude oil products
5.5 billion tons of coal
1.1 billion tons of natural gas

ALL this is replaced by 3.34 billion tons of hydrogen gas made from
sunlight. Increasing from 0.43 billion tons sixteen times allows
6.80 billion tons of hydrogen to be made from the terrestrial sources
already installed. This allows us to double our energy footprint
while reducing our carbon footprint to zero - all while reducing the
cost of energy from $4 trillion per year currently, to $3 trillion per
year - over a 20 year period of growth.

What do we do for growth beyond this period?

Direct beaming of laser energy to end users - both mobile and
stationary.

The same conjugate optical laser systems used here was proposed for
SDI (star wars) defense and was shown to easily track missiles moving
at high speed. Such systems are useful not only for stationary
receivers, but also for mobile ones as well.

Clearly, a successful development of terrestrial power along the lines
described, provides sufficient cash to develop the infrastructure to
test these concepts without the need for any government subsidy.
Additional revenues generated by the systems themselves, provide the
means to support their expansion using internal profits.

6.8 billion tons of hydrogen per year represent 972.4 billion
gigajoules of chemical energy. That's 4,800 satellite launches.
This will require growing the launcher fleet, or growing the size of
the launchers, or both, to the eqivalent of 32 launchers, with one
flight per day.

This will dramatically change the natura of space launch - and tapping
into only 10% of this capacity - provides 3 launches to LEO of 550
metric tons each - every month - at a cost of $120 million for launch
and $80 million for payload construction - leveraging off the powersat
infrastructure - again without subsidy.

With $300 billion per month in energy revenue, it seems that $300
million per month for space R&D might be easily supported by the
system - to develop other space based resources and assets.

The 24 years isn't a supply. Its a rate. 4% annual growth in
energy consumption equals the revised amounts of production capacity
in 24 years. To avoid economic downturn, supply shortages, price
increases and so forth, after this time, requires additional capacity
be brought on line. Rather than expand the production of synthetic
fuels, solar hydrogen, or extracted fuels, direct beaming from space
is a viable alternative after this time.

Environmentalists will likely be aghast at this sort of approach
despite it achieving the end of reduced carbon output to levels that
may be handlled by our environment today. That's because we're doing
nothing to the underlying economic engine that they say drives the
continuing exponential expansion of resources. These crypto-
communists like to blame the consumerist culture as the culprit of our
major difficulties.

While it is true certain excesses in consumption can create a life of
plenty that is also devoid of meaning or joy or happiness - it does
not follow that denying a decent living to billions of folks living a
subsistence lifestyle would reduce meaning in their lives. It also
does not follow that those who use consumption of things as a
replacement for spiritual goals are the cause of poverty in this world
- though moralists like to draw that conclusion.

Fact is, we need to increase our output of energy, goods and services
in sustainable ways at low cost to give our global culture a shot at
civilized existence. Fact is, we are far far ahead when resolving
the failures of our distribution systems in meeting the needs of
everyone.

Crime and warfare will cost society regardless. What is the least
cost approach?

1) Letting crime and warfare run rampant has one set of well-defined
costs.
2) Building up a police force and prisons and doing something about
crime and warfare has another set of well-defined costs.
3) Addressing difficulties in production and distribution so that the
root causes of crime and warfare are eliminated has another set of
well-defined costs.

We are taking the first approach with warfare and international drug
dealing. We are making a half-heared attempt at the second approach
with other sorts of crime - drug dealing within national borders,
adding in for good measure, crimes against the beliefs of dominant
cultures within nations - filliing prisons with non violent
'criminals' that really do no harm to society, only to the beliefs of
those who are in control. Wasting resources. As for the third, we
haven't even studied it seriously - let alone carry out a reasonable
program to see if it can be made to work. We have had welfare
programs to be sure and statist fantasies. These have been based on
ideological goals and theories - having very little to do with
practical ends. Most have ended in failure, or have grown to be very
very costly. Again for ideological reasons.

Fact is, we don't know how to organize our affairs efficiently, so we
have a variety of common mode failures. These failures are not
caused by excessive consumption, nor does the consumption by one
necessarily deprive others. Furthermore, depending on method of
production and other details, increased consumption need not harm the
Earth.

Even so, it is also true that unlimited growth in human numbers and
human consumption can lead to crazy scenarios. Isaac Asimov did a
study once that showed that 1.5% annual growth rate in human numbers -
which was the peak growth rate in humans - which occurred in the 1960s
- would convert the entire cosmos into human flesh in 15,000years.
While such growth is not sustainable - that statement is distinctly
different than saying growth itself is not immediately sustainable.

Obviously we can tap into the resources of the solar system - solar
energy, asteroidal feedstocks to industry - and use advanced machine
systems - telerobotics and automation - to transform life on Earth,
while reducing our impact on the environment to nil. This will not
set the stage to large scale expansion and destruction of the cosmos
at the hands of humans.

Why?

Because when standard of living improves beyond a certai point,
reproductive rates fall below replacement levels. So, individual
standard of living can rise to infinity, while total use of resources
remain constant as human numbers drop to zero.

Of course human consumption will not rise to infinity nor numbers drop
to zero any more than the cosmos will be converted into a solid mass
of human flesh. All the numbers are telling us is that high
technology will naturally reach an equilibrium point where exponential
growth will naturally subside as a homeostasis is reached - without
uneeded - and harmful - ideological inputs.

All we must do at this stage is recognize our failures, and excesses,
and seek to correct them.

We need to do something about disparity of income.(universal growth)
We need to do something about carbon (Al Gore is right)
We need to do something about nuclear proliferation (Amy Carter was
right)

and so on...

Cells in the human body have the capacity for exponential growth. Its
how a fertilized egg becomes a human being. Its how cells function -
when homeostasis is reached - growth stops - and the capacity for cell
division and growth - is controlled to maintain health.

Its clear this is how human culture is going. We have an early stage
of exponential growth - perhaps continuous exponential growth per
person - but factors arise to create a stable situation - as long as
we don't let ideologies subvert these natural processes - and correct
the excesses.

The USA is using disparity of income to maintain a tight control of
nuclear weapons. That paradigm failed with the spread of loose nukes
and the attacks of 9/11. The war on terror is a continuation of a
failed paradigm. We need another approach. First among equals - is
a concept that allows the USA to maintain a declining disparity over
the next 20 years - and develop other means - such as being a reliable
shepherd toward growth and prosperity and peace - as disparity
disappears - to maintain the control it needs to remain safe.

The nuclear genii takes a more direct approach. Create an enhanced
non-proliferation treaty to rid the world of fissile materials. All
of them. Yeild them all to an international body which then converts
them to non-threatening impulse units for a fleet of nuclear pulse
spacecraft. Then carry our a piloted grand tour of the solar system
putting in place a city on the moon, a city on orbit, and a city on
mars, along with research outposts throughout the solar system.
Participation in the program is contingent on signing the enhanced
nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The bulk of the materials will be
used to return to Earth orbit rich asteroidal fragments that are mined
and developed with orbiting teleoperated factories that will rain down
products and food to everyone on Earth. A small quantity will be
housed on the moon, along with a nuclear research center and survey of
small Earth crosing bodies - that may have to be deflected using the
same technology that brought riches to everyone on Earth.

The ability to wage unlimited warfare will end for nations.

Technology changes humans.

Medical advances will naturally lead to changes of conciousness that
make warfare impossible. It is clear that slavery and animal abuse
ended about the same time anesthetics were developed. Prior to that
time suffering was part and parcel of life. After anesthetics,
suffering was optional. A generation without suffering passed, and
those that followed, found the suffering of others, even the suffering
of animals, intolerable.

When aging and death are brought under control, a similar conciousness
will take hold about killing one another for any reason. There is a
difference between a world where everyone dies, and a world where
death is optional. As a result a similar sensitivity will emerge.

Our movement into space will also transform our conciousness. A
handful of men travelling to the moon and taking pictures of the whole
Earth from the vicinity of the moon, created a change of conciousness
that resulted in the environmental movement. A small group of that
handful entered religious orders - citing their experiences during
their journey. Hundreds to thousands of men and women travelling the
length and breadth of the solar system for a decade or more - will
lead to new insights and religious movements that will displace the
ancient and outdated insights that inform us now.

Wealth transforms conciousness. Those who are to nobility born are
different sorts of people than those who are not. This has nothing
to do with innate differences - but has to do with their assumptions
about life as they mature.

As technology and science transform the material world more to
humanity's liking - this cannot help but have a transforming effect to
humans, turning us all into 'nobles' so to speak. The transformation
is very likely to be more dramatic than we can ever expect. Consider
the silver foxes of Russia. The Tame Silver Fox is the result of
experiments in Russia to domesticate the Red Fox. The foxes become
more tame and more friendly with humans. There is a cascading genetic
effect when foxes are selected for tameness that extends far beyond
mere tameness.

When human frustration subsides generally with greater wealth and
happiness generally, we may find humans within a generation to be
distinctly different than humans today, not only behaviorally, but
genetically as well. More childlike and more naive in certain
respects, and may have features that are seen rarely if at all in
humans today.

I wish to apologize to Rick Jones and others here. I just realized
that I attract Mr. Guth's attention to any thread I post to. This
wasn't my intent in posting here. I just noticed that before I
posted this thread did not attract the attention of Mr. Guth, yet
after I posted, fully 33% of all the posts are now Mr Guth spewing his
insane bullshit. I feel responsible, and I wish to apologize to the
others who have posted here. I post less frequently than I'd like and
modify what I say because of the efforts of Mr. Guth, and I feel after
seeing this exchange, I will likely not post for a long time. Which
may be the point of Mr Guth's efforts - so, I guess he has won. Even
so, I apologize to others.

Not sure what percentage of those replying in the comments section are
"laypeople" from the peanut gallery and how many are rocket
scientists, but some readers here might find:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/index.html

at least entertaining if not perhaps interesting as a reflection of
what some cross section of folks think about the topic.

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...