RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
Pat Mathews <[email protected]> Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:56:54 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.culture.sf.killerbs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============6357877951816386157== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_02114f21-7bc1-4de8-ba9a-9f195ef2a93b_" --_02114f21-7bc1-4de8-ba9a-9f195ef2a93b_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Date: Wed=2C 4 Sep 2013 10:10:33 -0700 > Subject: For David Brin and the rest of you > From: [email protected] > To: brin-l-r0TUnz/JSrZWk0Htik3J/[email protected] >=20 > As of last April=2C there seems to be a solution to the > energy/carbon/climate problems=2C even water. Relatively cheap=2C less > than ten dollars a person. >=20 > 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. >=20 > It looks like a combination of Skylon=2C 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=2C investment cost could be > around $60 B=2C the break even point from selling power satellite around > 8 years=2C 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. >=20 > $60 B is smaller than a number of exiting energy project=2C and only > twice what the Chinese spent to build Three Gorges dam. >=20 > Eye candy: Laser powered Skylon near the end of acceleration to LEO on > hydrogen heated by 3 GW of lasers located in GEO >=20 > http://www.htyp.org/File:SkylonLaser.jpg >=20 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=2C of course=2C well understood by now= .)=20 Over the past 7 decades=2C I've come to see the wisdom of getting a good=2C= solid cost accounting done before instituting any large scale project. =20 Anyway=2C subject to that sort of analysis=2C it does sound good indeed. = --_02114f21-7bc1-4de8-ba9a-9f195ef2a93b_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style><!-- .hmmessage P { margin:0px=3B padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 12pt=3B font-family:Calibri } --></style></head> <body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'><br><br><div>>=3B Date: Wed=2C= 4 Sep 2013 10:10:33 -0700<br>>=3B Subject: For David Brin and the rest o= f you<br>>=3B From: [email protected]<br>>=3B To: brin-l@mccmedia.= com<br>>=3B <br>>=3B As of last April=2C there seems to be a solution t= o the<br>>=3B energy/carbon/climate problems=2C even water. Relatively c= heap=2C less<br>>=3B than ten dollars a person.<br>>=3B <br>>=3B It's= long been understood that solar power from space gets around the<br>>=3B= limitations on the Earth. The problem has always been the high cost<br>&g= t=3B of lifting solar power satellite parts to GEO.<br>>=3B <br>>=3B It= looks like a combination of Skylon=2C a project being developed in<br>>= =3B the UK and big propulsion lasers will get the cost to under $100/kg to<= br>>=3B GEO. Due to a clever idea by Steve Nixon=2C investment cost coul= d be<br>>=3B around $60 B=2C the break even point from selling power sate= llite around<br>>=3B 8 years=2C and the ten year return on investment 500= %. The cost of<br>>=3B electric power from space would rapidly fall to 2= cents per kWh or<br>>=3B less. That's cheap enough to make synthetic ga= soline from CO2 out of<br>>=3B the air for a dollar a gallon. Energy thi= s cheap will allow sea water<br>>=3B to be turned into fresh at low cost = and permit recycling just about<br>>=3B everything.<br>>=3B <br>>=3B = $60 B is smaller than a number of exiting energy project=2C and only<br>>= =3B twice what the Chinese spent to build Three Gorges dam.<br>>=3B <br>&= gt=3B Eye candy: Laser powered Skylon near the end of acceleration to LEO o= n<br>>=3B hydrogen heated by 3 GW of lasers located in GEO<br>>=3B <br>= >=3B http://www.htyp.org/File:SkylonLaser.jpg<br>>=3B <br><br>How much = does it cost in energy as well as in dollars? Cradle to grave? And is the i= nitial investment within the capability of the United States right now? (I = know. $60B is peanuts. Even so -) or any corporation? What are the economic= s - in the terms mentioned above - of beaming solar power down to earth?&nb= sp=3B (Those of using it space are=2C of course=2C well understood by now.)= <br><br>Over the past 7 decades=2C I've come to see the wisdom of getting = a good=2C solid cost accounting done before instituting any large scale pro= ject. =3B <br><br>Anyway=2C subject to that sort of analysis=2C it does= sound good indeed.<br></div> </div></body> </html>= --_02114f21-7bc1-4de8-ba9a-9f195ef2a93b_-- --===============6357877951816386157== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline