[ExI] Obama Transition Team Examining Space Solar Power

Tue Dec 30 02:04:13 UTC 2008

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Michael LaTorra <mlatorra at gmail.com> wrote:
> Keith,
> Estimates of cost per kwh for fusion range from 10 cents US to 1/10th cent
> US. This compares favorably with other sources, at the least, and blows away
> all others at best. (see
> http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/11/easy-low-cost-no-radiation-fusion.html )

When you come back with a range of 100 to one in cost, I am concerned
that you don't really understand what is it going to cost.  The
formula for costing out synthetic fuel is $20 for capital and carbon
and $10 x cost of power in pennies per kWh.  10 cents per kWh is
$120/bbl oil.  You might remember what gasoline cost last summer when
oil was at $120/bbl.

Cost of power from power sats ignoring minor elements is capital cost
in dollars/80,000.

Capital cost is rectenna plus power sat parts (in $/kW) plus kg/kW x
$/kg lift cost.  Assuming reasonable number $200 + $200 + 4 x $100
leads to penny a kW power.  This makes it clear that a 200 to one
reduction from current cost to GEO is required.  Fortunately that
seems possible (the physics limit is 15 cents).

> You say that if China, Russia and others have solar power sats, then they
> are unlikely to be threatening ours (or one another's). Based on history, I
> doubt that claim. Rather, it would seem more likely that each will seek to
> protect its own sats while developing plausible means to threaten the sats
> of others. This practically guarantees the militarization of space.

More likely they will be built by Chinese and sold to anyone who wants
them.  Or would you propose that the US should go to war to prevent
the Chinese from solving their energy problems?

> And that's without considering non-state actors, AKA terrorists, especially
> al-Qaida and its ilk, who would like nothing better than to bring down the
> power sats of all the aforementioned nations.

Power sats have to deal with high velocity inpacts every day from
natural sources.  You are proposing that some non state actor can
launch enough mass to be a problem?

> Most form of fusoin do produce neutrons, and this is a potential concern.
> But when you've got lemons, you can make lemonade: Bussard proposed using
> high energy neutrons from DT fusion to burn up nuclear waste, generating
> energy and reducing remaining radioactive half lives from 4,000 and 5,000
> years to 40 to 90 years. (see
> http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/Should%20Google%20Go%20Nuclear.pdf )

Nuclear waste with a lot of Pu 240 in it is not my concern.  What I am
concerned about is pure PU 329 made from depleted uranium and any
neutron source.  Read the end notes here
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/10/30/18253/301 and let me know if
my fears on this topic are unfounded.

> You said that a power sat can't hit anything that's not under it. Do you
> mean that it is impossible to create a directable beam? Surely such a thing
> is possible. From geostationary orbit, a substantial portion of the globe is
> potentially targetable, as is a large volume of low earth orbital space.

Beams are line of sight.  They don't go through the earth.  Microwaves
can't be focused tight enough to do damage, but lasers can be.  I
think we need ton of TNT per second propulsion lasers for the power
sat program to make sense.

> My being in favor of space development in general, but not this particular
> project at this particular time, is not inconsistent at all; it's merely
> prudential.

Ok.  What specific space development do you favor?

And if fusion doesn't work, then what do you propose to do to prevent
famines and resource wars from reducing the world population to one or
two billion in the next few decades?  Or do you think that's a good
idea?

Keith

> Regards and best wishes,
> Mike LaTorra
>
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Michael LaTorra <mlatorra at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Ben,
>> > Practical fusion power -- whether from Bussard's Polywell generator or
>> > from
>> > some other device -- has many advantages over space-based solar power
>> > systems.
>> >
>> > First, the Polywell systems could be built in units small enough to
>> > power a
>> > city (or even a large town) which means they could be numerous and
>> > dispersed. So if one unit went off-line, power could be diverted from
>> > other
>> > units through the national electric energy grid (which needs
>> > improvement,
>> > but does already exist). So instead of perhaps dozens of solar power
>> > satellites, we could have thousands of Polywell fusion devices, which
>> > improves the robustness of the overall system.
>>
>> Not dozens.  The US alone requires several hundred.
>>
>> > Second, the Polywell devices do not need to be launched into orbit,
>> > which
>> > saves a lot on their cost of installation. Also, maintaining and
>> > repairing
>> > orbital systems is expensive and dangerous. Just look at the
>> > difficulties
>> > space shuttle astronauts experience in maintaining the Hubble space
>> > telescope. Solar power satellites would be orders of magnitude larger
>> > and
>> > more complicated.
>>
>> It's just a matter of cost.  Can you give us a price for the power?
>> If you can get below penny a kWh, you beat the best projected cost.
>>
>> > Third, we live in a world that is not at peace. Terrorism and war are
>> > constant threats. If a nation depended on solar power satellites for a
>> > substantial portion of its energy, those satellites would become prime
>> > targets. And orbital targets are extremely vulnerable. Even a bucket of
>> > nails launched into orbit on a head-on collision course with a solar
>> > power
>> > satellite would be enough to wreak it. China, Russia and other
>> > nations already have the technical capability to intercept and destroy
>> > orbital targets with explosive warheads. Another name for a solar power
>> > satellite is "sitting duck."
>>
>> If China, Russia, the US and other nations have power sats they are
>> most unlikely to be lauching nails or nukes at them.
>>
>> And most forms of fusion are big neutron sources.  You sure you want
>> largle numbers of neutron sources around?
>>
>> > Fourth -- as an extension of my third point -- some nations may claim
>> > that
>> > our solar power satellites actually ARE weapons, or are "dual-use"
>> > technologies that could be weaponized. The tremendous power passing
>> > through
>> > these satellites, if used to power lasers or other high-energy weapons,
>> > would turn these systems into space-based weapons platforms that other
>> > nations would be right to fear.
>>
>> That's true, but don't forget that a power sat can't hit anything
>> that's not under it.
>>
>> > For all those reasons and more, I believe that our research and
>> > development
>> > money for energy systems would be better spent pursuing multiple paths
>> > to
>> > fusion (including Polywell, ITER and various condensed matter schemes
>> > which
>> > cost relatively little but offer huge potential payoffs). Although I
>> > love
>> > space and want to see us become a space-faring species, I don't think
>> > that
>> > solar power satellites are the right technology for this historical
>> > moment.
>>
>> That's a seriously inconsistant possition.  If power sats make
>> economic sense, and they are one of very few sources that scale large
>> enough to replace fossil fuels, then we should do them--regardless of
>> power sats being a path into space.
>>
>> Frankly I don't think there is time for humans to go into space before
>> the singularity comes crashing down on us.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> > Regards,
>> > Mike LaTorra
>> >
>> > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 3:03 PM, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Talking about what the Obama administration might and might not take
>> >> into
>> >> consideration:
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From the final section, "Current/future work":
>> >>
>> >> "In December 2008, further news was announced concerning progress.
>> >> Following submission of the final WB-7 results, Dr Richard Nebel has
>> >> commented that "There's nothing in there [the research] that suggests
>> >> this
>> >> will not work," but that "That's a very different statement from saying
>> >> that
>> >> it will work.". Of possible interest is the fact that US
>> >> President-elect
>> >> Barack Obama's chosen Energy Secretary Steven Chu is specifically aware
>> >> of
>> >> the project, though there is no evidence that this in itself will lead
>> >> to
>> >> any federal funding from an Obama administration. Eighteen months ago
>> >> when
>> >> questioned during a talk at Google, Chu remarked of the Polywell that
>> >> "So
>> >> far, there's not enough information so [that] I can give an evaluation
>> >> of
>> >> the probability that it might work or not...But I'm trying to get more
>> >> information."
>> >>
>> >> Bussard seemed convinced that this design will work, if it's scaled up
>> >> enough.
>> >>
>> >> So, assuming that this design does indeed work, and that Keith is right
>> >> in
>> >> saying:
>> >> "it is a sure thing that running out of energy will kill
>> >> an awful lot of people.  So I don't care if you are concerned about
>> >> energy or global warming, they both lead to the need for space based
>> >> solar power, or (second best) 10 to 20,000 nuclear reactors.",
>> >>
>> >> and Bussard's opinion that:
>> >> "Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels)
>> >> but it will take 4-6 years and ca. $100-200M to build the full-scale
>> >> plant
>> >> and demonstrate it.",
>> >> is correct, would the successful demonstration of a Polywell reactor be
>> >> a
>> >> good thing, or a bad thing, bearing in mind that it would be likely to
>> >> kill
>> >> any efforts to realise SPSs?
>> >>
>> >> I'm sure that it's extemely naive to look at the above figures and come
>> >> up
>> >> with $1 - 4 Trillion for Polywell reactors, as opposed to Keith's
>> >> estimated,
>> >> um, I don't know how much, and i'm not looking back through all the
>> >> posts on
>> >> this topic to find out, for enough powersats.
>> >> Also, i don't see any mention of how much power these Polywell reactors
>> >> could be expected to produce.
>> >>
>> >> So I suppose the point of this post is to ask:
>> >> Polywell reactors, worth supporting or not?
>> >> Bearing in mind that the design is already done, the principle is
>> >> proven,
>> >> and all that needs to be done, it seems, is the scaling up. ("Bussard
>> >> believed that the system had demonstrated itself to the degree that no
>> >> intermediate-scale models will be needed, and noted, "We are probably
>> >> the
>> >> only people on the planet who know how to make a real net power clean
>> >> fusion
>> >> system"": Robert W. Bussard (2006-03-29). "Inertial Electrostatic
>> >> Fusion
>> >> systems can now be built". fusor.net forums.)
>> >>
>> >> (Apologies if the Polywell design has already been discussed on here)
>> >>
>> >> Ben Zaiboc
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> extropy-chat mailing list
>> >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > extropy-chat mailing list
>> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>