At 12:21 AM Thursday 4/10/2008, hkhenson wrote: >I have recently been discussing the scope of a space based power >satellite project with a bunch of high powered space engineers. > >They are all accomplished, one of them was the project engineer for >the first moon lander. > >This started when I scaled a moving cable space elevator large enough >(2000 tons a day) to put a real dent in the carbon/energy problems >(300 GW/year production rate, displacing all the coal fired plants in >the US in one year). > >So when one of them posted a study of a rocket with about twice the >payload of a Saturn V, I extrapolated how many of them and what rate >of launches it would take to ferry 2000 tons per day to GEO using >rockets instead of a much more questionable space elevator. > >To my surprise, the energy payback went from under a day for the >elevator to 15 days for rockets. You would have to dedicate the >first 3 power satellites (15 GW) to making rocket >propellants. Hardly a deal breaker. Takes 10 200 ton payload >rockets each flying once a day to do it and with a blank check >perhaps under 5 years to work up to this production rate and 6-7 >years from start to get to a $50 billion a year revenue stream >increasing at $25 billion a year. > >I didn't expect a response other than something like "that's >interesting" but they reacted almost with horror, saying the best >they could hope for is an almost useless 1 GW demonstration power sat >in the next 10 or 15 years and that the only choice we have is to >build lots of nuclear power plants. > >Now countries and companies in the world for the most part realize >that there is a serious problem with energy, and that it isn't going >to get better as we slide down the far side of oil production. It >seems to me that a project that really could displace all fossil >sources of energy with renewable solar energy and (using penny a kWh >electricity) reduce the price of synthetic gasoline to a dollar a >gallon would get a lot more support than a tiny demonstration project >no matter how few in billions it cost. > >There is no doubt it's a big project, on a par with what we have >spent on the Iraq war. But the market for energy is massive, oil >alone is $3,000 billion a year. And there is no lack of money to >fund it, Exxon can't figure out what to do with their profits so they >are buying back $30 billion of their stock a year. The Chinese have >a few thousand billions in US notes they would spend on a secure >energy source large enough to meet their growing needs. > >So my question to you, is which be an easier project to sell, a >demonstration project for a small number of billions over 10 or 15 >years, or a really huge project in the high hundreds of billions to >massively displace coal and oil with solar energy from space in under >ten years? > >Keith Henson
Or perhaps the real question is which of the following is the case? (1) Your figures and their figures disagree that much, in which case it might be worthwhile to have someone else independently check both sets of figures (probably a good idea in \\any\\ case), or (2) There is more on the agenda than simply finding longer-lasting, less-polluting sources of energy to replace oil. ? Maru . . . ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
