Smoke and Mirrors

[Klaynos]

The vacuum might be a disadvantage. It makes both construction and cooling of electronics significantly harder.

[overtone]

 

 

Turns out this sunshade idea is nothing new

Nothing you've posted is new to those keeping even casual track of the propaganda efforts from the rightwing thinktankers in the US.

 

"Bump into": anything else on Fox News lately?

[Harold Squared]

Nothing you've posted is new to those keeping even casual track of the propaganda efforts from the rightwing thinktankers in the US.

 

"Bump into": anything else on Fox News lately?

Good morning gentlemen! Overtone', I am particularly pleased to see you, thank you for your inquiry and the opportunity to elaborate. I really have no preferred news source per se and notice things in a variety of places. Much like the reference regarding several related proposals in another publication cited above which is considerably more relevant to the topic.

 

If you recall, the Fox article regarding the greening of the Sahel and its possible relation to AGW is anecdotal only, and like all such reports establishes no definite link by its very nature.

 

I have some lingering suspicion regarding both Fox and the Weekly Standard publications for their jingoistic warmongering history but they remain a part of the media landscape for better or worse and last night was mostly reading SpiegelOnline.

 

Further discussion of this nature would be worthy of another thread elsewhere, agreed? But it is good to see you and your participation is always welcome.

The vacuum might be a disadvantage. It makes both construction and cooling of electronics significantly harder.

Construction in space is admittedly still in its infancy and no doubt many techniques of fabrication and assembly remain to be discovered, but at least the ISS demonstrates we can potentially construct arbitrarily large structures impossible to launch from the planetary surface. Cooling electronics by means of convection or conduction is of course not much of an answer in vacuum but radiation to the void of space has kept sattelites operating since the Sputnik days and Walter Cronkite. Yeah, I'm old.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

Construction in space is admittedly still in its infancy and no doubt many techniques of fabrication and assembly remain to be discovered, but at least the ISS demonstrates we can potentially construct arbitrarily large structures impossible to launch from the planetary surface. Cooling electronics by means of convection or conduction is of course not much of an answer in vacuum but radiation to the void of space has kept sattelites operating since the Sputnik days and Walter Cronkite. Yeah, I'm old.

 

It's a matter of scale. The ISS , which is not arbitrarily large (~50m x 100m, including the panels), generates 110 kW while CERN draws 200 MW while the LHC is running (80 MW when dormant). Satellites have strict power limits, driven by the availability of the energy and the ability to cool.

 

If you're going to convince anyone here, you need to do some kind of actual analysis, even if it's an order-of-magnitude estimate.

[Harold Squared]

 

The vacuum, sure, but it's not at all obvious how microgravity would be an asset.

 

 

I can neither agree nor disagree without some science here. You haven't done any sort of calculation.

I hope my response referencing the International Space Station helped explain my thinking on microgravity, I am assuming we will mainly be dealing with charged particles in a vacuum. But I must concede that antimatter and further discussion of same are best pursued on another thread, tough I remain keenly interested in the subject.

 

The area of Antarctica is some 14 million square kilometers in a remote and harsh region. I am making very slow progress on selecting a suitable site and design for a rectenna but will post all thinking here for inspection.

 

Thank you all for your time and thoughtful remarks.

[swansont]

I hope my response referencing the International Space Station helped explain my thinking on microgravity, I am assuming we will mainly be dealing with charged particles in a vacuum. But I must concede that antimatter and further discussion of same are best pursued on another thread, tough I remain keenly interested in the subject.

 

The area of Antarctica is some 14 million square kilometers in a remote and harsh region. I am making very slow progress on selecting a suitable site and design for a rectenna but will post all thinking here for inspection.

 

Thank you all for your time and thoughtful remarks.

 

The site wasn't the issue, it was the power density of transmitted power. That, plus your claim of reducing transmission losses. How do you get the power out of Antarctica, and with reduced transmission losses?

[dimreepr]

I hope my response referencing the International Space Station helped explain my thinking on microgravity

 

 

 

 

Then your thinking on microgravity is wrong; you’re conflating free-fall with less gravity.

[Harold Squared]

 

It's a matter of scale. The ISS , which is not arbitrarily large (~50m x 100m, including the panels), generates 110 kW while CERN draws 200 MW while the LHC is running (80 MW when dormant). Satellites have strict power limits, driven by the availability of the energy and the ability to cool.

 

If you're going to convince anyone here, you need to do some kind of actual analysis, even if it's an order-of-magnitude estimate.

Of course, sir. Thank you for the figures and the time expended bringing them to my attention, but I think I understand the general principles. The power derived from the solar collector and the radiation dissipated are derived primarily from the area devoted to each, and in space this is only determined by the volume of material available.

 

In any case the rectenna problem is formidable enough for the moment, given the time and resources available to yours truly.

 

Again, your interest and comments are very much appreciated and I look forward to more of the same.

[overtone]

I really have no preferred news source per se and notice things in a variety of places.

No, you don't. You are getting almost all your information, as well as your viewpoints, from rightwing propagandists and their echo chamber. That's why your claims of fact are almost always in error.

 

 

 

 

I have some lingering suspicion regarding both Fox and the Weekly Standard publications for their jingoistic warmongering history but they remain a part of the media landscape for better or worse

They do not form a part of the scientific information landscape, anecdotal or otherwise (they don't keep their facts straight, so their anecdotes are worthless).

 

The only reason to pay any attention to Fox News is to find out what swill the wingnuts are ladling this week, in order to assess some aspect of US politics. It's a propaganda operation, part of the reality of American politics that actual news operations handle as news. One doesn't go to Fox for information about reality, but to news sources for information about Fox.

Edited June 13, 2015 by overtone

[Harold Squared]

With all due respect, propaganda, as such, is not necessarily true or false. It is information intended to influence public opinion, whether accurate or not.

 

Despite the ludicrous claims Fox has made to be "fair and balanced" media Baron Rupert Murdoch has been pretty up front about his personal views being influential on the various outlets he controls unless I am mistaken.

 

Perhaps you will direct me to your source regarding the catastrophe in China to which you referred above and explain why it is NOT propaganda, or if you concede that it is such, how accurate it is. Essentially we are all like fish swimming in a sea of propaganda, advertising, education, etc.

 

If you have evidence that rainfall in the Sahel has NOT increased over recent years, or that this has any relation whatsoever to do with CO2 levels, I would appreciate the notification.

 

If we may return to the topic, I was pleased to find an old study by my hometown team of Rice University and BARDI(with Arthur D. Little of Cambridge) involving offshore rectenna designs at ntrs.NASA.gov, document ID number 19810004047

 

Why reinvent the wheel? And given such a detailed report, greatly superior to my own poor efforts to date, why not inspect it for feasibility? Inflation has changed the monetary figures we could expect to deal with but these could be at least partially offset by advances in materials science.

 

Looks like that array was expected to cost around $5.7 billion as a one time project and each similar unit thereafter expected to run about 2/3 of that figure.

 

Why not start offshore and work up to the Antarctic option as demand increases, building experience and technology as time progresses? Offshore sites have the advantage of being closer to both workers and consumers, plus potential mariculture and wave power applications, all of it carbon emissions free.

 

Methane synthesis would probably still be the preferred option for Antarctica, and tanker vessel delivery of same to the ports of choice. The harsh weather conditions and lack of infrastructure there also make it a poor initial choice but the vast area available for reception of space energy remains to be explored and one day perhaps employed.

 

As time goes by my regard for your responses has grown, thank you all for your most illuminating thoughts.

 

 

 

Then your thinking on microgravity is wrong; youre conflating free-fall with less gravity.

Oh? Please elaborate. Edited June 13, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

 

If we may return to the topic, I was pleased to find an old study by my hometown team of Rice University and BARDI(with Arthur D. Little of Cambridge) involving offshore rectenna designs at ntrs.NASA.gov, document ID number 19810004047

 

Why reinvent the wheel? And given such a detailed report, greatly superior to my own poor efforts to date, why not inspect it for feasibility? Inflation has changed the monetary figures we could expect to deal with but these could be at least partially offset by advances in materials science.

 

Looks like that array was expected to cost around $5.7 billion as a one time project and each similar unit thereafter expected to run about 2/3 of that figure.

 

 

What was the purpose of the project? How about a link to it?

 

edit

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810004047.pdf

 

Hmm. Several billion in 1980 dollars for a 5 GW installation. You'd "only" need 200 of them per TW. Basically more than $1 billion per GW in today's money.

 

Also includes the number I asked for

 

"In order to avoid a thermal overload on the ionosphere the

beam area at the earth must be approximately 100 km2 for the

anticipated frequency of 2.45 GHz."

 

How does that compare for similar solar production on the ground? That's 50 W/m^2. Not really better than terrestrial solar, and certainly not cheaper.

[Harold Squared]

It was a feasibility study about a rectenna financed by NASA and published in 1980. There were cost complaints and NIMBY problems they were trying to solve.

 

I wish I could provide a link and am going to get a machine with that capability ASAP. Please accept my apology for the inconvenience and proceed to the website and look it up with the number provided. If that doesn't work I will see what I did wrong. I hope you find it worth the effort, good night to all.

[overtone]

 

If you have evidence that rainfall in the Sahel has NOT increased over recent years - - -

 

 

What one finds by typing "sahel rainfall" into the search bar of any browser is something like this:

 

http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data_sets/sahel/

 

From this one can see that although rainfall in the Sahel overall is a bit higher last couple of years than it was a couple of years before that, there is no obvious trend (the trend line over the entire CO2 boost is negative, not positive, btw, ), it's not nearly as high as it has been in modern times, it's extremely variable year to year, it's extremely variable east to west, and there is no reason to pay any attention to Fox News versions of recent rainfall in the Sahel.

 

If the rain zone expands a bit away from the equator, as some AGW models predict, the southern part of the Sahel may get more total rain in consequence (in bigger jolts) , while the northern part (already drier) gets less total (but also bigger jolts - worst of both worlds). This is familiar stuff to those interested enough to follow that aspect of AGW.

 

 

 

Perhaps you will direct me to your source regarding the catastrophe in China to which you referred above and explain why it is NOT propaganda,

It's not "a" source, its the nature of the situation. China has a half a dozen very large cities famous for being very hot in the summer - http://en.people.cn/90882/7922100.html- and both AGW and the urban heat island effect are boosting their temperatures. These cities are also humid. And two or three are far inland, up the Yangtze valley, where the ocean does not moderate temperature fluctuations.

 

One consequence of AGW is exponentially greater fluctuations - increases in the transient peaks much larger than the increase in the average temperatures.

 

So there is a small probability - not as great as in some of the regions of the Middle East, but not at all negligible - that an AGW boost of another degree or so over the next 25 years in China, which is likely, combined with an increased urban heat island effect which is also likely, will create a heat wave in the summer during high humidity capable of killing a significant percentage of those exposed to it, the tens of millions in that region. Not just the elderly and frail.

 

So people will leave that region. That's many tens of millions of people.

 

In addition, much of the wet rice farming in China is done on river deltas. The expected increase in sea level will threaten these rice paddies, and a severe typhoon storm surge on top of it would drown them in salt water, ruining the dwellings and the food supply and the economy of these large and densely populated areas. Again: many tens of millions of refugees. The odds of a sufficient typhoon coming ashore in the exact worst place are not all that great, but they are not at all negligible.

 

It's a numbers game - AGW is loading the dice, year by year.

Edited June 14, 2015 by overtone

[Harold Squared]

Hey, thanks. As it turns out, I personally have been living in ex rice fields most of my life, just turned out that way. Hurricane zones too. So I know a little bit about them since it is in my interest, despite being a layman. I will be discussing my conclusions on a more appropriate thread.

 

I have been considering your remarks and since the space based option basically amounts to a carbon abatement plan in that every watt transmitted to the surface can in principle replace a coal generated watt suggest that there is no time like the present for the Chinese to implement space based power. Yes, another awkward run-on sentence, my fault.

 

The past was horrible, as a matter of historical record, and immutable, though records of the past can be falsified, as Karl et al have recently demonstrated.

 

The future, according to you, is grim as well.

 

Ergo, the Chinese will never have more resources to devote to such a project than they do right now. With the Three Gorges Dam project over, they might be looking for another challenge. Maybe they have some leftover Cold War ICBMS hanging around that they could beat into metaphorical plowshares?

 

Anyway, did you get to look over the Rice University study? It is so much better than anything I could dream up. The only quibble I have right now is vulnerability to tsunamis.

 

Pleasant dreams and thanks for your interest.

As far as fusion goes, how about we not include technology that hasn't been demonstrated yet.

Is it really fair to characterize fusion as "not demonstrated yet"? Explosives employing the principle have been around for 5 decades now. But pending the outcome at ITER, and per your request, and since it is technically off topic, I shall say no more of it on this thread.

 

What was the purpose of the project? How about a link to it?

 

edit

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810004047.pdf

 

Hmm. Several billion in 1980 dollars for a 5 GW installation. You'd "only" need 200 of them per TW. Basically more than $1 billion per GW in today's money.

 

Also includes the number I asked for

 

"In order to avoid a thermal overload on the ionosphere the

 

 

 

beam area at the earth must be approximately 100 km2 for the

anticipated frequency of 2.45 GHz."

 

How does that compare for similar solar production on the ground? That's 50 W/m^2. Not really better than terrestrial solar, and certainly not cheaper.

Au contraire, from the standpoint of capacity factor space power wins walking away, particularly at high latitudes.

 

No snow removal, no washing, no interruption by clouds or seasonal variations or that rare and unpredictable interruption called NIGHT which curiously coincides with increased illumination demand. No bother of tracking the sun all over the flaming sky, which would be even tougher on a damned raft. No complaints from the stinking neighbors. And you say we will only need a 10x10 km patch of ocean to do it? Great news! Forget Antarctica, we could use a little bit of the Gulf off Padre Island.

 

The link you added was very courteous, sir, thank you for the effort and your continued feedback.

 

Best regards to all, yawn...goodnight.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

Is it really fair to characterize fusion as "not demonstrated yet"? Explosives employing the principle have been around for 5 decades now. But pending the outcome at ITER, and per your request, and since it is technically off topic, I shall say no more of it on this thread.

We're discussing electricity generation, not explosions. There are zero commercial fusion plants producing electricity at a rate of nil. Even if ITER worked tomorrow, that's only the sustainable fusion part of the equation. Electricity generation has to be figured out.

 

Au contraire, from the standpoint of capacity factor space power wins walking away, particularly at high latitudes.

 

No snow removal, no washing, no interruption by clouds or seasonal variations or that rare and unpredictable interruption called NIGHT which curiously coincides with increased illumination demand. No bother of tracking the sun all over the flaming sky, which would be even tougher on a damned raft. No complaints from the stinking neighbors. And you say we will only need a 10x10 km patch of ocean to do it? Great news! Forget Antarctica, we could use a little bit of the Gulf off Padre Island.

You only have to worry about maintenance in space and tracking satellites all over the sky.

[Harold Squared]

We're discussing electricity generation, not explosions. There are zero commercial fusion plants producing electricity at a rate of nil. Even if ITER worked tomorrow, that's only the sustainable fusion part of the equation. Electricity generation has to be figured out.

 

 

You only have to worry about maintenance in space and tracking satellites all over the sky.

Your point is perfectly valid and to be fair, the "statite" has yet to be demonstrated. The best we can say for it is that, like fusion, the principles are understood and worthy of further development. Maintenance in space is an issue but the practice of same, at least in low Earth orbit, was famously demonstrated by the Hubble Space Telescope mission. Obviously the radiation hazard is much greater at geosynchronous orbit. By definition objects located there are in a fixed position relative to the planetary surface, not an option with the Sun, to say the least. Given the radiation hazard it is likely that powersats will be of robust construction and remotely inspected and maintained. Nothing prevents large orbital stations from transmitting power to multiple ground stations in line of sight.

