Sps supplement Rough Draft-endi2011 Alpharetta 2011 / Boyce, Doshi, Hermansen, Ma, Pirani
Download 0.84 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Initial cost small compared to capital, return infinite
- The U.S. has the best capabilities now including launchers. Center for New American Security
- Launch costs are improving- many solutions to save money Smith 3
AT: Launcher ShortagesAssembly in space solves economic impacts and creates 3 jobs per 1 MW of useful power Aleksander Zidanšek et al Department of Physics, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University of Maribor 11 [(Milan Ambrožič Maja Milfelner Robert Blinc and Noam Lior Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, Ljubljana, Slovenia b Jožef Stefan International Postgraduate School, Jamova cesta 39, Ljubljana, Slovenia c Department of Physics, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University of Maribor, Koroška 160, Maribor, Slovenia d University of Pennsylvania, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6315, USA) Energy Volume 36, Issue 4, April 2011, Pages 1986-1995 “Solar Orbital Power: Sustainability Analysis” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544210005931#affc] Herm We have analysed some economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability for electricity production in solar space power plants using current technology. While space solar power is still way too expensive for launches from the Earth, there are several technological possibilities to reduce this price. For a large scale application of orbital power stations both environmental impact and costs can be significantly reduced. The first option is to build and employ reusable space vehicles for launching the satellites, instead of rockets, which is the main recommendation by NASA, and the second option is to build the satellites and rockets in space (e.g. on the Moon). An old NASA estimate shows that this would be economical for as few as 30 orbital satellites with 300 GWe of total power [17]. The costs could be even further reduced, if the first satellite is launched into the low Earth orbit, and then uses its produced energy to lift itself into a higher GEO orbit or even to the Moon [35]. If the satellites and rockets are then built on the Moon in robotic factories, we estimate that: - The environmental impact of the orbital solar power plants would become significantly lower than for any Earth-based power plant except perhaps nuclear fusion. Measured by CO2 emissions, it would be about 0.5 kg perWof useful power, and this number would even decrease with improved technology and larger scope; - The production cost of the orbital solar power plants could also become significantly lower than for any Earth-based power plant except perhaps nuclear fusion. It is estimated as about US $1 per W of useful power, and would also decrease with improved technology and larger scope; - The social impact of cheap and clean energy from space is more difficult to estimate, because space power satellites seem to be connected to a significant loss of jobs. It is however difficult to estimate the benefits of a large amount of cheap clean energy, which would most likely more than offset the negative effects of lost jobs, and we estimate that about 3 jobs would be created in the economy per 1 MW of installed useful power. One could therefore expect a net positive effect of solar power satellites on sustainability. These effects seem to be the most positive, if thermal power satellites are used, which are built in a robotic factory on the Moon and then launched into the GEO orbit. The concept presented in this paper has some significant advantages over many other proposed concepts for large scale energy production on Earth. For example, nuclear fusion promises to become a clean and cheap source of energy, however even in the best case scenario it can’t become operational before 2040. Solar orbital power concept can become operational in less than a decade and produce large amounts of energy in two decades. It is also important that the price as well as environmental impact of solar orbital power are expected to decrease with scale. In addition to expected increase in employment this makes solar orbital power an important alternative to other sustainable energy sources. Initial cost small compared to capital, return infinite Geoffrey A. Landis, NASA Glenn Research Center 09 Presented at the XXIth Space Photovoltaic Research and Technology Conference (SPRAT-2009), “SOLAR POWER FROM SPACE: SEPARATING SPECULATION FROM REALITY” October 6-8, 2009 http://www.mitenergyclub.org/assets/2010/2/13/Landis_SPS-SPRAT09.pdf Herm The economic return for space solar power requires return on investment. If a SPS is to be commercially viable, it must charge the utilities to which it is selling power price (per kW-hr) less than the utility's cost of generating new power. Note that it is important to beat the utilities' cost, not the customer's electric cost. This cost may include the cost for externalities (e.g., possible penalties to be imposed for generating with coal), if any. As a minimum, even if operating cost is zero (i.e., small compared to the capital) and operating lifetime is infinite, the invested money must be returned. The U.S. has the best capabilities now including launchers. Center for New American Security ( Abraham M. Denmark is a Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Chris Evans is a Senior Consultant at Delta Risk Consulting. Robert D. Kaplan, a National Correspondent for The Atlantic and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, is writing a book on the Indian Ocean. Jason Healey is the Washington D.C. Office Director for Delta Risk Consulting. Frank Hoffman wrote his chapter when he was a Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. He now works for the Department of the Navy. Oliver Fritz is the Assistant Director of Strategic Planning at Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. Lt Col Kelly Martin (USAF) is a Senior Military Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Dr. James Mulvenon is Vice-President of Defense Group Inc.’s Intelligence Division and Director of DGI’s Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis. Dr. Greg Rattray is a Partner at Delta Risk Consulting, is Chief Internet Security Advisor at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and is a member of the Cyber Conflict Studies Association Board. Eric Sterner is a Fellow at the George C. Marshall Institute.) 2010 “ Contested Commons: The Future of American Power in a Multipolar World” 2010 (http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS%20Contested%20Commons_1.pdf) [Pitman] The United States is the world’s leader in space, in civilian and government uses. The U.S. Government is the most active customer for space in the United States, and has the largest budget for it (Table 1). The United States is also the world’s leader in civilian space infrastructure and capabilities. In 2007, U.S. satellite manufacturers held contracts to produce 50 percent of commercial geosynchronous communications satellites on back-order, and the United States was scheduled to conduct 36 percent of back-ordered space launches for the world. 9 Of 21 new orders for geosynchronous communications satellites placed in 2008, U.S. manufacturers received 11 orders, followed by the Europeans with seven, and the Russians, Chinese and Japanese each won one order. 10 Launch costs are improving- many solutions to save money Smith 3, Director at Moon Society; Founder and President at Long Island Space Society, (Arthur,“The Case For Space Based Solar Power Development: solar energy on Earth and in space might be the first large scale space industry” http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html, 8-11-03, MA) // CCH Lower launch costs is a major goal of all space advocates. The X Prize contenders, Musk's Space-X, even the major aerospace "EELV" program all have the intention of significantly reducing launch costs. Whether any rocket based system will succeed remains to be seen - perhaps we will have to wait for space elevators to see much reduction in cost to orbit. But there are some indicators that we could see a factor of 3-5 improvement, and perhaps more, over the next decade with a sufficiently large and competitive launch market. Competition in the commercial launch market already has some providers such as Sea Launch offering $4000-$5000 per kg prices to low earth orbit. Use of solar electric propulsion allows higher orbits at only slightly higher cost. Given the multi-trillion-dollar potential market for space-based power, increased funding for launch systems development to accelerate these improvements would also be a worthy investment. There is another way to reduce launch costs. In David Criswell's Lunar Solar Power proposal (5), instead of launching the final components from Earth, manufacturing facilities are sent from Earth to the Moon to build the solar power system components there. And to save even further on launch costs, the solar components stay on the Moon and transmit power directly from there. The initial capital investment is higher than for an Earth-launched system primarily due to the much larger antennas needed to transmit power efficiently from Moon to Earth, but overall costs per delivered Watt should be much lower, and the costs for such an approach are less dependent on reducing launch costs from Earth. 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 0.84 Mb. Share with your friends:
|