[ExI] More ranting on power sats

[Keith Henson]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:00 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

snip

> If it can't do better than vanilla photovoltaics one can't help but ask if
> putting an object larger than a supertanker into geosynchronous orbit is
> really worth the gargantuan cost.

It does as well per area as PV does in the brightest part of a clear
day, but a rectenna produces that level of power virtually all the
time.

And you misread the documents.  500,000 tons of power sat parts builds
20 five GW units at 25,000 tons each.

>> about 99% of the time.
>>
>
> I assume that means when its not raining.

The worst rain storm on record was analyzed back in the 70s for power
sats.  It does take some energy out of the beam, but it's a relatively
small fraction.  I don't remember the exact numbers but it is nothing
to worry about.
>
>> It's a time of low demand
>
> I can see that 3am would be a time of low demand, but this would be around
> noon.
>
>> and if you have a grid, then we can "cross the beams" to keep the grid
>> fed from power sats out of the shadow.
>>
>
> This problem like all problems is solvable, but it's going to take even
> more money

This trick has no cost.

> and we're already talking about astronomical sums. If we can't
> get fusion to work I say fission Thorium reactors are a better long term
> solution.

Do you have a number on how long the thorium will last?  I be it isn't
very long if you try to use it as the primary energy source.

Keith