 

By contrast, the number of ground sites for both solar and wind are limited, and exposed to the climate extremes forecast by AGW advocates to become more common.

 

Ground based thermal solar is commonly augmented by natural gas to build up a head of steam in the morning, which sort of defeats the carbon abatement angle, and are completely useless at night.

 

I hope you see fit to respond again and your participation has given me great insight into the implications of my proposition.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

Your point is perfectly valid and to be fair, the "statite" has yet to be demonstrated. The best we can say for it is that, like fusion, the principles are understood and worthy of further development. Maintenance in space is an issue but the practice of same, at least in low Earth orbit, was famously demonstrated by the Hubble Space Telescope mission. Obviously the radiation hazard is much greater at geosynchronous orbit. By definition objects located there are in a fixed position relative to the planetary surface, not an option with the Sun, to say the least. Given the radiation hazard it is likely that powersats will be of robust construction and remotely inspected and maintained. Nothing prevents large orbital stations from transmitting power to multiple ground stations in line of sight.

 

Fixed position wrt the earth still means tracking the sun. You haven't eliminated that. These would still go dark some of the time, too.

 

But how do you hit a ground station near the south pole with a satellite transmitting from above the equator? You'd have to build the dishes vertically. Is that even possible (it's 100 km^2)? What about the additional losses from the additional atmospheric path length?

 

"Robust construction" = higher cost.

 

By contrast, the number of ground sites for both solar and wind are limited, and exposed to the climate extremes forecast by AGW advocates to become more common.

 

How is that "by contrast"? The number of satellites you can put in geostationary orbit is also limited and that orbit is already well-populated by (mostly) communications satellites. Perhaps more limited than the ground, because you can do this with a fairly small area if you aren't limited to one dimension. If you want 15 TW, that's 3000 satellites. Can they even fit into the geostationary orbit circle (assume a square array). How about doing an actual calculation in support of your idea for once. This one's easy. Assume 25% efficiency of the panels.

[Harold Squared]

 

Fixed position wrt the earth still means tracking the sun. You haven't eliminated that. These would still go dark some of the time, too.

 

But how do you hit a ground station near the south pole with a satellite transmitting from above the equator? You'd have to build the dishes vertically. Is that even possible (it's 100 km^2)? What about the additional losses from the additional atmospheric path length?

 

"Robust construction" = higher cost.

 

 

How is that "by contrast"? The number of satellites you can put in geostationary orbit is also limited and that orbit is already well-populated by (mostly) communications satellites. Perhaps more limited than the ground, because you can do this with a fairly small area if you aren't limited to one dimension. If you want 15 TW, that's 3000 satellites. Can they even fit into the geostationary orbit circle (assume a square array). How about doing an actual calculation in support of your idea for once. This one's easy. Assume 25% efficiency of the panels.

Quite right, the collectors regardless of location would have to track the Sun, and any in geosynchronous orbit would also be subject to brief interruptions at eclipse, so what would work best would be to have the majority of the collectors at polar locations, the statite platforms discussed earlier, and either direct transmission from such platforms to less equatorial ground stations or relay through geosynchronous stations as indicated to minimize atmospheric losses, although not transmission losses, as I am sure we can agree. The relay system would economize on space since collector area would be elsewhere and there is no reason communications could not be added to the platforms in geosynchronous orbit.

 

25% photovoltaic? I think solar thermal would work better in space since there would be no consideration of band gap and a greater portion of the available spectrum could be harnessed, plus mirrors are inherently less expensive, easier to patch, etc. Plus, the thermal efficiency of a heat engine is directly proportional to the difference in temperature between the "hot" and "cold" portions of the engine. That is around the melting point of tungsten and nearly zero Kelvin in space.

[swansont]

25% photovoltaic? I think solar thermal would work better in space since there would be no consideration of band gap and a greater portion of the available spectrum could be harnessed, plus mirrors are inherently less expensive, easier to patch, etc. Plus, the thermal efficiency of a heat engine is directly proportional to the difference in temperature between the "hot" and "cold" portions of the engine. That is around the melting point of tungsten and nearly zero Kelvin in space.

 

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?

the statite platforms discussed earlier

 

Yet another undemonstrated technology…

[Klaynos]

Quite right, the collectors regardless of location would have to track the Sun, and any in geosynchronous orbit would also be subject to brief interruptions at eclipse,

.

 

 

And night time...

 

For a stable orbit geostationary orbits must be over the equator, so you need to stop talking about geostationary or the polls. There are so many things wrong with what you are saying it's difficult to know what to comment on.

[swansont]

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.

[dimreepr]

When you consider the area, and it’s surprisingly small, of terrestrial solar panels needed, in a suitable area (Sahara desert) if an appropriate way to both store and distribute, the energy harvested, could be found; why waste time trying to put the same panels in space?

 

 

Edit/ with not only the same problems but with added difficulty.

Edited June 16, 2015 by dimreepr

[Harold Squared]

.

 

 

And night time...

 

For a stable orbit geostationary orbits must be over the equator, so you need to stop talking about geostationary or the polls. There are so many things wrong with what you are saying it's difficult to know what to comment on.

"Night time" is negligible at geostationary orbit but does occur upon occasion, even out to lunar orbit, you are perhaps familiar with the term "eclipse"?

 

This is why I suggest developing the statite concept, basically a spacecraft which uses solar sail technology to counterbalance gravitational attraction in order to maintain its position.

 

Moving out of the plane of the ecliptic avails us of sunshine which would otherwise be wasted and provide convenient relay points for power beamed from collectors at L4 and L5 when such become necessary.

 

Another benefit of these polar locations is reduced radiation hazard compared to geostationary orbit.

 

Thank you for your participation in the conversation.

When you consider the area, and its surprisingly small, of terrestrial solar panels needed, in a suitable area (Sahara desert) if an appropriate way to both store and distribute, the energy harvested, could be found; why waste time trying to put the same panels in space?

 

 

Edit/ with not only the same problems but with added difficulty.

If a frog had wings,he wouldn't bump his ass so much.

 

In space storage is a non issue, as described immediately above. In practice Saharan locations are as remote as orbit if not more so from current locations of peak demand for electricity. Plus lovely and abrasive sandstorms can be expected to scratch up your equipment in short order.

Of course if you can figure out a way around the objections my metaphorical hat will be off to you, as well as Swanson's metaphorical sweater, I imagine.

 

Thank you for the topical comment.

[dimreepr]

"Night time" is negligible at geostationary orbit but does occur upon occasion, even out to lunar orbit, you are perhaps familiar with the term "eclipse"?

 

This is why I suggest developing the statite concept, basically a spacecraft which uses solar sail technology to counterbalance gravitational attraction in order to maintain its position.

 

Moving out of the plane of the ecliptic avails us of sunshine which would otherwise be wasted and provide convenient relay points for power beamed from collectors at L4 and L5 when such become necessary.

 

Another benefit of these polar locations is reduced radiation hazard compared to geostationary orbit.

 

Thank you for your participation in the conversation.

If a frog had wings,he wouldn't bump his ass so much.

 

In space storage is a non issue, as described immediately above. In practice Saharan locations are as remote as orbit if not more so from current locations of peak demand for electricity. Plus lovely and abrasive sandstorms can be expected to scratch up your equipment in short order.

Of course if you can figure out a way around the objections my metaphorical hat will be off to you, as well as Swanson's metaphorical sweater, I imagine.

 

Thank you for the topical comment.

 

 

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

[iNow]

If all you want to do is feel correct and pretend to have some unearned superiority be is right, start a blog; if you want to learn, start to listen.

There. FTFY