[AR] Fwd: Re: Way off topic (was Nitrating C60)
- From: Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 20:26:39 -0400
Sorry, I meant this to go to the list.
Bill
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: March 16, 2015, 7:27:14 PM EDT
> To: Keld List Laursen <kl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [AR] Re: Way off topic (was Nitrating C60)
>
> Keld:
>
> Pardon me for engaging in the American habit of using the first name of
> someone to whom I have not been introduced.
>
> I don't see these as issues: it is the very purpose of storage to cover the
> variability in the supply; but I grant you that volcanos might require other
> solutions...of which a solar power satellite is obviously not one....
>
> Further; interconnection solves the "nighttime" issue: at the limit,
> connecting all the worlds grids assures that about half the grid is in
> sunlight at all times.
>
> And all this is a natural evolution of existing technology and economic
> trends that does not require a handful of miracles to create (as does a solar
> power satellite:) if such a thing made sense, money would be flowing into it.
> Even Elon thinks batteries for storage are a better use of his wealth than
> SPS.
>
> I don't doubt that over the next several decades the existing plant will be
> used to supply the "baseload" power: at marginal cost, such plants are
> competitive with storage until they start to wear out between 2030 and 2060.
> Then investment will move to interconnection and storage.
>
> This is all just basic economics.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 15, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Keld List Laursen <kl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Bill: The problem is that terrestrial solar panels don't deliver anything
>> when it is dark, when it's clody or when a local volcano has flooded the sky
>> with dyst. You therefore have to have the possibility to deliver a supply of
>> power based on something else, like coal.
>> When the solar panels are delivering, you can turn the base load plant
>> somewhat down. But as it has to be available immediately when the sky clouds
>> over, then you cannot turn it off.
>> These problems are addressed by your putting the solar panels into orbit.
>>
>> Keld Laursen
>>
>> Sendt fra Samsung Tab
>>
>>
>> -------- Oprindelig meddelelse --------
>> Fra: Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Dato: 15/03/2015 14.34 (GMT+01:00)
>> Til: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Emne: [AR] Re: Way off topic (was Nitrating C60)
>>
>> Ian:
>>
>> I don't understand: price is price. If rooftop solar is cheaper than coal
>> then it will be installed and the base load reduced.
>>
>> Once there is enough of it--Germany has this issue at 3% solar--the
>> distribution system has to be changed to accept multipoint input and storage
>> added. Which the Germans are currently planning.
>>
>> That is what one can see happening today. Why do want to spend bajillions on
>> pipe dreams?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 14, 2015, at 9:29 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> It's qualitatively different to rooftop solar; powersats are baseload power.
>>>
>>> Baseload power seems to be getting relatively more expensive right now;
>>> it's traditionally produced by burning fossil fuels, but fossil fuels are
>>> becoming difficult and expensive.
>>>
>>> The baseload alternatives include nuclear, but nuclear has problematic
>>> aspects.
>>>
>>> On 14 March 2015 at 13:29, Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Solar rooftop installations already meet coal--with a subsidy--and are
>>>> projected to be lower cost on an absolute basis w/i five years.
>>>>
>>>> I want to spend a bajillion dollars on this BS why?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 14, 2015, at 2:56 AM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > As some of you know, I have been working off and on for forty years on
>>>> > getting the cost to GEO down to where power satellites can undercut
>>>> > coal.
>>>> >
>>>> > Currently working on a thermal power satellite design that looks to
>>>> > come in at 32,500 tons and puts out 5 GWe at the rectenna bus bars.
>>>> >
>>>> > To undercut coal, the total cost can't exceed $2.4 B/GW. For 6.5
>>>> > kg/kW, the cost to get the parts to GEO can't exceed $200/kg. Between
>>>> > Skylon at more than 10,000 flights per year and an old proposal by
>>>> > William Brown, it looks like that can be done.
>>>> >
>>>> > It's here
>>>> > http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=7046244
>>>> > for those who can get through the pay wall. If not, there is a copy
>>>> > here:
>>>> >
>>>> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5iotdmmTJQsc2htUG5yVTczT2xBME1GOGhzWlBaWkg5R29v/view?usp=sharing
>>>> >
>>>> > Off topic, but some of you may find it amusing.
>>>> >
>>>> > Keith
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Ian Woollard
>> =
Other related posts: