On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:10 PM,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. How do you reduce base load? Base load feeds streetlights, domestic water pumping, sewer pumps, refrigerators and critical infrastructure. Shut it off at night and some people will get up the next morning knee deep in sewage. > 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. Germany has some of the most expensive electrical power in the world. And they are burning more low grade coal as well. Storage is expensive any way you do it. > That is what one can see happening today. Why do want to spend bajillions on > pipe dreams? The power satellite idea has been around for 47 years. It has never been a technical problem, but it has not made economic sense till now, and I could be wrong that it does now. If the idea will not stand up to intense engineering and economic scrutiny, then it should not be done. If it does make sense in these terms, then why oppose cheaper electrical power and low cost synthetic transport fuels? At least people in this group should appreciate the exhaust velocity of large arcjets. The attached picture is of a 50 MW unit being fired in air. There is work going back into the 1960s showing Ve as high as 50 km/s, though the spreadsheet behind the graph in the article shows around 25 km/s to be more economical. Keith > 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?arnumberp46244 >>> > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > End of arocket Digest V3 #49 > **************************** >
Attachment:
AEDC_H3_Arc_Heater.jpg
Description: JPEG image
