RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
Solar and wind energy on Earth certainly are economically viable, far more than the costs and damages we'll have to pay for massive climate change. Fossil fuels are cheap right now only because the costs (military action, increased pollution and disease and medical costs, climate change, wildfires, crop losses) are paid for through circuitous routes, or are not being paid yet (read: borrowed/stolen from future generations), or the costs and damages are forced onto disenfranchised people in poor countries who have no recourse to the people making these decisions. We literally can't afford to keep paying for that crap. Solar energy beamed down from outer space? I don't know anything about that. ~Ellen Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:40:15 -0300 Subject: Re: For David Brin and the rest of you Even if these things were economically viable (which they probably ain't), ambientally it would be a disaster. I can't image the Earth getting such extra amount of radiant energy and not turning it (she? Gaia?) into a hell much worse than the most pessimistic images of the most radical ecogroups. Alberto Monteiro (oil company guy) ___ ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
From: Dan Minette danmine...@att.net At $10/watt, this is about 4 million. How badly do you want to see this demo? I don't expect to see it, ever. But, that demo is an example of the very easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The fact that we don't have a demo of baby steps is a very good indicator of where the project is. Dan the idea that made the economics look good happened in _April_. Took a couple of months to work out the consequences and fit the idea into the economic model and get a reading that it cut the startup cost from $140 B to about $60 B. So the very existence of the concept as perhaps economically viable is _3_ months old. It has not been vetted, though the basic physics of the $140 B version passed peer review and should be published sometime in the next year. Nobody is going to build a 400 KW laser in three months. However, there does exist a 105 kW CW laser and for testing you could use a gyrotron mm wave generator that come up a MW or so. I can make a case that the demo was done 2000 years ago. Of course, if I had anything to do with such testing, you would not be hearing from me. The point is that it looks like there is a solution to the energy/carbon/climate that will provide really cheap energy for as long as the sun functions. Will we do anything with it? Probably not. Will any other country, perhaps. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
Dan Minette thread-killed: I don't expect to see it, ever. But, that demo is an example of the very easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The fact that we don't have a demo of baby steps is a very good indicator of where the project is. This is not fair-play! :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
managing the list at brin-l-ow...@mccmedia.com From: David Hobby hob...@newpaltz.edu On 9/5/2013 4:54 PM, Keith Henson wrote: The propulsion lasers to get the parts up to GEO at a cost where the whole thing makes economic sense, those are weapons, game changing weapons. And if I had to bet, it would be for them to be controlled by the Chinese. Keith Henson _ Now that's a problem with the plan. If the lasers could be weapons controlled by one country, I can see other countries upset enough to sabotage the whole project. There'd need to be a political solution that made it clear the lasers weren't going to be used as weapons by any group short of most of the UN Security Council. John Mankins, one of the big names in power satellite research, told me that the US would destroy a Chinese propulsion laser before it was turned on. Covertly. The head of the Chinese space agency talked to visiting Indians and proposed they jointly build power satellites. Would the US destroy an Indian/Chinese propulsion laser? From: Dan Minette danmine...@att.net Do you have any vidios of lasers holding up, say, a 10kg object, for 20 minutes 20 minutes is 1200 seconds. An object falling in a one g field would be attain a velocity of v=gt or 11760 m/s. Assuming 7.5 km/s exhaust velocity, the fuel mass to hover that long would be: 1-1/e^(11760/7500) or 79%. So you have a vehicle mass of 2.1 kg, with 7.9 kg of hydrogen The starting power for the laser would generate g x the mass of the vehicle, 98 N. Force being equal to ma where a is v/t for one second for the hydrogen. 98 N = mass per second x 7500 m/s solving for mass, about 13 gm/s Ke per second (i.e. watts) of the hydrogen is 1/2 m v^2 or 367,500 W, tapering off over the 20 minutes to 1/5th of that amount. At $10/watt, this is about 4 million. How badly do you want to see this demo? Keith and keeping it under control. This would be one of the easy feasability tests one would do at the start of any serious undertaking. That would be one of many things that would have to be sucessfully tested before the project would be deemed even possible. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
At $10/watt, this is about 4 million. How badly do you want to see this demo? I don't expect to see it, ever. But, that demo is an example of the very easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The fact that we don't have a demo of baby steps is a very good indicator of where the project is. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
On Sep 6, 2013, at 12:37 PM, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO chided: Dan Minette thread-killed: I don't expect to see it, ever. I can see Alberto taking issue with this statement, except that it's just Dan stating his expectation. Are we to judge what Dan expects? But, that demo is an example of the very easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The fact that we don't have a demo of baby steps is a very good indicator of where the project is. This is not fair-play! :-) It's totally fair play: With all due respect to Keith, his answer to Dan's question implied that if Dan wanted to see the thing demonstrated, he'd better be ready to pony up the $4M. But regardless of how completely world-changing it may be to beam energy from geosynchronous orbit some day, there will definitely need to be numerous, costly baby steps demos. Does anyone think that SpaceX and Virgin Galactic and XCOR and the like bypassed testing and just built ships and launched 'em? Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
David Hobby wrote: Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly? No, even if it was possible to beam energy with 100% efficiency... it's still energy. It comes down, it must get out. If not, Earth gets cooked. Hell on Earth, the nightmare of science fiction, brought to us by those that try to save the planet. Isn't this the scenario of some cheap sci-fi, where the Mad Scientist tries to destroy the Earth by placing an enormous mirror or lens in orbit, concentrating solar energy? Just we don't need mirror or lens, place a lot of death ray satellites. Sorry, power satellites. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 08:24:00 -0300 Subject: Re: For David Brin and the rest of you From: albm...@centroin.com.br To: brin-l@mccmedia.com David Hobby wrote: Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly? No, even if it was possible to beam energy with 100% efficiency... it's still energy. It comes down, it must get out. If not, Earth gets cooked. Hell on Earth, the nightmare of science fiction, brought to us by those that try to save the planet. Isn't this the scenario of some cheap sci-fi, where the Mad Scientist tries to destroy the Earth by placing an enormous mirror or lens in orbit, concentrating solar energy? Just we don't need mirror or lens, place a lot of death ray satellites. Sorry, power satellites. Alberto Monteiro And of course, anything that can be that easily weaponized, will be. Remember Heinlein's Loonies winning their independence by throwing rocks at the mother world? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
On 9/5/2013 7:24 AM, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO wrote: David Hobby wrote: Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly? No, even if it was possible to beam energy with 100% efficiency... it's still energy. It comes down, it must get out. If not, Earth gets cooked. Alberto-- Sorry, I don't understand how getting energy from space is inherently worse than getting energy by burning stuff that's been sitting in the ground for millions of years. Either way, it's extra energy. Plus, burning carbon compounds from the ground adds to the greenhouse effect, which just beaming power down would not. There may be good arguments for conserving more rather than having cheap clean power from space, but yours isn't one. ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
In a message dated 9/5/2013 4:24:09 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, albm...@centroin.com.br writes: where the Mad Scientist tries to destroy the Earth by placing an enormous mirror or lens in orbit, concentrating solar energy? It's not in orbit; it's in London melting parked cars. Google: London building melting cars. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
On 9/5/2013 4:54 PM, Keith Henson wrote: The propulsion lasers to get the parts up to GEO at a cost where the whole thing makes economic sense, those are weapons, game changing weapons. And if I had to bet, it would be for them to be controlled by the Chinese. Keith Henson _ Now that's a problem with the plan. If the lasers could be weapons controlled by one country, I can see other countries upset enough to sabotage the whole project. There'd need to be a political solution that made it clear the lasers weren't going to be used as weapons by any group short of most of the UN Security Council. ---David Zeus' lightning bolt, Maru ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
It looks like a combination of Skylon, a project being developed in the UK and big propulsion lasers will get the cost to under $100/kg to GEO. Do you have any vidios of lasers holding up, say, a 10kg object, for 20 minutes and keeping it under control. This would be one of the easy feasability tests one would do at the start of any serious undertaking. That would be one of many things that would have to be sucessfully tested before the project would be deemed even possible. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
From: Pat Mathews mathew...@msn.com How much does it cost in energy as well as in dollars? Substantial. I figured this for an elevator and got that the elevator had a 3 day payback for the parts and the same for lifting. The calculated energy investment for a kW of capacity was paid back in 53 days. Figured at 24 kWh/day, 1272 kWh. 94% of that is in the hydrogen used mostly for reaction mass. The startup scale project, 100 GW of new power plant per year takes a few LNG tankers a week to make the hydrogen Cradle to grave? Mass in GEO is useful, so a worn out power sat would probably be fed into making new ones. And is the initial investment within the capability of the United States right now? (I know. $60B is peanuts. Even so -) or any corporation? There are several current energy projects, most of them LNG, that are in that range. Apple has $100 billion. If Steve Jobs were alive they might use it for this project, but without him, probably not. The most likely to do it are the Chinese, who certainly need the energy and a way to quit burning coal. How seriously to take this, I don't know. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-02/india/34877401_1_space-solar-power-space-collaboration-v-ponraj What are the economics - in the terms mentioned above - of beaming solar power down to earth? (Those of using it space are, of course, well understood by now.) Space based solar power will under cut coal by half or it is not worth doing. Over the past 7 decades, I've come to see the wisdom of getting a good, solid cost accounting done before instituting any large scale project. If you want to go through the spreadsheet analyzing the project as a business, ask for it. Anyway, subject to that sort of analysis, it does sound good indeed. Now all it needs is people. From: ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO albm...@centroin.com.br Even if these things were economically viable (which they probably ain't), ambientally it would be a disaster. I can't image the Earth getting such extra amount of radiant energy and not turning it (she? Gaia?) into a hell much worse than the most pessimistic images of the most radical ecogroups. They were not economically viable before April. Now they might be. But let's put numbers on your concerns. G. Harry Stine put a maximum capacity for power sats in GEO at 177 TW. I don't know exactly how he did it, I get similar but smaller numbers around 120 TW. Because the energy is higher grade than heat, 12 TW would probably be enough to replace fossil fuel use.. The Earth receives 174 petawatts of incoming solar radiation of which 70% is absorbed by clouds, oceans and land masses, about 122 PW. So the amount of energy added to the earth by 12 TW of power satellites is around 1 part in ten thousand. But wait, there is more. If you have this kind of industrial base in space, sunshades in L! are fully possible. How cold do you want? Alberto Monteiro (oil company guy) As an oil company guy, you might start thinking about what can be done with oceans of cheap power. There are things that hydrocarbons can do that just can't be electrified at reasonable cost. If you go through the chemistry and energy economics, synthetic carbon neutral gasoline can be made for about a dollar a gallon if the cost of power gets down into the 1-2 cent range. I know ExxonMobile is thinking about it. From: Pat Mathews mathew...@msn.com And of course, anything that can be that easily weaponized, will be. Remember Heinlein's Loonies winning their independence by throwing rocks at the mother world? It's really hard to weaponize the microwave transmission link. Microwave optics just will not let you focus it tight enough to be particularly dangerous. The propulsion lasers to get the parts up to GEO at a cost where the whole thing makes economic sense, those are weapons, game changing weapons. And if I had to bet, it would be for them to be controlled by the Chinese. Keith Henson ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 10:10:33 -0700 Subject: For David Brin and the rest of you From: hkeithhen...@gmail.com To: brin-l@mccmedia.com As of last April, there seems to be a solution to the energy/carbon/climate problems, even water. Relatively cheap, less than ten dollars a person. It's long been understood that solar power from space gets around the limitations on the Earth. The problem has always been the high cost of lifting solar power satellite parts to GEO. It looks like a combination of Skylon, a project being developed in the UK and big propulsion lasers will get the cost to under $100/kg to GEO. Due to a clever idea by Steve Nixon, investment cost could be around $60 B, the break even point from selling power satellite around 8 years, and the ten year return on investment 500%. The cost of electric power from space would rapidly fall to 2 cents per kWh or less. That's cheap enough to make synthetic gasoline from CO2 out of the air for a dollar a gallon. Energy this cheap will allow sea water to be turned into fresh at low cost and permit recycling just about everything. $60 B is smaller than a number of exiting energy project, and only twice what the Chinese spent to build Three Gorges dam. Eye candy: Laser powered Skylon near the end of acceleration to LEO on hydrogen heated by 3 GW of lasers located in GEO http://www.htyp.org/File:SkylonLaser.jpg How much does it cost in energy as well as in dollars? Cradle to grave? And is the initial investment within the capability of the United States right now? (I know. $60B is peanuts. Even so -) or any corporation? What are the economics - in the terms mentioned above - of beaming solar power down to earth? (Those of using it space are, of course, well understood by now.) Over the past 7 decades, I've come to see the wisdom of getting a good, solid cost accounting done before instituting any large scale project. Anyway, subject to that sort of analysis, it does sound good indeed. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
Even if these things were economically viable (which they probably ain't), ambientally it would be a disaster. I can't image the Earth getting such extra amount of radiant energy and not turning it (she? Gaia?) into a hell much worse than the most pessimistic images of the most radical ecogroups. Alberto Monteiro (oil company guy) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
On 9/4/2013 4:40 PM, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO wrote: Even if these things were economically viable (which they probably ain't), ambientally it would be a disaster. I can't image the Earth getting such extra amount of radiant energy and not turning it (she? Gaia?) into a hell much worse than the most pessimistic images of the most radical ecogroups. Alberto Monteiro (oil company guy) Alberto-- I'd argue that if people are going to be using all the energy anyway, they might as well be doing it without adding to the greenhouse effect. Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly? ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
