<html>
<body>
At 04:13 AM 4/11/2008, BillK wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 5:28 AM,
hkhenson wrote:<br>
> We might be able to sell a rocket based power sat project to
the<br>
> bankers and bureaucrats, but not space based industry.
Sorry<br><br>
The problem with multi trillion dollar projects is that they rapidly<br>
turn into pork barrel boondoggles. </blockquote><br>
Where in any of this have I said or even implied that the project should
or would be run by a government bureaucracy? This project is like
tapping the biggest ever oil field, one that will not run out.
States don't take over such projects until they are making money hand
over fist. <br><br>
If I had to guess, the company that does this might be based in the US,
but most of the money for it will come from the Chinese. You still
need government approval for any space operation due to some particularly
stupid international laws governments (not people) agreed to back in the
70s.<br><br>
snip<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">How about using these vast sums
of money to pay 75% of the cost of<br>
installing domestic solar power systems and windmills?
</blockquote><br>
<font size=2><i>"No combination of renewable energy systems have the
potential to <br>
generate more than a fraction of the power now being generated <br>
by fossil fuels."</i> <br>
-- Jay Hanson</font> <br><br>
With the single exception of space based solar power he is
right.<br><br>
The key to why you put your solar panels in space is simple. That's
where the sunlight is. It doesn't matter what the cost or
efficiency of the conversion to electricity. Whatever you can do on
the ground, you can do many times better in space, and without the need
to run power lines from New Mexico to Chicago or store energy.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">PV systems are<br>
improving year on year and the return on investment is also
improving.<br>
As more PV systems get installed, the requirement for more power<br>
stations gradually winds down.<br><br>
Sure, it's boring. But it is known technology that works now. Just do
it!</blockquote><br>
I don't think you understand the scope of the problem. In order to
make liquid fuels to run tractors and transport, the cost of power has to
get down far below what can be done on the ground. Even if PV cells
were free, you have to support them and they cover land. You can
farm under a rectenna. Go read
<a href="http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm</a> which started this
thread. <br><br>
^^^^^^^^<br>
<font face="verdana" size=2>To produce the equivalent amount of the
energy provided by oil in <b><i>one year </i></b>would take:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>
200 Three Gorges Dams <br>
<dd>
2,600 Nuclear Power Plants<br>
<dd>
5,200 Coal Fired Plants (not good for global warming...)<br>
<dd> 1,642,500 Wind Turbines<br>
<dd>4,562,500,000 Solar Panels<br>
</dl>^^^^^^^^<br><br>
Or around 900 power sats, 15 years of production at 60 a year.<br><br>
Now I fully admit space based solar power isn't a very likely
future. Food riots, such as are about to start in several places,
epidemics and wars are the probable program for the next few decades as
world population falls dramatically.<br><br>
Keith<br><br>
PS. I was advocating power satellites at the Limits to Growth
conference in 1975.</body>
</html>