Again, why are you talking about launch costs? I'm talking about using the Star Tram.
Charanka Solar Park, capacity 500MW, occupies 7 square miles - so 7GW for 100 square miles, which is 0.0044 of total US capacity. One would need a site 225 times bigger and thats assuming they've already factored in daylight/night and bad weather losses. If they haven't its double or triple that again.
We're going to need to deal with the space debris issue sooner or later, may as well be sooner. That will affect a lot more than SPSs. And we would need a lot. A lot.
Assuming that's true, and I haven't seen a source, you still aren't factoring in the need for things like lots and lots of HVDC lines from hot parts to cold parts, and that stuff don't come cheap. Besides which, its the dollar cost per unit produced that matters in energy production.
Incidentally I'm not claiming any particular qualifications in this matter, but I am quite capable of doing basic mathematics and reading and understanding reports. The numbers add up nicely.
The total power installed capacity of the USA is what, 1580 GW. This means you'd need a square of rectennas ~52km on a side to power the entire country, on the ground.
This is why the Japanese Space Exploration Agency along with numerous other companies are collectively willing to take a $21 billion dollar punt on the technology. 95-99% of that cost is simply launch expenses, a conclusion Tom himself reached. With the Star Tram, launch expenses drop from $10,000 a kilo to $40 a kilo, and suddenly we're in business!
Something ridiculous like 90-95% of the cost is just launching the stuff up there, which at $10,000 a kilo for 1500-1900 tons per GW, well of course that won't work. What I'm talking about is using new technological advances which reduce the cost to 0.004 of their previous amount to make it work, and it will work.
Instead of playing a game of "who do I believe", why don't you use your own head and figure it out for yourself? Figuring out the relative cost and benefits of space solar energy is elementary.
If you read the linked discussion there is quite a bit of figuring out already done.
The only expensive thing about them, in fact the only thing stopping them from being feasible, is launch costs. And happily we have an answer to that one.
While its possible that er, Tom Murphy knows more than JAXA and their household name industy associates who are willing to put tens of billions of dollars into SPSs, I doubt it. Fact is, JAXA has gone on record as saying that launch costs need to be one hundredth of their current amount for it to be competitive. That is quite doable. Read the links!
Often absent from these discussions, and before the usual flamewars start, are solar power satellites, such as the ones JAXA is developing. This technology, while it may seem a bit blue sky at the moment is coming very much economically within our grasp over the next decade. All of the energy we need is flying right at us free of charge from the biggest nuclear reactor in the solar system, we just need to take advantage of it.
I'm going to beat the drum for Star Tram again here, we need this built to have a defence against asteroids, since Bruce Willis is a bit long in the tooth to be leading a gang of roughnecks to the rescue at this stage.
JK Rowling didn't have any capital. She didn't have any resources. She was an unemployed divorcee who wrote some books that quite a lot of people happened to find entertaining. These people chose to allocate their own resources towards her betterment, because they liked her work. These people wouldn't, in the vast majority, be able to tell you copyright law from a hole in the wall. Nor would they care if you made an effort to educate them.
There are a large number of assumptions in your comments which I won't address, such as the assumption that the next highest ROI investment would be something beneficial to humanity rather than say securitised mortgages, or that the masters of large capital flows had anything to do with her success in the first place, so I'll leave you with this...
The productive resources of which you speak are controlled entirely by private individuals. How do you propose to "allocate" them, good, bad, or indifferent?
Why? Nobody forced anyone to buy her books. What's your problem with her getting rich for bringing enjoyment to millions of people who felt it was worth their cash?
A better idea would be not to lump in patents with copyright and so on. Patents already have far shorter expiration dates than copyright, although software patents should be nixed completely.
More than that even, weight change can go up and down quite drastically in a short period of time, so I'm not sure what the summary is on about. This looks like a case of "mathematical models not accurately representing reality" I reckon.
Slashdot Mirror
Sandia National Laboratories takes the Star Tram seriously. Do you know something they don't?
Yes, if we use magic to life it in orbit, it's cost effective.
www.startram.com
Again, why are you talking about launch costs? I'm talking about using the Star Tram.
Charanka Solar Park, capacity 500MW, occupies 7 square miles - so 7GW for 100 square miles, which is 0.0044 of total US capacity. One would need a site 225 times bigger and thats assuming they've already factored in daylight/night and bad weather losses. If they haven't its double or triple that again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charanka_Solar_Park#Charanka_Solar_Park
We're going to need to deal with the space debris issue sooner or later, may as well be sooner. That will affect a lot more than SPSs. And we would need a lot. A lot.
What? You may be thinking of wind turbines. I wouldn't advise anyone do much with the land under a rectenna.
Assuming that's true, and I haven't seen a source, you still aren't factoring in the need for things like lots and lots of HVDC lines from hot parts to cold parts, and that stuff don't come cheap. Besides which, its the dollar cost per unit produced that matters in energy production.
Why are you talking about rocket fuel?
If you say so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Criticism_of_EROEI
Incidentally I'm not claiming any particular qualifications in this matter, but I am quite capable of doing basic mathematics and reading and understanding reports. The numbers add up nicely.
If one chose to set up camp in the beam for years on end I couldn't guarantee there'd be no ill effects... :D
The only real objection is the cost to launch, the rest is cherry picking some data and ignoring others. Look, its pretty simple.
According to this
http://www.ieice.org/proceedings/EMC09/pdf/21Q1-2.pdf
a 10km diameter rectenna will produce 6.75GW. So lets say 1.48 km to the GW, thats 1.72 square km.
The total power installed capacity of the USA is what, 1580 GW. This means you'd need a square of rectennas ~52km on a side to power the entire country, on the ground.
This is why the Japanese Space Exploration Agency along with numerous other companies are collectively willing to take a $21 billion dollar punt on the technology. 95-99% of that cost is simply launch expenses, a conclusion Tom himself reached. With the Star Tram, launch expenses drop from $10,000 a kilo to $40 a kilo, and suddenly we're in business!
Yeah, that's about the amount of energy you get from normal sunlight.
Something ridiculous like 90-95% of the cost is just launching the stuff up there, which at $10,000 a kilo for 1500-1900 tons per GW, well of course that won't work. What I'm talking about is using new technological advances which reduce the cost to 0.004 of their previous amount to make it work, and it will work.
Instead of playing a game of "who do I believe", why don't you use your own head and figure it out for yourself? Figuring out the relative cost and benefits of space solar energy is elementary.
If you read the linked discussion there is quite a bit of figuring out already done.
The only expensive thing about them, in fact the only thing stopping them from being feasible, is launch costs. And happily we have an answer to that one.
Birds could fly through the rectenna area without harm, its 1GW across a 1km diameter receiver.
While its possible that er, Tom Murphy knows more than JAXA and their household name industy associates who are willing to put tens of billions of dollars into SPSs, I doubt it. Fact is, JAXA has gone on record as saying that launch costs need to be one hundredth of their current amount for it to be competitive. That is quite doable. Read the links!
Often absent from these discussions, and before the usual flamewars start, are solar power satellites, such as the ones JAXA is developing. This technology, while it may seem a bit blue sky at the moment is coming very much economically within our grasp over the next decade. All of the energy we need is flying right at us free of charge from the biggest nuclear reactor in the solar system, we just need to take advantage of it.
I'm going to beat the drum for Star Tram again here, we need this built to have a defence against asteroids, since Bruce Willis is a bit long in the tooth to be leading a gang of roughnecks to the rescue at this stage.
Something for which I am tremendously grateful.
JK Rowling didn't have any capital. She didn't have any resources. She was an unemployed divorcee who wrote some books that quite a lot of people happened to find entertaining. These people chose to allocate their own resources towards her betterment, because they liked her work. These people wouldn't, in the vast majority, be able to tell you copyright law from a hole in the wall. Nor would they care if you made an effort to educate them.
There are a large number of assumptions in your comments which I won't address, such as the assumption that the next highest ROI investment would be something beneficial to humanity rather than say securitised mortgages, or that the masters of large capital flows had anything to do with her success in the first place, so I'll leave you with this...
Write your own book.
How much is that in median tentacle pr0n movie units per second?
The productive resources of which you speak are controlled entirely by private individuals. How do you propose to "allocate" them, good, bad, or indifferent?
Why? Nobody forced anyone to buy her books. What's your problem with her getting rich for bringing enjoyment to millions of people who felt it was worth their cash?
12 years copyright protection with an option to extend to 24 by paying for the privelege should be plenty.
A better idea would be not to lump in patents with copyright and so on. Patents already have far shorter expiration dates than copyright, although software patents should be nixed completely.
More than that even, weight change can go up and down quite drastically in a short period of time, so I'm not sure what the summary is on about. This looks like a case of "mathematical models not accurately representing reality" I reckon.