Endi 2011 / Daniel/Jason/Kevin/Marc/MiHe/Parth/Simrun



Download 0.51 Mb.
Page24/28
Date18.10.2016
Size0.51 Mb.
#1352
1   ...   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28

Links – SPS


SPS is expensive

HSU, 09 - special writer at space.com (02 December 2009, Jeremy, “Controversy flares over space-based solar power plans,” http://www.space.com/7617-controversy-flares-space-based-solar-power-plans.html)

The problem is that we're treating space solar power as something that has to compete with coal right now," said Hoffert, who gave a recent talk on beamed power at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. "Nothing can compete with coal." Despite his enthusiasm, Hoffert remains skeptical of Solaren's plan. And he warns that failure to deliver could deal a life-threatening blow to the dream of space solar power. A decision by the California Power Utility Commission on Solaren?s plan for PG&E could come as early as Thursday, according to a Dow Jones wire report. Solar panels in space can receive seven times more solar energy per unit than ones on Earth and don't have to deal with weather or darkness. The challenge in harnessing that energy comes from the expensive costs of launching material into space, as well as figuring out how to beam energy back down to Earth. Microwave beaming has long been the favored delivery option for space solar power advocates. Space power stations using this method would convert the electricity generated by solar panels into radio frequency (RF) waves for beaming down to an Earth receiver several kilometers wide. A former NASA scientist demonstrated the RF concept last year by beaming 20 watts between two Hawaiian islands ? barely enough energy to power a dim light bulb. That experiment cost just $1 million. A full-scale space solar power setup would require much bigger and more costly receivers. Another more recent choice has arisen in the form of solid-state lasers. Such lasers now have enough power to deliver energy as a tightly focused optical beam that requires much less costly equipment in space and on the ground. But unlike RF, lasers can run into bigger problems with atmospheric interference and weather. "Microwaves can beam through clouds, which lasers can't," Hoffert explained. "With lasers you're going to have to have receivers in desert sites that are cloud free, and maybe backup receivers in several sites." Hoffert still favors lasers because of the lower costs required up front for a tech demonstration. By contrast, Solaren weighed its choices and decided to go with RF technology. "Basically we chose RF because it is more efficient and has all-weather capability for the reliable delivery of electricity to our customers," said Cal Boerman, Solaren's director of energy services. Hoffert is wary of Solaren's latest step forward and the company's promise of delivering 200 megawatts to PG&E utility customers in California by 2016. Hoffert estimates that Solaren could manage to get about 50 percent transmission efficiency in a best-case scenario, meaning that half of the energy collected by space solar panels would be lost in the transfer down to Earth. Solaren would then need to launch a solar panel array capable of generating 400 megawatts. The total launch weight of all the equipment would be the equivalent of about 400 metric tons, or 20 shuttle-sized launches, according to Hoffert. But Solaren says that it would just require four or five heavy-lift rocket launches capable of carrying 25 metric tons, or about one fourth of Hoffert's weight estimate. The company is relying on developing more efficient photovoltaic technology for the solar panels, as well as mirrors that help focus sunlight. "Solaren?s patented SSP [space solar power] system dramatically reduces the SSP space segment mass compared to previous concepts," Boerman told SPACE.com. Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology works, citing intellectual property concerns. But it expects that its space solar power can convert to RF energy with greater than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar conversion efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC electricity on the ground in California. The company also anticipates minimal transmission losses from the space to the ground. Hoffert remains unconvinced without knowing the details of Solaren's technology. He frets that "premature optimism" over unproven and perhaps scientifically implausible concepts could end up ruining the reputation of space solar power, even as advocates desperately want to see their vision come true. "Too many space power guys have been silent, perhaps to not give comfort to opponents," Hoffert noted in a recent e-mail to colleagues. "But scientists should not do this." Hoffert still believes strongly in the promise of space solar power, and has calculated that it can even prove as cost-effective as ground-based solar panels. That's because solar farms on Earth must build expensive storage systems to hold energy reserves during cloudy days or nighttime ? although Hoffert still sees solar farms as an ideal complement to space solar power. Space solar power has to deal mainly with expensive launch costs of about $15,000 per kilogram, as well as the huge capital costs of building ground arrays if RF technology is involved. Hoffert has pushed for the laser beaming approach as newly effective cost-cutting measure, and even submitted a proposal with his son to ARPA-E, the U.S. Department of Energy's new agency. "The cost to first power doesn't have to be in the hundreds of billions," Hoffert said. His proposal includes laser transmission tests on the ground in an NYU lab, and then a space experiment launched to the International Space Station. Such beaming tests could even provide temporary power to isolated places on Earth along the space station's ground track, although a true solar space power station would sit in geostationary orbit. Hoffert approved of Japan's own space solar power effort, led by JAXA, which would test both RF technology and lasers as means of energy transmission. He envisions the possibility of space solar power becoming commercially viable within a decade ? but only if all the science bears out the technology behind private efforts. "Some of it is physics and engineering, and some of it is business and promotion," Hoffert said. "But in the long run, you can't fool Mother Nature

SPS will come out of the DOC and NOAA budget

Shea, 10- writer of Online Journal of Space Communication (10/29/2010, Karen Cramer, “Why Has SPS R&D Received So Little Funding?” http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/shea.html)

Since neither the DOE nor NASA considers space solar power to be in its mandate and each refuses to fund its development, maybe it is time for Americans to consider whether there are other U.S. government agencies that might see these developments within their mandate. The Department of Commerce is an agency that deals with space and is concerned about the nation's energy future. The Commerce Department currently hosts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the world's largest civilian space agencies. Commerce is concerned with all aspects of the U.S. economy and energy definitely affects the US economy. The Department of Commerce is the perfect agency to take the lead on space solar power. From its Web site, one can see that Commerce's mission includes "promoting the Nation's economic and technological advancement," "strengthening the international economic position of the United States," "improving comprehension and uses of the physical environment," and "ensuring effective use and growth of the Nation's scientific and technical resources." Space solar power development will be key to U.S. future economic and technological development. SPS is an excellent example of a way to help strengthen our international economic position, to improve use of our physical environment and effectively exploit our scientific and technical resources. Space solar power is clearly within the mandate of the Department of Commerce. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke is in a good position from which to champion space solar power development. He was the two-time governor of the State of Washington; thus is very aware of the importance of aerospace to the U.S. economy since Boeing is a pillar of the state's economy. He has strong leadership skills. The Commerce Department currently hosts the Office of Space Commercialization, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards & Technology, National Telecommunications & Information Administration, National Technical Information Service and Economic Development Administration. All of these can be expected to contribute to and benefit from the effort to develop a system of Solar Power Satellites. The Office of Space Commercialization is presently the only civilian government group interested in space solar power. The Department of Commerce has a history of cooperation with both DOE and NASA. Today, NOAA works closely with NASA on its weather satellite launches. Gary Locke and Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of the Department of Energy, work together well, making many joint appearances. If Commerce will fund SSP development, the issue of launch costs will still need to be addressed. Launching satellites and related materials into space has remained extremely expensive for decades because the current market isn't big enough to justify the major investment required to develop new technology. Given the potential size of this new energy source, it would make sense for the US government to put money into R&D. It would also help if the government subsidized launch costs for the first four full scale solar power satellites in return for a percent of the power produced for the life of the satellite. This could help to get the energy market moving in the direction of space. It may also help to address some of the power needs of our Department of Defense. To meet the demands of launching the components of four solar power satellites into geosynchronous orbit, the launch industry would have to rapidly up-size. Putting the power of the government behind this effort would assure development of improved facilities and technologies. Four satellites would allow the SSP technology to go through several generations of improvement while the market was being established. Once their capabilities are proven, with four electricity generating satellites in orbit, the industry will have a track record on which to secure investment capital for additional launches. It is hoped that because of the investment and new technologies applied launch costs will have been lowered.

DOE would fund SPS

Boswell, 04 - Author for the space review (August 30, 2004, David, “Whatever happened to solar power satellites,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1)

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? There were over 60 launches in 2003, so last year there was enough money spent to put something into orbit about every week on average. Funding was found to launch science satellites to study gravity waves and to explore other planets. There are also dozens of GPS satellites in orbit that help people find out where they are on the ground. Is there enough money available for these purposes, but not enough to launch even one solar power satellite that would help the world develop a new source of energy? In the 2004 budget the Department of Energy has over $260 million allocated for fusion research. Obviously the government has some interest in funding renewable energy research and they realize that private companies would not be able to fund the development of a sustainable fusion industry on their own. From this perspective, the barrier holding back solar power satellites is not purely financial, but rather the problem is that there is not enough political will to make the money available for further development. There is a very interesting discussion on the economics of large space projects that makes the point that “the fundamental problem in opening any contemporary frontier, whether geographic or technological, is not lack of imagination or will, but lack of capital to finance initial construction which makes the subsequent and typically more profitable economic development possible. Solving this fundamental problem involves using one or more forms of direct or indirect government intervention in the capital market.”


Download 0.51 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page