[AR] Re: Way off topic (was Nitrating C60)
- From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 15:29:34 +0000
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: