[AR] Re: Way off topic (was Nitrating C60)
- From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:48:07 +0000
Rooftop solar is only available during daylight, and even then is weather
dependent, intermittent and seasonal. It has been known for the price of
intermittent power to go negative; paying to give it away.
Meanwhile, SPS is baseload power, baseload is there 24x7. Baseload is often
provided at a guaranteed price.
Another type of power is peaker plants; those are used when the network
needs extra power, and they're often highly inefficient, but they can
command more than ten times the price per kilowatt. They run only a small
fraction of the time.
They're are all quite different types of power, and they are all priced
differently. The idea that they all are priced the same is wrong. They're
only averaged out and priced the same in your utility bill,
On 15 March 2015 at 13:34, Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
-Ian Woollard
Other related posts: