Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

California Approves Orbiting Solar Panel Project

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 12:54 AM
Original message
California Approves Orbiting Solar Panel Project

California Approves Orbiting Solar Panel Project

by Diane Pham, 12/05/09

Earlier this year California’s biggest energy utility PG&E announced that they would purchase 200 megawatts of solar power beamed down from outer space starting in 2016. As out of this world the proposal may have seemed, it has recently found solid Earthly ground as the state’s legislators have officially given this space venture the solar powered green light.

Through its power purchase agreement with Solaren Corporation, PG&E will be entitled to power generated from a first-of-its kind space-based solar project. The experimental technology will employ orbiting satellites equipped with solar cells ready to transform the sun’s energy into electricity. The electricity that is produced by these cells will then be converted into radio frequency transmittable energy, collected at a receiving station in Freso, California, and finally be transferred to PG&E’s power grid.

snip

http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/12/05/california-approves-orbiting-solar-panel-project/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sadly, It's a scam....
The CEO of Solaren has been "proposing" SPS systems for over 5 years now. Here is where he stands so far:

1. He has no manufacturing capability for satellites of any kind.

2. He has no actual engineering plan or blueprints of any kind that have been released for an SPS.

3. He has no launch capability or plan for such a capability.

4. He has no actual engineering design plans for a ground receiving station.

5. He has no prototype or demo for either a ground station or a power satellite that he has ever shown anyone

Basically ALL that is has is a REALLY good PR team - and a PG&E "contract" for hm to provide power - based on nothing more then his claim that he can.

Why did PG&E give him a contract?
Because PG&E has stste and federally mandated "clean energy" production goals for the next 10 years. It was recently discovered that this pie in the sky contract fulfills their mandated goals.

I think SPS is a GREAT idea but sadly this is just an example of a big energy corp pulling an Exxon on us again.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's not a scam.
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 02:49 AM by bananas
You don't know what you're talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. What kind of rocket are they launching it on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Commercial launch vehicles.
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 04:10 AM by bananas
They don't need their own launch capability.
Bigelow has two space habs in orbit, but he has no launch capability.
How did they get up there - magic?

edit to add: long thread in LBN: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4170056&mesg_id=4170056

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Where do you get "they need their own launch capablity" from what I asked?
I asked because we'd at least know what configuration they're using for the rocket. Whatever they chose, SpaceX, what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. The thread goes like this...
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 01:59 PM by bananas
TG's reply #1 claims it's a scam because "He has no launch capability or plan for such a capability."
My reply #2 said "It's not a scam".
Your reply #3 asked "What kind of rocket are they launching it on?"
So it seemed like you were asking "if it's not a scam, then how can they launch it?"
My reply #4 pointed out that they can use commercial launch vehicles,
that they don't need their own launch facilities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Which commercial launch vehicle exactly?
Which one?
How do you now?

What is the launch weight of their satellite going to be?
What are ot's dimensions?
You should be able to look that up , right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. It doesn't matter.
Last month, the Planetary Society announced a series of launches over the next three years:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x58777

Even as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration continues to flounder in a search for its future, Dr. Friedman announced Monday that the Planetary Society, with help from an anonymous donor, would be taking baby steps toward a future worthy of science fiction. Over the next three years, the society will build and fly a series of solar-sail spacecraft dubbed LightSails, first in orbit around the Earth and eventually into deeper space.

That must be a scam, because the Planetary Society has no infrastructure to manufacture satellites and no launch capabilities.
Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Look, I don't know why you are so adament on defending this thing...
Maybe you are just one of those people who hate to be wrong, I don't know. But on thread after thread you are a staunch supporter of these people and I have no idea why.

Look guy, unless you can show me their engineering and manufacturing facilities for their satellites (something other than a Manhattan Beach office thank you) - unless you can show me some engineering plans for their SPS units (not patent drawings thank you (sigh) ) - unless you can show me some solid evidence that they have a prototype of a design.... you're just making yourself look silly.

Maybe you own stock in PG&E or maybe you are OCD... I don't know... but I don't believe people who say that they have perpetual energy machines just bacause they say so and I don't believe these people either.

Stop being silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. 1) One of those people who hate to be wrong
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. The only person spamming is you.
You spout the same baseless smears in every thread on the topic.

Commercial launches are routine. Here is the FAA's FAQ on the topic

What is a commercial launch?

FAA/AST defines a commercial launch as satisfying at least one of the following criteria: (1) open to international competition; (2) licensed by the FAA, or (3) privately financed. Commercial launch vehicles are manufactured and marketed by private companies and most often carry privately-owned, rather than government-owned, satellites to space.
How many commercial launches take place each year?

The number of launches that takes place each year varies depending on the demand for launch services, launch site schedules, world events, and other factors. In 2001, there was a global total of 16 commercial launches to orbit, five of which were launched by the United States. That year, commercial launches made up 27 percent of all launches. In recent years, there have been as many as 41 commercial launches around the world in a single year, making up half of all launches in a year. It is important to note that the number of commercial launches often trails the number of satellites they loft, as some launches deploy multiple satellites.
I thought NASA conducted all space launches. Why don't commercial satellites fly on the Space Shuttle?

When the Space Shuttle was first developed, NASA had hoped that private companies would launch their satellites on the Shuttle. After the 1986 explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger, U.S. policy placed a general ban on flying non-government payloads on the Shuttle. Today, commercial space launch vehicles are the only means of transportation to space in the United States for privately owned satellites. NASA also supports the launch industry by flying many of its satellites on launch vehicles that it purchases from private companies.
Why isn't NASA, as the U.S. space agency, responsible for the safety and success of commercial space transportation?

NASA is a research and development agency of the federal government, and as such neither operates nor regulates the commercial space transportation industry. The regulatory responsibility for the industry falls to the Federal Aviation Administration, which is a regulatory agency. NASA does, however, often use launch satellites and spacecraft on vehicles developed by private companies.
What does a commercial space launch cost a launch customer?

Launch prices depend on the vehicle being used for the launch, which is determined by the size and destination of the payload being launched. Generally, the larger the payload, the larger the vehicle required, and thus the greater the price. Commercial launches are priced at as little as $8 million for a flight on the Russian START launch vehicle and as much as $180 million for a European Ariane 5 rocket.
How big of a business is the commercial space launch industry?

In 2001, launch revenues around the world totaled nearly $1.5 billion (in U.S. dollars). In recent years, revenues have exceeded $2 billion. Annual revenues depend on the number and types of vehicles launched each year. An AST study of launches in 1999 revealed that the U.S. commercial space transportation industry and the industries it enabled, including satellite manufacturing and services, was responsible for generating nearly $62 billion in economicactivityin the United States. That level is likely to grow in the future as new applications dependent on commercial space transportation emerge.
When did the first licensed U.S. commercial launch take place?

The first such launch occurred in 1989, when a Starfire sub-orbital vehicle carried aloft the Consort-1 payload from White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
What is the largest commercial launch vehicle available?

"Largest" can refer to any of a number of characteristics, including mass, height, and performance capability. From the point of view of a satellite launch customer, a vehicle's performance capability is perhaps the most significant. The vehicles with the greatest performance capability include Europe's Ariane 5 (capable of delivering 18,000 kg to low-Earth orbit and 6,800 kg to geosynchronous transfer orbit ), Japan's H-IIA 212 (17,280 kg to LEO; 7,500 kg to GTO), and Russia's Proton M/Breeze M (21,000 kg to LEO; 5,500 kg to GTO). These vehicles represent the most capable models in their respective vehicle families.

In 2002, two U.S. launch vehicles were introduced that will soon rival these rockets: Lockheed Martin's Atlas V and Boeing's Delta IV. The Atlas V 500 is capable of delivering 20,050 kg to LEO and 8,200 kg to GTO. The Delta IV Heavy is able to carry 25,800 kg to LEO and 12,400 kg to GTO.
What are LEO, GEO, and GTO?

These acronyms stand for "low-Earth orbit," "geosynchronous (or geostationary) orbit," and "geosynchronous transfer orbit," respectively. They are various orbits around the Earth into which satellites are often placed. LEO refers to orbits that are typically less than 2000 km in altitude. GEO is an orbit around the equator 36,000 km above the Earth. Communications satellites covering large, specific regions are often placed into GEO because the speed required to keep an object in this orbit matches the speed of Earth's rotation, so in effect satellites appear to remain fixed above a single location. GTO is an elliptical orbit into which satellites are often first launched in order to reach GEO. Satellites also use other orbits, but LEO, GEO, and GTO are among the most common.
Can U.S. satellite owners fly their satellites on foreign-owned rockets? Likewise, can non-U.S. satellite owners fly their satellites on U.S.-made vehicles?

The answer to both questions is yes. Many U.S. commercial satellite owners fly their satellites abroad while U.S. vehicles owned and operated fly satellites owned by non-U.S. companies. U.S. policy and security concerns, however, mandate that U.S. government payloads use U.S. commercial vehicles to the greatest extent possible. Regardless of who owns the payload, all U.S. vehicles launch within U.S. borders, and no foreign-made launch vehicles are launched within the United States. The only exception is the Sea Launch venture, an international partnership whose operations are licensed in the United States but take place in the Pacific Ocean.
Since commercial launches use vehicles that only make a one-way trip to space, does this mean the satellites they launch can't be recovered from space for repairs or when they're no longer useful?

It's true that there are no vehicles that can return commercial satellites to Earth for repairs or at the end of their operating lives. The Shuttle could retrieve certain satellites, depending on their orbit, but does not serve commercial satellites. This does not, however, mean that repairs do not occur or that satellites remain in their operating orbits forever. Certain repairs to satellite systems can be made with clever re-programming or other procedures done on Earth and uploaded to the satellite. And when satellites are worn out or no longer needed, they are often either boosted into very high orbits or moved into orbits that will cause them to eventually fall back to Earth and burn up in the atmosphere. Both of these maneuvers are important because they help ensure that the older satellites won't interfere with operational satellites or take up valuable orbital slots that newer satellites could use.
Does the commercial space transportation industry receive any kind of U.S. government support?

The U.S. government does not directly subsidize the industry. However, the government recognizes the importance of space launch capability to science, military defense, communications, and the U.S. economy. As a result, the government supports the development of new vehicles and vehicle technologies. Examples of U.S. government programs intended to spur private sector development of new space vehicles and technologies include the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program and NASA's Space Launch Initiative. Monies for developments under these programs have been awarded to companies on a competitive basis and as a result of a specific U.S. government solicitation.

Other federal government support for the commercial launch industry includes Air Force maintenance of federal launch ranges, which host many commercial launches, and financial backing in the case of excessive third-party claims for damages in the case of a commercial launch-related accident.
Are there any space vehicles, besides the Space Shuttle, that can carry people into space?

The only other vehicle in the world capable of carrying people into space is Russia's Soyuz rocket, which is an expendable launch vehicle that can be outfitted with a capsule designed for human flight in space and return to Earth. All other space vehicles in existence are expendable vehicles that are only capable of one-way trips to space. A number of companies are at work to develop reusable launch vehicles that could be used to carry people to space and potentially enable the development of a commercial space tourism industry.
When will my family and I be able to fly into space, and how much will it cost?

The establishment of a space tourism industry depends on the development of vehicles capable of launching people into space, returning them to Earth, and being turned around quickly for another launch. Any such vehicle will have to be designed with reliability, safety, and comfort in mind. Many companies are at work to develop such vehicles. AST can predict neither when a private passenger-carrying vehicle might become operational nor what a trip on the vehicle might cost. These decisions will be based on the schedules and business plans of the vehicle developers and operators in question.
I know that the Space Shuttle launches from Florida. Is that where commercial launches also occur?

Some do. But there are several launch sites available for commercial launches in the United States. The two sites used most frequently are Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida (located on the same piece of land from NASA's Kennedy Space Center, where the Shuttle launches) and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Both of these are government-owned launch facilities and are also used for non-Shuttle launches of government-owned satellites. Commercial and government launches can also take place from any of several non-federal launch sites, or "spaceports." These include the California Spaceport at Vandenberg Air Force Base; Spaceport Florida at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia; Mojave Air and Space Port in California; Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska; the Oklahoma Spaceport, Burns Flat, Oklahoma; and Spaceport America, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Are launch sites built where they are for special reasons?

Yes, with the two most important reasons being access to useful orbits and public safety.
What was the first licensed non-federal spaceport? How many exist now?

California Spaceport received the first-ever license for the operation of a non-federal spaceport in 1996. Today, seven non-federal spaceports exist in the United States.
How can I get my company logo put onto the side of a commercial launch vehicle in exchange for launch sponsorship?

The U.S. government, including AST, cannot provide guidance on this matter, other than that you would have to take it up directly with launching companies.
How can I get a job in the commercial space transportation industry?

The future success of the space launch industry depends on the talents of aerospace and other types of engineers and scientists as well as business people. Strong academic performance and a degree in an engineering, scientific, or business discipline from an accredited college or university are essential. Inquiries about positions in the industry should be directed to aerospace companies.
How do I get a launch license?

Learn more about FAA's launch licensing process.
To whom do FAA's launch regulations and licensing procedures apply?

FAA's launch regulations and licenses are required for all commercial launches taking place within U.S. borders as well as for launches being conducted abroad by U.S. entities. In general, FAA does not license launches by U.S. government organizations. In addition, certain classes of small rockets are exempt from licensing requirements. Please see FAA/AST's licensing requirements for a list of such exemptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. OK... I am just going to put you on ignore....
I really don't want to waste good argument arguing with someone who is entirely unreasonable. Feel free to to believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny if you wish. Feel free to give your, frankly, uninformed and nonsensical opinions on the subject.

I ignore street people and their crazy rants and I am now going to ignore you.

People have already seen what they need to see and the vast majority of people are reasonable about such things.

This is a scam and PG&E is profiting from the fiction.
End of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Wow - you should ignore the CPUC, too
because they unanimously approved the project.
Oh, wait, you did ignore them and what they said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
34. Nah, I'm a space nut, so I was wondering if they had a launch configuration.
It takes 5+ years to even get something launched, *after* the rocket is decided upon. So if they announced a launch date *tomorrow* it would be around 5 years out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. I see that your user name is apopos....
Excellent choice.
Your example is comparing apples and oranges... bananas.

Bigelow actually put out engineering diagrams for their designs and actually launched them.

The fake company that you are defending has no satellite specifications thus the cannot have possible selected a launch vehicle. They are just talking out of their ass - mch like your just talking out of their ass.

Your insistence in believing this fiction makes you just look silly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. Bigelow has no launch capabilities!!! It's a scam!!! It's a fake company!!!!
And their web page sucks!
:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. You are l33t techn0girl!!!
You used your l33t hackorz skillz and couldn't find blueprints on the g00glez!!!
It must be a scam!!!

Republicans drive me bananas - that's why I chose the user name.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Probably Delta IV heavies
They've said they intend to use hydrogen-based vehicles (presumably on the grounds that sending 100-odd tons of kerosene/APCP up in smoke isn't too green) and they need to reach GTO - a combination which limits their options somewhat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Thecompany has no actual plan for a satellity - no target weight - so how can they choose ....
a launch vehicle. :)

Keep in mind that this "company" is merely an office in Manhattan beach. They have no manufacturing or engineering facilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Easy as pie...
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 04:10 PM by Dead_Parrot
They've mentioned they intend to have a set of mirrors free-floating around the main unit. These will need to be constantly adjusted to keep them in the right relative positions and correct orientation, so each unit will need to carry 4 ion thrusters, a KW or two of onboard power, fuel supply and guidance systems - probably duplicated otherwise a single failure will render the whole thing into junk. That's going to be insanely expensive and need multiple launches whichever way they slice it, so how the thing is going to pay for itself in terms of embedded energy and money is a total mystery to me. Having no facilities isn't really a problem, 'cause what they really need is a magick wand and a big grimoire of ancient high magick.

But since the Delta IV H is the only H2-fueled heavy lift vehicle in use or on the board, that bit is easy. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I hear you ...
Keep in mind that I am not saying that the idea is impossible or not cost effective - far more informed minds than I have said otherwise. I'm just saying that Solaran has not shown any inkling of a capability to be able to do it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. Yeah, the H2-fueled aspect reduces their options considerably.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Well yes ...that and the lack of , you know, actual solar power satellites ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Oh, shush.
BTW, Can I interest you in a magick hair drier? No mains power or batteries needed.

(Cyclists not included)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cobalt-60 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. SPS has been around since the 1970s
We don't have anything like the space lift capacity to orbit and supply a working SPS.
Although a Delta IV or a Titan derivative would be adequate for a demonstration.
We'd need a fleet of Saturn or larger rockets to make it pay. And we don't have it.
The original project utilized lunar material for much of its mass.
I love the SPS concept. Indeed I've worn out a few pencils over it.
But I can't imagine corporations using the idea as anything other than a license to steal.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. Yes, Thank You :) ...
It's a great concept - but one that will most certainly not be implemented by this company.

And the fact that PG&E is getting out of it's clean energy requirements by this fake plan should be criminal :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. Then you have a very limited imagination.
And unlike the California Public Utility Commission, you have no factual data on which to base your conclusions. So you are clearly making unsubstantiated statements of poorly informed opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. They have no arranged launch facility....
because they have no actual satellite engineering plan....thus they do not know the required payload of a rocket and thus ca not choose a launch facility.

Unfortunately it's a scam :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
28. And you know that how?
I'm betting you neither get to sit in on the planning meetings nor are you copied on their internal communications.

You are obviously lying - repeatedly and shamelessly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. We went into this on the other thread of yours already....
We already discussed that if, in five years, this man has been unable to provide:

An engineering plan for an SPS
An engineering plan for a ground station
A manufacturing capability for a satellite of any kind
Launch capability

.... then it's a scam.

All the man has is a beachside office in Manhatten Beach. Nothing more.

We discussed this already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. They have all those, so your points are nonsense.
We discussed this already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. WFT? WHERE do they have what I asked. Show me specifics or else you are just trolling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Why in the hell do they have to show their proprietary information to you?
Why in the hell do they have to show their proprietary information to you?

Let's see how far you get discrediting a wind turbine design or a nuclear power plant by demanding the detailed plans be publicly released. That's why we have expert, independent parties that we PAY to evaluate proposals and pass judgment on them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. They claimed that they would provide more details, so we'll have to wait and see.
I find their website amateurish and unprofessional, but I admit that is not alone something one can judge a company on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. If you really want specifics
sign an NDA and they'll tell you everything you want to know.
Both PG&E and the CPUC evaluated their plans and find them credible enough to approve the project.
Solaren has to meet specific milestones in the plan before PG&E can count it towards their RPS requirements.
That won't happen for a few years.
In the meantime, this is only a small 200MW system, PG&E has to acquire a lot more MW to meet their RPS requirements.

They'll contract out their manufacturing and launch needs.
They'll probably contract out a lot of the engineering.
That's what most businesses do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. Actually, we should know within a year or so if they are capable of making it by 2016.
The more silent they are about their progress the less likely they are to succeed. It's highly unlikely for them to just go "oh well, the launch date is tomorrow, we're good to go." We've known about secret spy satellite launches *months* before they went up. So something will leak.

I'm erring on the side of caution, because I see no reason to cheerlead a company that has shown nothing so far. They claim that they will. We'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Within three years
First, as I pointed out up-thread, the Planetary Society just announced that they'll be launching next year, so your claim that they need 5 years in advance doesn't hold.
According to this article, they're going to launch some demonstrations around 2011-2012, which is 4-5 years before 2016:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Space-the-Next-Frontier-For-Renewable-Power/

Engineers at Solaren will be busy with working on various energy conversion and transmission technologies in a lab. It plans to demonstrate its designs outside of the lab and then in space in 2011 and 2012, before construction begins.

The article also says:
Reading a prepared remark, CPUC president Michael Peevey quoted poet Robert Browning ("A man's reach should always exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?") and added, "While reality may not live quite to our idealized aspiration, it's our pursuit of a perfect world that gives rise to a better one."

So the CPUC isn't going into this with blinders on, they know it's speculative technology. CPUC and PG&E have done nothing more than agree to buy the electricity if the thing actually works. Now it's up to Solaren, and they have a lot of hurdles: they have to convince venture capital to finance it, they have to develop the technology and get it built, they have to get approval from the EPA, FAA, FCC, etc, and they have to convince the nimby's in Fresno that it's safe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. That's what I'm getting poking around the web.
These guys are going to DESIGN the system. They don't claim to have done that.

I'm sure they'll have a heck of time. And I won't be surprised if they come up short. But your analysis seems a bit more in line with what we can sniff out. I've only found claims of a scam on this thread.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
35. The concept of SPS
I recently saw a show on solar powered satellites, and it renewed my long-standing puzzlement about the whole concept.

Basically, you intercept high-frequency electromagnetic energy from the sun with orbiting transducers, convert it to lower-frequency energy, and then relay it to microwave receptors on the ground. As opposed to just having high-frequency receptors on the ground -- solar arrays.

Apparently, I'm missing something. The SPS is one way of dealing with the intermittence of solar energy, true enough, and the microwave receptor would certainly have a smaller footprint than a corresponding solar array. But overall, the advocates of SPS must be confident that it's a more cost-effective long-term solution (both in dollars and EROEI) than an equivalent ground-based solar infrastructure.

I'm assuming they make this case somewhere -- truthfully, I haven't looked into it far enough to find where they do, but then again, you'd think they would feature it very early in their pitch. Even though I'm skeptical of solutions that rely so much on "heroic industrialism," I'm open to arguments about why this one would be more practical and cost-effective than ground-based alternatives.

Can somebody "talk me down" here?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. ... is a pretty good one really ...
The concept of SPS is really quite a valid one. You get an incredible energy gain (about 80-90%) just by getting out of the Earth's atmosphere and then you double or triple that again because in the right orbit you get 100% sun time in instead of 12 hours minus bad weather , cloudy days etc. You should do the research - google around and you'll find some very prominent voices who say it would really work well.

But you do need hundreds and hundreds of of square yards, probably thousands and thousands really, of solar cells to make it practical. And there has NEVER been a satellite that remotely has this kind of structure. Even the Space shuttle array would be only a tiny fraction of the area needed to power an SPS - and you know how big that one is and what kind of maintenance it takes. It would take a government or large corporation to really do the project.

So for this guy who never did anything remotely like this to claim that he can, when he onlhy has some office space on Manhattan Beach, CA - well it's quite ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. Energy payback is 1-3 years
system life of 20-40 years, so the EROEI is pretty good.
The problem is launch cost is expensive - that's not because of fuel cost, it's because of quality control costs, rockets have a tendency to blow up or fail in other ways.
The microwaves aren't absorbed much by the atmosphere, clouds, volcanic ash, or the ashes from nuclear winter, so it will provide constant electricity no matter what the weather is.
The receivining antenna is basically a wire mesh strung up on telephone poles, it absorbs 85% of the microwaves and lets through 90% of the sunlight, so below it can be farmland, reservoirs, or even regular ground-based solar arrays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. The question is more a comparative one
It's not hard to see the plusses of SPS as it's envisioned, but here's the question I believe needs a strong answer:

What would make us want to put up SPS systems instead of comparable ground-based solar installations? How is it more practical? Put another way, if you can get your reliable ten megawatts from something down to earth, why mess with the whole rocket thing to get it? (Other than the sheer joy of messing with rockets, of course.)

It's not a rhetorical question. There may well be good answers, but I do think the comparative case needs to be made pretty early on in any discussion involving the acceptance of SPS.

Okay, I haven't jumped yet -- keep talking.

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Simple answer is more energy per panel.
On earth you get 950watt/m2 at peak sunlight on the equator.
Solar insolation is number of peak hours equivelent you get.
In US this ranges from about 3 to about 5.

In space it is 1366watt/m2 and insolation is 24 (100% peak sunlight 24/7/365).

So you get roughly 7x to 11x as much power.

Now the big question is that 7x to 11x more power worth the expense of putting a sat in space?

We won't know until we try. Maybe the first attempt is a failure. Weight is too high, yield is too low but that should give us priceless data on how to improve secon gen one.

One major problem with solar power is most of the country is solar inefficient. Solar panel in maine has insolation of 2.5 (equivelent of 2.5 hours peak sun every 24 hours). The "space" directly above maine (straight up 36,000 miles) produces 14x as much power.

You can put arrays in space everywhere and beam power to directly where it is needed regardless of the efficiency at that location, and without 1000s of km of high voltage lines (moving power from sunny spots to high density areas).



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. That is an excellent summary.
That would cover much of a benefit/cost calculation. To it you might add the avoided costs of storage and the added value of dispatchable electricity.

It is important to keep in mind that if effective it would be available when needed to smooth out the intermittent nature ground/ocean based renewables. We don't need to power an entire grid with dispatchable power, but we do need a certain amount.

In a renewable grid, that role has largely been envisioned as being played by storage for excess wind and solar. So to the degree SBSP reduces the amount of excess wind, gbsp solar and storage needed it should be credited with that much value.

It is interesting that the central argument that proponents of nuclear power make is that they are the only non fossil source of baseload power that can be scaled up. If successful this would be a direct challenge to that claim and would probably do very serious damage to any hopes that industry has of ever being viable.

I mean the price of a nuclear plant is hovering above $12 billion and many people argue that the dispatchable nature of nuclear power make it worth it in spite of the waste and environmental concerns. With that as a competitive benchmark, SBSP has a lot of room to rack up some costs and still be economically competitive.

I can't help but wonder if the cast of characters making the absurd smears here have had that point on their minds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
45. How could this possibly be better than solar roofs...
or any other simple and currently available solar energy products. They might not pencil out well against fossil fuels, but this "space-solar" idea has got to be a guaranteed taxpayer subsidized huge loser, sucking away resources from every other immediately practical project.

How many solar hot water heaters could you install for the price of this thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. They aren't mutually exclusive.
See post 44 on relevance of dispatchability. We'd need both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. Tried running solar power or water in Maine?
In the winter? Seattle?

Tucson/Phoenix, ground solar works... if you can store it for night use.

Plus, large ground solar arrays really clutter up the landscape, way more than wind turbines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 27th 2024, 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC