Smoke and Mirrors

[Harold Squared]

The bottom line is that terrestrial solar is being deployed as we speak. Much of the talk about space solar here cites imaginary advantages and requires technology that hasn't been demonstrated, and even if it existed right now, would still take years to begin to deploy. I have to question the definition of "better" being used.

The performance of terrestrial solar is abysmal and highly dependent upon subsidies, not that space exploration to date has not been a highly subsidized endeavors. I am most willing to grant as much.

 

Better in terms of capacity factor, mostly.

 

And in the potential for expansion, which is unlimited, relatively speaking. There is a definite limit to suitable terrestrial sites and has dimreaper has pointed out, the available sites are often located far from areas of maximum demand, e.g. Australian Outback, Sahara, etc.

 

The American southwest should be an ideal colocation of supply and demand for terrestrial solar, but no. In practice sunny Arizona sells NUCLEAR electricity to sunny California.

 

It has been suggested that a power generation station requires around 15 years to recoup the initial investment but I am not entirely certain. What does seem certain is that higher capacity factors will result in quicker payback, all other things being equal, though admittedly all other things are rarely so.

 

Terrestrial solar installations mainly serve at present to illustrate the drawbacks of such, e.g. pitiable capacity factors, use of supplementary natural gas, therminol fires, local opposition, etc.

[dimreepr]

There. FTFY

 

 

Thanks.

[Harold Squared]

 

 

If all you want to be is right, start a blog; if you want to learn, start to listen.

I am listening and being polite about it, if you will notice. Naturally I have investigated terrestrial solar applications so I am somewhat familiar with the points being raised, "superiority" doesn't enter into it. I am confident that your investigations will confirm my own and if they differ I am most willing to learn as I think my responses on this thread may indicate.

 

Thank you all for your interest and the time expended on your responses, I am honored. Perhaps a blog would be a good idea too, in time, this is the second time I recall one has been suggested.

 

 

Thanks.

You are most welcome. I hope the clarification will suffice.

[swansont]

The performance of terrestrial solar is abysmal and highly dependent upon subsidies, not that space exploration to date has not been a highly subsidized endeavors. I am most willing to grant as much.

So how would a more expensive system fare in that regard? Would that require more subsidy, or less, to be profitable?

 

Better in terms of capacity factor, mostly.

I still haven't seen your calculation that shows this

 

And in the potential for expansion, which is unlimited, relatively speaking. There is a definite limit to suitable terrestrial sites and has dimreaper has pointed out, the available sites are often located far from areas of maximum demand, e.g. Australian Outback, Sahara, etc.

Again, no calculation. And you have proposed Antarctica, so that's hardly a legitimate criticism. Further, much capacity is installed on rooftops, where the demand actually is.

 

The American southwest should be an ideal colocation of supply and demand for terrestrial solar, but no. In practice sunny Arizona sells NUCLEAR electricity to sunny California.

That's mainly because of regulation blocking it.

 

It has been suggested that a power generation station requires around 15 years to recoup the initial investment but I am not entirely certain. What does seem certain is that higher capacity factors will result in quicker payback, all other things being equal, though admittedly all other things are rarely so.

And we know all things are not equal. Not even close to being equal.

 

Terrestrial solar installations mainly serve at present to illustrate the drawbacks of such, e.g. pitiable capacity factors, use of supplementary natural gas, therminol fires, local opposition, etc.

How is therminol a problem for solar photovoltaic? (which comprises most of the installed solar)

[Harold Squared]

So how would a more expensive system fare in that regard? Would that require more subsidy, or less, to be profitable?

 

 

I still haven't seen your calculation that shows this

 

 

Again, no calculation. And you have proposed Antarctica, so that's hardly a legitimate criticism. Further, much capacity is installed on rooftops, where the demand actually is.

 

 

That's mainly because of regulation blocking it.

 

 

And we know all things are not equal. Not even close to being equal.

 

 

How is therminol a problem for solar photovoltaic? (which comprises most of the installed solar)

Last objection first, therminol is no problem for photovoltaic whatsoever, though I am surprised to find that the majority of installed capacity fits the description. As you are perhaps aware, the problem with photovoltaic applications is low voltage, more suited to charging batteries than direct input to the grid. Therminol is demonstrated to be a fire hazard and there is a certain NIMBY mentality based on this. In a sense, remote location is both an advantage and a disadvantage.

 

So you have solar photovoltaic on your roof, let me know how many watts per square meter, how many square meters we are talking about, and we can compare the figure to demand of that same building. How much is left over? AC or DC? What voltage and frequency(if AC)? What time of day and what season of the year?

Hope exactly are you going to make a solar thermal plant in space? You have to radiate away the energy to have a low-temperature part of the cycle. And the added complexity of such a system runs against the simplicity you were touting before. That just adds to the area, so make the system 50% efficient but add radiators. Do they fit?

 

 

Yet another undemonstrated technology

The shade of the collectors provides a perfect location for radiator area and the support structure for the former could easily serve for both. As previously mentioned, the equivalent of many suns as seen from the Earth and the vast cold void of interstellar space can be in close proximity. Ideal location for a heat engine, wouldn't you say? What about superconducting technology for the generators?

 

Admittedly, all this hardware will take up a lot of room, but space is amply supplied with, well, SPACE.

 

Say you are needing a lot of room for your project in geosynchronous orbit. Send up a couple of reels of cable and pay them out at equal rates, tidal forces will pull them into alignment, one pointing towards the planet, one pointing away. Eventually the planet end touches down in Bogota or Singapore and microwave transmission becomes obsolete. You now have a space elevator and room for all sorts of goodies, all stationary with respect to the city below. Of course the spaceward end of the gadget will be moving at greater than escape velocity, but we can manage that as long as the masses balance at GEO where the titanic stresses cancel out.

 

Oh, and I beg to differ about "regulation" as stated above, given the well established antinuclear stance of the government of California I am inclined to believe it is more a matter of availability rather than anything else. I could be mistaken, however.

 

As for the claim that one thing is necessarily "more expensive than another" we should watch our assumptions, agreed? AGW states severe storms are coming our way thick and fast and likely to trash terrestrial infrastructure, including ground based solar and wind. Space based solar would be invulnerable to such disturbances except for rectenna arrays.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

 

 

Last objection first, therminol is no problem for photovoltaic whatsoever, though I am surprised to find that the majority of installed capacity fits the description. As you are perhaps aware, the problem with photovoltaic applications is low voltage, more suited to charging batteries than direct input to the grid. Therminol is demonstrated to be a fire hazard and there is a certain NIMBY mentality based on this. In a sense, remote location is both an advantage and a disadvantage.

Fires, of any kind, are not much more of a problem for thermal solar than they are for electrical power in general.

 

We are a lot closer to solving the storage problem for thermal solar - the only remaining technological issue of critical importance - than we are to handling nuclear waste safely, even, let alone deploying space elevators, building fusion reactors, and other such geek candy.

[swansont]

Last objection first, therminol is no problem for photovoltaic whatsoever, though I am surprised to find that the majority of installed capacity fits the description. As you are perhaps aware, the problem with photovoltaic applications is low voltage, more suited to charging batteries than direct input to the grid. Therminol is demonstrated to be a fire hazard and there is a certain NIMBY mentality based on this. In a sense, remote location is both an advantage and a disadvantage.

 

In the US, it's ~18 GW vs ~2 GW.

So you have solar photovoltaic on your roof

 

I don't own a roof, but 400,000 other folks in the US have rooftop solar.

http://blog.ucsusa.org/how-many-homes-have-rooftop-solar-644

 

Admittedly, all this hardware will take up a lot of room, but space is amply supplied with, well, SPACE.

Grand claims with no analysis (still) to back it up.

 

Say you are needing a lot of room for your project in geosynchronous orbit. Send up a couple of reels of cable and pay them out at equal rates, tidal forces will pull them into alignment, one pointing towards the planet, one pointing away. Eventually the planet end touches down in Bogota or Singapore and microwave transmission becomes obsolete. You now have a space elevator and room for all sorts of goodies, all stationary with respect to the city below. Of course the spaceward end of the gadget will be moving at greater than escape velocity, but we can manage that as long as the masses balance at GEO where the titanic stresses cancel out.

Ah, yes, the tether or space elevator. How many do we have in place? Zero? Another future technology being offered up.

 

Oh, and I beg to differ about "regulation" as stated above, given the well established antinuclear stance of the government of California I am inclined to believe it is more a matter of availability rather than anything else. I could be mistaken, however.

California has no control over the regulatory stance in other staters that are inhibiting solar. Solar in California is booming.

 

As for the claim that one thing is necessarily "more expensive than another" we should watch our assumptions, agreed? AGW states severe storms are coming our way thick and fast and likely to trash terrestrial infrastructure, including ground based solar and wind. Space based solar would be invulnerable to such disturbances except for rectenna arrays.

Watch your assumptions would seem to be difficult. I assume you have to use a mirror to see where they are coming from.

[Harold Squared]

Fires, of any kind, are not much more of a problem for thermal solar than they are for electrical power in general.

 

We are a lot closer to solving the storage problem for thermal solar - the only remaining technological issue of critical importance - than we are to handling nuclear waste safely, even, let alone deploying space elevators, building fusion reactors, and other such geek candy.

Where I live it has been raining for two goddam days like a cow pissing on a flat rock. I am an old fart and have been listening to renewable energy types singing the same song since the fucking OPEC embargo and Three Mile Island. Well, guess what? All those assholes were wrong, they are still wrong, and nothing they have produced yet has the reliability or output of fucking TMI. A fact California dingbats like Gov. Brown seem to be blind to. The lame Solar One(late and unlamented), the infamous Solyndra, SEGS, they are all losers, look at the data.

 

"Geek candy"? Really? One does not have to be much of a scientist to note the rate of demand and that sooner or later humanity will HAVE to exploit extraterrestrial resources. I happen to think that sooner is better and if you are sincere about the impending menace of AGW you will agree.

 

One more thing, goddammit, Chelyabinsk.

 

Excuse me while I watch Hacking the Universe again, our future in space. BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE IT IS.

 

Thank you all for your comments, even though I disagree with a few here and there.

In the US, it's ~18 GW vs ~2 GW.

 

I don't own a roof, but 400,000 other folks in the US have rooftop solar.

http://blog.ucsusa.org/how-many-homes-have-rooftop-solar-644

 

 

Grand claims with no analysis (still) to back it up.

 

 

Ah, yes, the tether or space elevator. How many do we have in place? Zero? Another future technology being offered up.

 

 

California has no control over the regulatory stance in other staters that are inhibiting solar. Solar in California is booming.

 

 

Watch your assumptions would seem to be difficult. I assume you have to use a mirror to see where they are coming from.

Funny guy. Obviously there is less roof area per capita in heavily urbanized areas, skyscrapers and all, and for the same reasons, a good few of those roofs are shaded by neighboring buildings, even on sunny days. This is true even at Texas latitudes.

 

Any dumbasses who falls off his roof installing PV panels deserves what he gets, and this is doubly true for any idiot clearing snow off the stupid things.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

I am an old fart and have been listening to renewable energy types singing the same song since the fucking OPEC embargo and Three Mile Island. Well, guess what? All those assholes were wrong, they are still wrong,

They were right then, and trillions of debt and ruinous war and globally fouled landscapes later they are still right.

 

Jimmy Carter was right, and accomplished a couple of things. We'd all be better off today if his policies had been adopted. Ronald Reagan was wrong, and an incompetent fuckup. We're all worse off today because his policies were adopted. http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/10presidents.html Get used to it.

 

And if you and your ilk had listened then, you'd be a lot closer to your adolescent dream of space utopia than you are now. Because your wonderful future in space depends completely upon the ability of the people you've been making fun of for decades to get up off the floor where you've stepped on their face, power up the sanity tools, and handle another of your messes one more time, battling you guys and your willful ignorance the whole way; and this one's not going to be easy.

 

Unless you think the intellectual caliber of the likes of James Inhofe (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kathleen-brown/senate-environment-committee-chairman-god-not-man-drives-earths-climate) is going to be able to keep your fun little space projects flying in the face of what this California drought is shaping up to be.

Edited June 18, 2015 by overtone

[Harold Squared]

Carter shut down the United States capacity for nuclear fuel reprocessing, which the French have been doing for decades and making good money at it, recovering many a spent fuel rod's remaining uranium and plutonium to generate additional power and disposing of the remaining "waste" safely and responsibly. Said fuel rods come from all over the developed world, as far away as Japan. France has been largely(70% or better) nuclear for quite some time and commonly sells electricity to its more backward neighbors in Europe. Why? Because they have not been shackled to "renewables" by legislative fiat, and were free to pursue a policy based upon security and reliability.

 

Nuclear power is another goddam case of emotion and well(or otherwise)-meaning dumbasses, e.g., celebrities overruling the science involved.

 

That a supposedly well educated person could make such a contractual remark regarding nuclear waste is troubling in the extreme.

 

As I somewhat profanely remarked above, there has been no sunshine hereabouts for in excess of 48 hours. Molten salt heat storage is at best 12 to 15 hours. Not much help. Good night gentlemen, and ladies, if any are watching, my apologies for the irritable verbiage above.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Where I live it has been raining...

 

 

 

They were right then, ..

 

Harold and overtone

 

Stop using foul language - there is no need and it will get your posts hidden if it happens again. Do not respond to this moderation.

 

[Harold Squared]

My apologies.And I meant "contrafactual", not "contractual", above, autocorrect, still sloppy of me.

 

Anyway, while away I noticed considerable interest in both the prospect of the Space Elevator concept and space based solar power in Japan. Looking at a time frame of 2030 or thereabouts.

 

They must have a sweet tooth for that geek candy.

 

If that doesn't serve, they have demonstrated that they can economically extract uranyl ions from seawater for nuclear power. A most resourceful nation, all in all.

 

Anyway you don't have to go to Japan to find out more, isec.org

Edited June 22, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

Anyway, while away I noticed considerable interest in both the prospect of the Space Elevator concept and space based solar power in Japan. Looking at a time frame of 2030 or thereabouts.

 

And new, complex technology is always delivered on time. Even if it was, how quickly would it deploy?

 

As opposed to the >150 GW we already have on the ground, and even with no growth in the rate of installation (a sharp deviation from the upward trend), we would have over 700 GW by 2030. Realistically > 1 TW.

[Harold Squared]

Sooner better than later. And outside the weather danger zone if you believe what you're shoveling on other threads.

 

By the way, you are being a really good sport about my delay coming up with a cost estimate, thank you for your patience.

 

Capacity factor in space beats all down here at the bottom of the atmosphere barring some pretty fancy new technology on your side of the debate too, he pointed out in his good-natured way...

[swansont]

Sooner better than later.

Yes, quite. Now is better than "maybe in 15 years"

 

And outside the weather danger zone if you believe what you're shoveling on other threads.

I'd ask for a link to the specifics of "what I'm shoveling", but I think I'm too old to believe in fairy tales.

 

By the way, you are being a really good sport about my delay coming up with a cost estimate, thank you for your patience.

Again, I don't actually think you will do this. It would add an element of science, and we can't have that now, would it? I suspect it would break some code of ethics.

 

Capacity factor in space beats all down here at the bottom of the atmosphere barring some pretty fancy new technology on your side of the debate too, he pointed out in his good-natured way...

Physical installed capability in the hand is worth two in orbit. Actually infinitely more. Capacity is future possibility. We need this now, and fortunately it exists now.

[Harold Squared]

Capacity is future possibility?

 

How very encouraging. Let me communicate this wonderful news to the local hospital. Should make a big hit to all the dialysis patients. And those on ventilators. And of course the guys in the O R and the blood bank. But those lazy lab techs will have to get used to treadle operated centrifuges converted from potter's wheels!

 

As to cost estimate, obviously chemical rockets are not the way to go, which is why there is such a big incentive to develop an alternative. The payoff is literally incalculable.

[swansont]

Capacity is future possibility?

 

How very encouraging. Let me communicate this wonderful news to the local hospital. Should make a big hit to all the dialysis patients. And those on ventilators. And of course the guys in the O R and the blood bank. But those lazy lab techs will have to get used to treadle operated centrifuges converted from potter's wheels!

 

 

WTF does that have to do with anything? Dialysis and ventilators are existing technology, not some vague promise of a future treatment, and the power to run them exists. YOU are the one asking them to wait until you start installing the space-based power, sometime after 2030.

As to cost estimate, obviously chemical rockets are not the way to go, which is why there is such a big incentive to develop an alternative. The payoff is literally incalculable.

 

Yet another non-existent technology to be developed for this to work. How many is that? I've lost count.

[Harold Squared]

By no means. These devices run on electricity which must be reliable. Your solution is unsatisfactory in this regard, I am merely pointing it out. It will take time to install such capacity in any case regardless of the location.

 

As previously pointed out, you advocate power which is guaranteed to be interrupted by storms, etc., etc.

 

A little off topic but in practice the capacity factor of nuclear fission is without rival, it is a mature, clean alternative amply suited to fill the gap until space power comes online.

[swansont]

By no means. These devices run on electricity which must be reliable. Your solution is unsatisfactory in this regard, I am merely pointing it out. It will take time to install such capacity in any case regardless of the location.

Yes, So why delay it at least 15 years to start installing? What advantage is there in that?

 

As previously pointed out, you advocate power which is guaranteed to be interrupted by storms, etc., etc.

Microwave transmission of power to the surface can't be interrupted by storms? Explain that to me. If clouds are blocking the sun, they are blocking a satellite, too.

[Harold Squared]

There is no need to wait at all for nuclear power. It currently provides about a fifth of U.S. national demand and by any rational measure is the short to medium term choice.

 

As to microwave transmissions, wavelengths suitable for penetrating clouds are the only ones which have ever been considered and if space elevator technology is available so are conductive paths, potentially even superconducting paths, a further incentive to develop both space solar and space elevator designs in parallel.

 

In practice, each succeeding installation will become more refined in design and execution.

[swansont]

There is no need to wait at all for nuclear power.

How long to deploy additional nuclear power? Get the permits, build the plant, etc? Utility-scale solar takes around a year or so. I just read an RFP announcement from a utility that expects the plant to be online by Dec 2016. Any recent nuclear plant RFPs that expect to be operating before 2017?

 

And, of course, since you're worried about where you can put the power plant, nuclear is limited since you need cooling water. And areas prone to earthquakes are bad.

[iNow]

This was all already covered with Harold engaged elsewhere. My own response here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89110-is-this-legit/?p=868965

 

Yay, trolling.

[Harold Squared]

How long to deploy additional nuclear power? Get the permits, build the plant, etc? Utility-scale solar takes around a year or so. I just read an RFP announcement from a utility that expects the plant to be online by Dec 2016. Any recent nuclear plant RFPs that expect to be operating before 2017?

 

And, of course, since you're worried about where you can put the power plant, nuclear is limited since you need cooling water. And areas prone to earthquakes are bad.

As to permits, etc. One partial workaround is to build additional reactors on sites which already have the necessary permits.

 

The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is located on the Gila River which is dry most of the year, despite this it is one of the largest electricity suppliers in the United States, by both day and NIGHT. There is room at that site for at least two additional units, possibly in a 12 to 14 year timeframe, based upon the original time required to construct the initial units.

 

Areas prone to earthquake are bad for building nearly anything but if suitable precautions are taken, nearly anything can be built in them.

 

As noted elsewhere, during the notorious Fukushima incident, no Japanese reactors suffered significant damage directly from the earthquake itself and shut down automatically without exception, as far as I am aware to date.

 

MICHIGAN, where your DTE is located has abundant water and low seismic risk, as far as I can determine. It also the site of harsh winter weather with lots and lots of lovely snow and the clouds which bring same. How long the ratepayers in that state will be enamored of solar power is subject to conjecture.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

As to permits, etc. One partial workaround is to build additional reactors on sites which already have the necessary permits.

 

AFAIK individual reactors require permits, not sites. Do you have verifiable knowledge to the contrary? (i.e. link required)

 

Still, construction time is around 6 years, not 1

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/

(scroll halfway down to "US nuclear power reactors under construction")

[Harold Squared]

 

AFAIK individual reactors require permits, not sites. Do you have verifiable knowledge to the contrary? (i.e. link required)

An excellent question. I expect that there are quite a few permits required for both sites and reactors from various agencies, both state and federal, and that the design of the facility may affect the exact nature of the permits required. I had known that expansion was planned at Palo Verde at one time, but the plan for two more units was abandoned, in hindsight probably a bad decision considering the rolling blackouts in California in recent years.

 

The current mania for deregulation in electricity and its impact on nuclear power production is another aspect of the problem to consider, a complication, if you will. I think that no matter what, the expense of decommissioning these plants will be factored in and rightly so.

 

The fact remains that the technology of nuclear fission can produce decades of clean, reliable electricity at competitive rates regardless of diurnal or seasonal conditions.

 

Your interest in the topic is most gratifying, I hope you are well. I will endeavor to find out more about the regulatory process.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Harold Squared