Big Sky Debate Page
SBSP WILL BE LIMITED BY PERCEPTION THAT IT IS PART OF WEAPONIZING SPACE-Fan, et al ‘11
Download 1.49 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- IT WILL BE TOO SOON FOR SBSP FOR ANOTHER 30 YEARS-Fan, et al ‘11
- SBSP CANNOT MEET THE NEEDS OF THE MILITARY-Johnson, et al ‘09
- THERE ARE CRITICAL HURDLES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE SOLAR SATELLITES-Ad Astra ‘08
- PROJECTIONS THAT SOLAR POWER SATELLITES COULD CHANGE WEATHER ARE UNREALISTIC-David ‘07
- IT’S GOING TO BE 2050 BEFORE SOLAR POWERED SATELLITES BECOME SIGNIFICANT-Foust ‘07
- THE MILITARY SPACE PROGRAMS ARE IN NO BETTER SHAPE THAN CIVILIAN SPACE-Day ‘08
- SOLAR POWER SATELLITES CANNOT MEET WORLD ENERGY NEEDS BECAUSE OF THE ENORMOUS DEMAND FOR POWER-Globus ‘08
- SOLAR POWER SATELLITES WILL NEED TO PROVE THEY CAN COMPETE WITH RENEWABLES INCLUDING OTHER SOLAR FORMS-David ‘07
- SOLVENCY: LAUNCHES ARE TOO EXPENSIVE FOR SBSP TO BE PROFITABLE, SPACE LAUNCHES WILL NEED TO COST 1% OF WHAT THEY DO TODAY-Boyle ‘09
- IT WILL TAKE SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS IN LAUNCH COSTS BEFORE SBSP IS VIABLE-Henson ‘11
- THE MAJOR EXPENSE—TRANSPORT TO SPACE—IS STILL COST PROHIBITIVE-Zwaniecki ‘07
- AFFORDABLE ACCESS TO SPACE AND SPACE DEVELOPMENT ARE UNPROVEN AND NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE-Ad Astra ‘08
- THERE ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE NUMBER OF LAUNCHES THAT WILL BE REQUIRED-Globus ‘08
- THE UNITED STATES HAS VERY LIMITED RESOURCES FOR LAUNCHES AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCALE THAT SPS SYSTEMS DEMAND-National Security Space Office ‘07
- THE VOLUME OF FLIGHTS NECESSARY TO CREATE SOLAR POWER SATELLITES IS WELL BEYOND CURRENT RESOURCES-Inside Missile Defense ‘07
- SOLVENCY: COST IS TOO HIGH THE COSTS ARE TOO HIGH FOR EITHER PRIVATE OR GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT-States News Service ‘07
- EVEN WITH THE COSTS OF ENERGY, THE DOD COULD NOT AFFORD TO BE AN ANCHOR CUSTOMER WITH 2007 PRICES-National Security Space Office ‘07
- WE CAN MAKE SOLAR POWER MUCH MORE CHEAPLY IN THE UNITED STATES-Cho ‘07
- LAUNCH COSTS ARE A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO SBSP-Boswell ‘04
- SBSP WOULD WORK, BUT IT WOULD BE INSANELY EXPENSIVE-Spencer ‘08
- THE ABILITY TO COMPETE WITH OTHER RENEWABLES IS ACTUALLY DECREASING-Shiner ‘08
- COST OF SPACE LAUNCHES IS SIMPLY TOO HIGH TODAY-Fan, et al ‘11
SBSP WILL BE LIMITED BY PERCEPTION THAT IT IS PART OF WEAPONIZING SPACE-Fan, et al ‘11 [William; Space Based Solar Power: Industry and Technology Assessment; 02 Jun 2011; http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] Due to the high energy transmitter that it will utilize, space based solar power could potentially be in violation of international space treaties. In 1967, the Outer Space Treaty was signed by the United States and other world powers. One of the key issues addressed by this treaty is space based weapons. The Outer Space Treaty bans the placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in space or on any celestial body. This could become a serious issue for space based solar power because of the potential for the transmitter to become a dual use weapon. Additionally, the newly proposed Space Preservation Treaty could severely hinder the implementation of space based solar power, as it would ban the any kind of weapon from being placed in space. In addition to political issues, there may be social disapproval of having a potential weapons system in space. IT WILL BE TOO SOON FOR SBSP FOR ANOTHER 30 YEARS-Fan, et al ‘11 [William; Space Based Solar Power: Industry and Technology Assessment; 02 Jun 2011; http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] While hard to estimate, we believe currently that SBSP is not feasible for the next 30 years. There must first be a large decrease in launch costs, and significant adoption of solar technology before SBSP would be a plausible large scale energy source. Efficiency levels are still not yet at a level where the large added cost of a space launch can justify SBSP. Furthermore, the difficulties in large scale wireless energy transmission is paramount, and have large scale demonstrations have not yet occurred over significant distances. We have also not yet seen a large boom in large scale wireless energy transmission that would allow us to project an efficiency trend for this technology. We conclude that it is still too early for SBSP, barring any large scale technological disruptions within the next 30 years.
[W. Neil; High Energy Space Environment Space Science Division, Naval Research Lab; Space-based Solar Power: Possible Defense Applications and Opportunities for NRL Contribution; 23 Oct 2009;http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA513123; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] Could SBSP credibly provide power to the FOB? Any replacement for the generators would have to meet similar safety and density provisions to those currently in operation. One of the advantages of using liquid fuel is that it is relatively dense for the energy provided. The generators are relatively small and portable (towable) and usage is well understood. Many SBSP proposals limit power density to the equivalency of one Sun at ground level. This implies that for a FOB of 500 persons (medium task size, no air strip) we need 500 m of antenna, energy conversion, and short-term storage equipment, and support systems to provide ~200 kW of power. Support would include the necessary security perimeter. Efficient microwave power transfer to such a small area would be challenging. Instead, much of the surrounding countryside would likely also benefit from the power transfer, OPFOR included. THERE ARE CRITICAL HURDLES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE SOLAR SATELLITES-Ad Astra ‘08 [Space Based Solar Power; Ad Astra; Spring 2008; www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf; retrieved 11 Jul 2011] A handful of the technical hurdles to space solar power stand out as particularly important: (1) highly efficient, high-temperature electronic devices; (2) delivering precise and safe wireless power transmission;(3) dramatically lowering the cost of the space systems and operations; and, (4) achieving low-cost access to space. And, all of these must be addressed in transformational new systems concepts. PROJECTIONS THAT SOLAR POWER SATELLITES COULD CHANGE WEATHER ARE UNREALISTIC-David ‘07 [Leonard; contributing writer; Climate Change: A Geoengineering Fix?; Aerospace America; September 2007] Talk of broadcasting power beams from space into tornadoes and hurricanes to "defuse" the wrath of Mother Nature raises the scientific eyebrow of Ross Hoffman, principal scientist with Atmospheric and Environmental Research in Lexington, Mass. "How do you aim your energy...can you control the height of energy disposition? It is important to bear in mind that the atmosphere is chaotic. This is one big contributor to why our forecasts of hurri-canes and tornadoes go wrong. That is, the computer models are so sensitive to initial conditions and so too, probably, are the real storms," Hoffman tells Aerospace America. Numerical models cannot predict or "hind-cast" an actual tornado, Hoffman says. "Simulations of hurricanes and tornadic thunderstorms now look more and more realistic, but getting the predictions to be in the right place at the right time with the right intensity is still very challenging." he says.
[Jeff; editor and publisher of The Space Review; A renaissance for space solar power?; 13 Aug 2007; http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1; retrieved 14 Jul 2011] Smith made it clear, though, that he’s not looking for a quick fix that will suddenly make solar power satellites feasible in the near term. “If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, it’s going to take a long time,” he said. “The horizon we’re looking at is 2050 before we’re able to do something significant.” The first major milestone, he said, would be a small demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to ten years that would demonstrate power beaming from GEO. However, he added those plans could change depending on developments of various technologies that could alter the direction space solar power systems would go. “That 2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carved in Jell-O.” THE MILITARY SPACE PROGRAMS ARE IN NO BETTER SHAPE THAN CIVILIAN SPACE-Day ‘08 [Dwayne; Knights in shining armor; The Space Review; 09 Jun 2008; http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1; retrieved 14 Jul 2011] But there’s also another factor at work: naïveté. Space activists tend to have little understanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic impression of its management compared to NASA, whom many space activists have come to despise. For instance, they fail to realize that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many cases worse shape, than NASA. The majority of large military space acquisition programs have experienced major problems, in many cases cost growth in excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns, the DoD’s less-public record is far worse, and military space has a bad reputation in Congress, which would never allow such a big, expensive new program to be started. SOLAR POWER SATELLITES CANNOT MEET WORLD ENERGY NEEDS BECAUSE OF THE ENORMOUS DEMAND FOR POWER-Globus ‘08 [Space Based Solar Power; Ad Astra; Spring 2008; www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf; retrieved 11 Jul 2011] While it has been suggested that in the long term, space solar power (SSP) can provide all the clean, renewable energy Earth could possibly need (and then some), there has been less discussion on the most economic way to produce that power. If we want to build two or three solar power satellites, one obvious approach is to manufacture the parts on the ground, launch them into orbit, and assemble them there, just like the International Space Station. But a few power satellites won’t solve our energy or greenhouse gas problems. We’ll need more. To generate all the energy used on Earth today (about 15 terawatts) would require roughly 400 solar power satellites 10 kilometers across. Assuming advanced, lightweight space solar power technology, this will require at least 100,000 launches to bring all the materials up from Earth. But even 400 satellites won’t be enough. Billions of people today have totally inadequate energy supplies— and the population is growing. Providing everyone with reasonable quantities of energy might take five to ten times more than we produce today. To supply this energy from solar power satellites requires a staggering launch rate. There are two major issues with a very high launch rate. SOLAR POWER SATELLITES WILL NEED TO PROVE THEY CAN COMPETE WITH RENEWABLES INCLUDING OTHER SOLAR FORMS-David ‘07 [Leonard; contributing writer; Climate Change: A Geoengineering Fix?; Aerospace America; September 2007] Space-based "solutions" for attacking global warming come in two dominant flavors, says Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA Langley. These are solar-powered satellites for green energy production, and various concepts for shielding/reflecting incident solar energy. Bushnell says that, in large measure, space-based global warming solutions are either potentially high cost, in the case of satellite solar power, or high risk, in the case of shielding/reflecting. "Satellite solar power systems have to compete with a plethora of emerging terrestrial green energy options," he explains. And that list is not only green, but long, too, ranging from ever more efficient and inexpensive nanoplastic photovoltaics and biomass/biofuels to tapping tidal currents in the northern latitudes to drilling for geothermal energy. Overall, says Bushnell, the quest for energetics is headed toward distributed systems, the politically correct version, contrasted to a huge, centralized, massive capital investment approach typified by satellite solar power systems. SOLVENCY: LAUNCHES ARE TOO EXPENSIVE FOR SBSP TO BE PROFITABLE, SPACE LAUNCHES WILL NEED TO COST 1% OF WHAT THEY DO TODAY-Boyle ‘09 [Alan; science editor; Making space power pay; MSNBC; 18 Sep 2009; http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/09/18/4350512-making-space-power-pay; retrieved 23 Jun 2011] To be competitive with other power sources, Maness figures that the powersat system's launch costs would have to be around $100 per pound - which is roughly one-hundredth of the current asking price. Launch costs may be heading downward, thanks in part to the rise of SpaceX's Falcon rockets, but Maness can't yet predict when the charts tracing cost and benefit will cross into the profitable zone. For now, Maness is targeting the 2017-2018 time frame for a space demonstration project. In the meantime, he's hoping to work through a tangle of regulatory issues and also keep an eye on his potential competitors - including not only Solaren but also Space Energy Inc., Space Island Group and Welsom Space Consortium. "It's a race for us right now," Maness said.
[Keith; electrical engineer; Space Solar Power – Recent Conceptual Progress; The Oil Drum; 03 June 2011; http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7898; retrieved 23 Jun 2011] Is a space solar project worth doing? We need to run a cost/benefit analysis to find out. For a ten-year return on capital, a kW of power sold for a penny a kWh generates $800 of revenue (~80,000 revenue-hours in ten years). Two cents per kWh is about the most power could sell for to displace coal. That means a kW of power satellite capacity can't cost more than $1600 or $1.6 B per GW if it is to meet this goal. If power satellites take 5 kg of parts to generate a kW on the ground,[9]and the transport fraction is ~1/3, then the cost to lift parts to GEO can be no more than $100/kg. That's a reduction of 200 to one ($20,000 per kg down to $100) over current cost to deliver communication satellites to GEO. Hiroshi Yoshida, Chief Executive Officer of Excalibur KK, a Tokyo-based space and defense-policy consulting company, and William Maness, chief executive officer of Everett, Wash.-based PowerSat Corp., both think it will take this kind of transport cost reduction for power satellites to be competitive with other power sources. THE MAJOR EXPENSE—TRANSPORT TO SPACE—IS STILL COST PROHIBITIVE-Zwaniecki ‘07 [Andrrzej; staff writer; Space Solar Energy Has Future; Space Daily; 21 Aug 2007] In recent decades, the technologies essential to the concept have made "tremendous" progress, he told USINFO. For example, efficiency of solar power generation and wireless power transmission has more than quadrupled, allowing for significant reductions in the size, mass and potential costs of the solar power systems. Martin Hoffert, former chair of the Department of Applied Sciences at New York University, told members of the Capitol Hill Club in August that space solar power research and development can pro-ceed with existing technologies. But the potential costs remain high, discouraging entrepreneurs and the government from investing in it. The major expense -- transporting equipment and materials into orbit aboard a space shuttle -- is $20,000 per kilogram of payload, or the carrying capacity of a space vehicle.
[Space Based Solar Power; Ad Astra; Spring 2008; www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf; retrieved 11 Jul 2011] A major barrier to all space endeavors also applies to space solar power, and that is affordable access to space. This barrier is one of compelling importance. The problem of space access includes both low-cost and highly-reliable Earth-to-orbit transportation, and in-space transportation. (Fortunately, one of the key ingredients in overcoming this barrier is having a market that requires many flights. It’s hard to imagine how air travel between continents would be affordable if the aircraft were used once or twice per year rather than once or twice per day!) Advances that drive down the cost of space operations present significant hurdles, too. These hurdles involve a range of capabilities, most of which have never been demonstrated in space—but all of which are entirely taken for granted here on Earth. The kinds of capabilities in question include the highly-autonomous assembly of large structures, the deployment and integration of modular electronic systems, refueling, and repair and maintenance. (The key ingredient is to perform such operations without large numbers of operators and sustaining engineers on Earth—which drive the high cost of contemporary space operations.) THERE ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE NUMBER OF LAUNCHES THAT WILL BE REQUIRED-Globus ‘08 [Space Based Solar Power; Ad Astra; Spring 2008; www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf; retrieved 11 Jul 2011] The environmental impact of these launches is also a concern. Today there are few launches and, therefore, they have little effect on the atmosphere. What will happen when hundreds of thousands of rockets are dumping exhaust, even clean exhaust, into the upper atmosphere? If the vehicles are reusable, which we expect, they will use atmospheric drag to come down. The heat generated will create a number of chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere. What will be the effect? We don’t know. There’s reason to believe the problems won’t be severe, but the studies conducted so far are inadequate. THE UNITED STATES HAS VERY LIMITED RESOURCES FOR LAUNCHES AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCALE THAT SPS SYSTEMS DEMAND-National Security Space Office ‘07 [Space Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security; National Security Space Office; 10 Oct 2007; http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm; retrieved 12 Jul 2011] At present, the United States has very limited capabilities to build large structures, very large apertures or very high power systems in orbit. It has very limited in-space maneuver and operational capability, and very limited access to space. It cannot at present move large amounts of mass into Earth orbit. The United States correspondingly has extremely limited capabilities for in-space manufacturing and construction or in-situ space resource utilization. It has no capability for beamed power or propulsion. SBSP development would advance the state of the art in all of the above competencies. THE VOLUME OF FLIGHTS NECESSARY TO CREATE SOLAR POWER SATELLITES IS WELL BEYOND CURRENT RESOURCES-Inside Missile Defense ‘07 [Critical Space-Based Solar Power Capability Could Cost $10 Billion; Inside Missile Defense; 7 Nov 2007] However, SBSP cannot be constructed without "safe, frequent (daily/weekly), cheap, and reliable access to space and ubiquitous in-space operations," the report states. "The sheer volume and number of flights into space, and the efficiencies reached by those high volumes is game-changing." The group found that the initiative is a complex engineering challenge, "but requires no fundamental scientific breakthroughs or new physics to become a reality," the report states. Currently, the United States initiates less than 15 space launches per year -- at 25 megatons or less -- and construction of a single SBSP satellite alone would require in excess of 120 such launches. SOLVENCY: COST IS TOO HIGH THE COSTS ARE TOO HIGH FOR EITHER PRIVATE OR GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT-States News Service ‘07 [SPACE SOLAR ENERGY HAS FUTURE, U.S. RESEARCHERS SAY; States News Service; 20 Aug 2007] But the potential costs remain high, discouraging entrepreneurs and the government from investing in it. The major expense -- transporting equipment and materials into orbit aboard a space shuttle -- is $20,000 per kilogram of payload, or the carrying capacity of a space vehicle. Proponents of space solar power believe the project would become viable economically if the payload cost could be reduced to be-low $200 per kilogram, and the total expense of delivery and robotic assembly on orbit could be brought below $3,500 per kilogram. That is not likely to happen any time soon and a reusable launch vehicle, needed to reduce costs drastically, eventually would require government investment, Mankins said. He said, however, that a small-scale demonstration project of the space solar power concept could help convince skeptics and provide a strong political justification for such an investment. EVEN WITH THE COSTS OF ENERGY, THE DOD COULD NOT AFFORD TO BE AN ANCHOR CUSTOMER WITH 2007 PRICES-National Security Space Office ‘07 [Space Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security; National Security Space Office; 10 Oct 2007; http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm; retrieved 12 Jul 2011] The SBSP Study Group found that even with the DoD as an anchor tenant customer at a price of $1]2 per kilowatt hour for 5-50 megawatts continuous power for the warfighter, when considering the risks of implementing a new unproven space technology and other major business risks, the business case for SBSP still does not appear to close in 2007 with current capabilities (primarily launch costs). WE CAN MAKE SOLAR POWER MUCH MORE CHEAPLY IN THE UNITED STATES-Cho ‘07 [Dan; writer; Can Solar Power Work in Space?; New Scientist; 24 Nov 2007] Others are reluctant even to go this far. "You've got to think what you gain and what you lose by going to space. It eliminates storage and transmission problems, but at a pretty enormous price," says Roger Angel, a solar power enthusiast at the University of Arizona, who was also at the MIT meeting. "We can make solar power on the ground cheaper than you ever could from space. I can think realistically about 2500 square km in Arizona. Think about that in space. That's a lot of stuff in space." De Weck is concerned by the safety issues of using concentrated beams of energy. "It could be dangerous. We don't know what the effects would be on airplanes accidentally flying through such beams. And what if a malfunction caused a beam to misalign and illuminate a populated area? That's a big deal-breaker in my opinion." LAUNCH COSTS ARE A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO SBSP-Boswell ‘04 [David; Whatever happened to solar power satellites?; The Space Review; 30 Aug 2004; http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1; retrieved 06 Aug 2011] Another barrier is that launching anything into space costs a lot of money. A substantial investment would be needed to get a solar power satellite into orbit; then the launch costs would make the electricity that was produced more expensive than other alternatives. In the long term, launch costs will need to come down before generating solar power in space makes economic sense. But is the expense of launching enough to explain why so little progress has been made? SBSP WOULD WORK, BUT IT WOULD BE INSANELY EXPENSIVE-Spencer ‘08 [Roy; principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Reality Deniers; National Review; 15 Jan 2008; http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223225/reality-deniers/roy-spencer?page=1; retrieved 06 Aug 2011] And now the space-based solar power crowd has returned. These “experts” point to the increase in efficiency that could be achieved by putting solar collectors in Earth’s orbit and beaming the energy down to the ground. And indeed you probably could get several times the amount of energy from a solar collector in space versus on the ground. Too bad it would be insanely expensive. You might have heard of the problems NASA has had with relatively tiny solar collectors attached to the Space Station and Space Telescope. Now imagine putting a one-square mile collector in space. Even if we could get such a thing designed, built, launched, and working, it would replace only 1 of the 1,000 one-gigawatt plants I mentioned earlier that the U.S. alone needs.
[Linda; staff writer; Where The Sun Does Shine; Air and Space; 01 July 2008; http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Sun_Does_Shine.html?c=y&page=2; retrieved 06 Aug 2011] If the government put money into space solar power, would taxpayers get a return on their investment? Molly Macauley, an economist with Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C. energy and environment think tank, has studied the ability of sunsats to compete with other renewable energy technologies. It’s a hard case to make, she says. “Advocates of space solar power fail to acknowledge that technological change and innovation are happening in other types of renewable energy—ground-based solar power, concentrated solar power, wind, geothermal energy. The ability to compete on a cents-per-kilowatt-hour basis is going to get more difficult, not less difficult.” COST OF SPACE LAUNCHES IS SIMPLY TOO HIGH TODAY-Fan, et al ‘11 [William; Space Based Solar Power: Industry and Technology Assessment; 02 Jun 2011; http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] The cost of space launches are another potential roadblock. If the price per kg does not decrease at a significant rate, large scale, capital intensive projects such as SBSP will most likely not be feasible. However, disruptive technology such as a space elevator can quickly make SBSP a reality. A further roadblock will be the potential dual use of any space based platform. A satellite which can beam power at a receiving station can also beam power at any arbitrary location. SOLAR POWER SATELLITES WILL NEED TO PROVE THEY CAN COMPETE WITH RENEWABLES INCLUDING OTHER SOLAR FORMS-David ‘07 [Leonard; contributing writer; Climate Change: A Geoengineering Fix?; Aerospace America; September 2007] Space-based "solutions" for attacking global warming come in two dominant flavors, says Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA Langley. These are solar-powered satellites for green energy production, and various concepts for shielding/reflecting incident solar energy. Bushnell says that, in large measure, space-based global warming solutions are either potentially high cost, in the case of satellite solar power, or high risk, in the case of shielding/reflecting. "Satellite solar power systems have to compete with a plethora of emerging terrestrial green energy options," he explains. And that list is not only green, but long, too, ranging from ever more efficient and inexpensive nanoplastic photovoltaics and biomass/biofuels to tapping tidal currents in the northern latitudes to drilling for geothermal energy. Overall, says Bushnell, the quest for energetics is headed toward distributed systems, the politically correct version, contrasted to a huge, centralized, massive capital investment approach typified by satellite solar power systems.
SOLVENCY: SAFETY Directory: file -> fetch fetch -> 11 th Lit Semester 1 Final Study Guide!!! fetch -> Industrial Revolution Inventors fetch -> Analysis for Galveston Hurricane of 1900 fetch -> The Illuminators (Team 2) 1900 Galveston Hurricane Cycle a team Assignment fetch -> Team csi-utb ruth Reyes Jose Ferrer fetch -> Galveston Hurricane of 1900 Cycle a-teacher as a Problem Solver fetch -> Is Climate Change Starting a New Dust Bowl? Cycle A fetch -> What makes a storm a hurricane fetch -> The 1950s were the "Happy Days" because it was a time of economic prosperity, technology development, new entertainment, new fashion and family growth. The 1950s was a great time fetch -> Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age Download 1.49 Mb. Share with your friends:
|