"The beam from a power satellite is under 0.3 kW/m^2. Sunlight is around a kW/m^2."
then why would we use this instead of just using solar power? They must be using Republican math to try to justify this corporate welfare.
Do you mean that math in the replies where Henson said:
Addressing the economics, electricity is a commodity, especially base load power. Market goes to the lowest cost producers. Power satellites are cheaper than ground solar in close to the ratio of their utilization (i.e., fraction of the year they are selling power). Ground solar plants sell power about 20% of the time, vs space-based upwards of 90%.
Now if you have an issue with his 20% and 90% numbers then feel free to present your own analysis that refutes those numbers.
I have in issue with his ignoring launch costs. When launch cost are not more than 4.5 (0.9 / 0.2, his numbers) times the cost of the actual solar equipment then power satellites will be cheaper. Ignoring transmission costs and assuming solar systems on orbit have the same life as on roof.
It's called design to cost. If you can't get the parts cost plus the kg/kW times the $/kg down to $2400 or less, then the project doesn't happen because you don't get the market for it to make any sense. You just can't sell power for less than it cost to make it.
If it is 1/3 the power of the sun... (Score:2, Interesting)
"The beam from a power satellite is under 0.3 kW/m^2. Sunlight is around a kW/m^2."
then why would we use this instead of just using solar power? They must be using Republican math to try to justify this corporate welfare.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
"The beam from a power satellite is under 0.3 kW/m^2. Sunlight is around a kW/m^2."
then why would we use this instead of just using solar power? They must be using Republican math to try to justify this corporate welfare.
Do you mean that math in the replies where Henson said:
Addressing the economics, electricity is a commodity, especially base load power. Market goes to the lowest cost producers. Power satellites are cheaper than ground solar in close to the ratio of their utilization (i.e., fraction of the year they are selling power). Ground solar plants sell power about 20% of the time, vs space-based upwards of 90%.
Now if you have an issue with his 20% and 90% numbers then feel free to present your own analysis that refutes those numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
I have in issue with his ignoring launch costs. When launch cost are not more than 4.5 (0.9 / 0.2, his numbers) times the cost of the actual solar equipment then power satellites will be cheaper. Ignoring transmission costs and assuming solar systems on orbit have the same life as on roof.
Re: (Score:1)
I am sorry you missed it, but launch cost are over half the capital cost even when you get the cost down to $200/kg.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying it's $200/kilo is the same as ignoring it. Everything that derives from that assumption is bullshit.
Re:If it is 1/3 the power of the sun... (Score:1)
It's called design to cost. If you can't get the parts cost plus the kg/kW times the $/kg down to $2400 or less, then the project doesn't happen because you don't get the market for it to make any sense. You just can't sell power for less than it cost to make it.