[ExI] SpaceX Super Heavy and Space Solar

[Adrian Tymes]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 3:44 PM Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 4:12 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> before the program is generating revenue, makes it economically
> infeasible.  No one with the requisite finances will believe that heavily
> in the revenue until after a small scale prototype is demonstrating,
>
> You can't scale a power satellite down for beans.  It is a feature of
> microwave optics (diffraction).
>

You can.  It may be substantially less efficient, but it does work - at all
- at smaller volumes.


> > even at significantly lower economic efficiency ($0.10-0.50 per kWh,
> perhaps).
>
> That would just kill the idea.
>

How does the existence of limited markets that can pay higher amounts for
the same service kill the idea?  "Not being able to deploy the same rate to
the general market" is not an answer: at most, you just ignore those
limited markets, but I'm saying there is a way for a beginning,
not-yet-as-efficient service to take advantage of these markets.


> The rectenna is going to cost the same, a billion
>
bucks.


I can build a rectenna for less than $100.  Not $100B, but $100.

It's a tiny little thing that might not even handle a kW.  But it would
handle 1 W, and cost less than a billion bucks.

Likewise, ordinary satellite antennas receive far-smaller-than-power grade
"beamed power" from orbit all the time, and very few if any cost a billion
dollars.

Your assertion that any rectenna, regardless of the power level involved,
will cost a billion bucks is blatantly false.

Likewise, your assertion that it is impossible to scale down a power
satellite because of physics is questionable at best.  They don't scale
down very well, but "not for beans" and "literally impossible" are quite
distinct.

You would be well served to toss out these notions of "impossible" and "can
never under any possible circumstances be economical", and instead to
actually present numbers.

For instance, https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/
shows that current electricity rates in Hawaii is above $0.30/kWh and has
been for over a year.  That is to say: a system that could serve all of
Hawaii's needs and charge $0.30/kWh would, right now, be commercially
competitive.  Other sources say that Hawaii's electricity consumption is a
few TWh/year.

So, downsize a rectenna to just Hawaii's needs.  This is not the exact same
billion dollar rectenna that would be used for larger projects.  (It very
much wouldn't, unless Hawaii's power grid gets grid-tied to anywhere else.
That it isn't is part of why electricity costs so much there.)

Unless you still maintain that the mere existence of a market that would
pay $0.30/kWh would kill all solar power satellites forever?  Because if so
- and a literal reading of your words says that you are in fact making that
claim - then the existence of Hawaii's power market says solar power
satellites can never work, according to your logic.  We can assume, with
good enough probability, that Hawaii will continue to be inhabited and
continue to need power for many decades to come, and with only slightly
lower probability that its power rates will continue to be substantially
higher than most of the continental US's.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20241021/f30a29ca/attachment.htm>