[AR] Re: Fwd: Re: Way off topic (was Nitrating C60)
- From: "Troy Prideaux" <GEORDI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:01:41 +1100
Energy storage is an issue with thousands of solutions. Generally obvious
things like pumping water to higher ground are reasonably efficient solutions
however, even if there’s no water, novel ideas like storing air into a
cryogenic state is being investigated with promising efficiency IIRC.
Troy.
_____
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bill Claybaugh
Sent: Tuesday, 17 March 2015 11:27 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Fwd: Re: Way off topic (was Nitrating C60)
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: