Sbsp affirmative- arl lab- ndi 2011

SBSP better than other renewables and solves ground-based solar intermittency problems

A more radical idea is “space solar power.” This technology would use huge photovoltaic arrays to capture the sun’s energy in space, convert it to direct electrical current, and then beam the electricity to Earth using microwaves or lasers. To produce this energy, solar satellites would be placed in high altitude, geosynchronous orbit, and spaced far enough apart so that at least one unit faced the sun at all times—a solution to the intermittency problem. Macauley and Shih (2007) calculate that, as compared with alternatives such as combined cycle gas turbines and wind, space solar power could be competitive in meeting incremental electricity demand by 2030 in places like California, the U.S. Midwest, Germany, and India—provided fossil fuel alternatives faced a carbon penalty of about $15–25/tCO2.2 This estimate makes space solar power look very appealing, but it may be optimistic—among other things, the economics of space solar power depend on enhancements in complementary technologies, such as those that can reduce Earth-to-orbit transportation costs.

SBSP better than other alternatives- 4 reasons

Snead 09 (James M, The Space Review, The Vital Need For America to Develop Space Solar Power, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1364/1, JG)
Interest in SSP has reemerged in response to the public’s growing appreciation of the need to develop new sustainable energy sources. Compared to other terrestrial renewable alternatives, GEO SSP has four important advantages: Its scale of potential generation capacity is very large, an important consideration in formulating policies and plans to avoid future energy scarcity. It should have the ability to provide high quality electrical power—nearly 365 days of the year, 24 hours a day—for baseload electrical power supply comparable to nuclear energy. It should have nearly worldwide access and usability enabling countries to achieve a degree of energy independence even when traditional renewable energy sources are not practical. It should have important terrestrial environmental benefits, including avoiding thermal waste heat ejection and minimizing the land area otherwise needed for terrestrial renewable energy generation.

SSP is the Best energy system for the next energy era

NSS 07 (National Space Society, Space Solar Power Limitless clean energy from space, About Space Solar Power (SSP, also known as Space-Based Solar Power, or SBSP):, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/, JG)
The last of the candidates—solar power satellites—is the one that can best meet all of the criteria to become the energy system of the next energy era. I will review how it satisfies each criterion. Low Cost The first criterion is low cost over the long term. Usually the first reaction to the question of a solar power satellite being low cost is that nothing associated with space could possibly be low cost. That is simultaneously a correct reaction and an erroneous one. It is correct when considering the cost of hardware designed to operate in space on an independent basis with high reliability. Based on dollars per pound of space hardware versus dollars per pound of, say, a spool of copper wire, there is no comparison. But that very same piece of space hardware—a communications satellite, for example—can reduce the cost of an international telephone call by a factor of ten times less than could be provided by the spool of copper wire strung from one point on earth to another point far away. Now which one is lowest cost? The same principle applies in the case of the solar power satellite. The hardware is not cheap, but it has high productivity. The high productivity is achieved because the solar power satellite is in the sunlight over 99% of the time, which is five times more sunlight than is available at the best location on earth. It can operate at maximum capacity at all times and does not need a storage system. Its overall efficiency of converting sunlight to electricity delivered on earth is projected to be from 7% and 10%, and the system will be operating in the benign environment of space. This compares to the 1% to 3% for earth-based solar cell systems, and along with the favorable environment and the elimination of storage systems, is the fundamental reason for going to space for solar energy. If we use the cost estimates established from the preliminary designs developed by the NASA study contractors in the late 1970s, then the cost of power would be less than the cost of electricity generated by coal, oil, or nuclear power. When the initial capital costs are paid off, the cost of power could then drop to a fraction of the costs from other sources. The power costs are at least in the right ballpark. The energy is free; the only cost is the cost of the conversion hardware and the cost to maintain it. The environment in space is very favorable for most equipment. There is no wind or rain or dirt or oxygen or corrosive fluids. Things last a very long time in space. The potential exists for long-term low cost—without the inflationary cost of fossil or synthetic fuels. Nondepletable Second is the question of depletability. It is clear that the energy source is nondepletable since it is available for as long as the sun shines and, therefore, for as long as man exists. Only one part in two billionths of the sun’s energy is actually intercepted by the earth. This extremely small fraction is still a massive amount of energy. The satellites would not even have to infringe on this increment, however, as they would intercept the energy that normally streams past the earth into deep space. Geosynchronous orbit is about 165,000 miles in circumference—ample room to place as many satellites as we desire. The amount of energy that can be gathered and delivered to earth is primarily a function of how much we want, and only the usable energy is delivered to the earth. Environmentally Clean The environmental issue is what has stopped the construction of more nuclear power plants. Can solar power satellites pass this criteria? First of all, it is difficult to fault the energy source as environmentally unacceptable, even though most dermatologists try. The rest of us think having the sun around is just fine. Putting the power plant and its associated equipment 22,300 miles from the nearest house does not seem like a bad idea, either, especially when the thermal loss of energy conversion is left in deep space and will not heat up our rivers and atmosphere as all the thermal plants do. But what about the wireless energy beam? Is it a death ray that will cook us if something goes wrong and it wanders from the receiving antenna? No. Even though the radio frequency beam is the same kind of frequency as we use for cooking in our microwave ovens, the energy density (or the amount of energy in a given area) is much less than the energy density in our microwave ovens (because our ovens are designed to contain the energy and concentrate it within the oven cavity). In fact, the wireless energy beam’s maximum energy density would be less than ten times the allowed leakage from the door of a microwave oven. At that level, which would be a maximum of 50 milliwatts per square centimeter, a person would just feel some warmth if he or she was standing in the center of the beam on top of the rectenna (not a very likely event). That much energy is less than half of the energy found in bright sunlight at high noon on a Florida beach, except that it is in the form of high-frequency radio waves, or microwaves. The only definitely known reaction of living tissue to microwaves is heating. There is much debate about other possible effects, such as nervous system disorders or genetic effects due to long-term exposures at low levels. No good, hard evidence exists to prove or disprove the allegations. Many studies have been made and others are underway, however, to try to clarify the issue. In the meantime, let us consider the general evidence accumulated over the last century. X-rays and the natural radiation of radium were discovered at about the same time as radio waves. In fact, Wilhelm Rontgen discovered x-rays in 1895, which was the same year that Marconi invented the radio telegraph. As early as 1888 both Heinrich Hertz and Oliver Lodge had independently identified radio waves as belonging to the same family as light waves. The big difference between nuclear radiation and radio and light waves is that radio and light waves are non-ionizing, whereas nuclear radiation is ionizing. Unfortunately, people often confuse the two. During the ensuing years, it became very clear that the magic of x-rays and the natural radiation of radium went beyond what was originally thought. Serious side effects were soon discovered. Mysterious deaths occurred among workers who painted the luminous dials of watches. The development of the atomic bomb lead to the discovery of many more effects of excessive exposure to ionizing radiation. During that same period, radio, radar, and television grew at an even more rapid rate. Radar, television, radio, and space communication frequencies spanned the entire radio frequency range. Energy systems were added among the communication frequencies. During all these years of exposure by everyone on earth, the only nontransient effect identified has been heating. The point I am making is that if some serious phenomenon were caused by radio waves, there should be indications by now. The overall picture for the microwave environmental issue looks good, but additional data will be needed to be certain. This is the hardest data to gather—information to prove that there are no effects. The companion environmental issue is the question of the land required for the receiving antenna. Because the energy density is restricted to a very low level in the beam—in order to assure safety—the antenna must be large in order to supply the billion watts of power from a solar power satellite. The antenna would be about 1.8 miles wide. Since it can be elevated above the ground and since it would block less that 20% of the sunlight while stopping over 99% of the microwaves, the land can be used for agriculture as well as for the receiving antenna. In comparison, the total land required is less than with most other energy systems. The amount of land required for the receiving antenna is actually much less than that required for coal strip mines to produce an equivalent amount of power over 40 years. Available to Everyone The satellites may be located at any location around the earth and would be able to beam their energy to any selected receiver site except near the North and South Poles. Certainly they could make electricity available to all the larger populated areas of the earth, if those areas purchased a satellite or bought the electricity from a utility company that owned one. It is not possible for most countries to be able to afford the development costs of a satellite system, but once developed the cost of individual satellites would be within the capability of many countries. In a Useful Form With solar power satellites, the form of the energy delivered is electricity, the cleanest and highest form available to us. It is the form we need to clean up the earth’s environment. It is the energy form of the future. Here at last is a nondepletable, clean energy source with vast capacity, within our capability to develop, waiting to carry us into the twenty-first century.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 1.74 Mb.

Share with your friends: