FW: SPACE FOR CLIMATE ACTION - Less than two weeks left to submit your abstract for GLOC 2023!
k.a.c...@sympatico.ca
It sure would be a good idea for some suitable person in our community, to submit an abstract/plan to give a paper at this conference --- to make the case for SPS as a major source of dispatchable power, to help reduce GHG emissions, to mitigate climate change.
Obviously one of the major justifications for SPS is to help with climate change. However, as far as I can tell, the world climate change community is almost completely unaware of SPS as a serious major power source. Presenting at this conference could be a good opportunity to raise the topic, and work on planting seeds in the minds of climate-change-type people (instead of just preaching to the SPS choir).
Of course, doing so would take time and money, to prepare a talk and attend the conference…
- Kieran
From: IAF Secretariat <in...@iafastro.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 8:08 AM
To: kieran.a...@emeraldtel.com
Subject: SPACE FOR CLIMATE ACTION - Less than two weeks left to submit your abstract for GLOC 2023!
|
Keith Henson
It sure would be a good idea for some suitable person in our community, to submit an abstract/plan to give a paper at this conference --- to make the case for SPS as a major source of dispatchable power, to help reduce GHG emissions, to mitigate climate change.
Obviously one of the major justifications for SPS is to help with climate change. However, as far as I can tell, the world climate change community is almost completely unaware of SPS as a serious major power source.
Presenting at this conference could be a good opportunity to raise the topic, and work on planting seeds in the minds of climate-change-type people (instead of just preaching to the SPS choir).
Of course, doing so would take time and money, to prepare a talk and attend the conference…
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/23b701d91fc0%246c8f8ff0%2445aeafd0%24%40sympatico.ca.
Erinn van Wynsberghe
Thanks,
Erinn
President & CEO
VanWyn Inc.
Erinn van Wynsberghe
President & CEO
VanWyn Inc.
Hi Erinn, Kieran, Howard, Keith, and Tim,
This abstract is quite ambitious. It is a good overview, and could even be a feature article in Scientific American. Your stated target for GLOC is Session 3, addressing “systems to address climate change”. The primary focus of Session 3, however, is “earth observation”. I imagine the organizers recognizing the value of satellite observation and measurement. SSP is likely to blow their minds!
While I agree an introductory article is important to this new audience, we may need a second paper specifically focused on metrics, and submitted to Session 6 on “space technology”. This companion paper could assess GHG emission reduction as a function of SSP deployment. It might include atmospheric warming from absorption of the power beam (small, but non-negligible) and be compared to fossil fuel energy, both as a function of scale. And, most importantly, it should address EROEI – Energy Returned on Energy Invested. Even as launch costs come down, the energy required to loft hardware into orbit remains enormous. We could also contrast space-based manufacture of SSP components to those launched from Earth as a Gen 2 solution to even further mitigate climate change. I’m picturing graphics that illustrate the enormous leverage of space-based energy solutions over terrestrial options, including fossil fuels and the intermittent sources of ground-based solar and wind which require storage to be baseload. And, if we can tie these studies back to specific climate metrics such as sea level rise, I think we could “steal the show” in Oslo.
What do you think?
Peter
--------------------
Peter J. Schubert, Ph.D., P.E.
Director, Richard G. Lugar Center for Renewable Energy
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Adjunct Professor of Mechanical and Energy Engineering
Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)
799 W. Michigan St., Mail Stop ET-219
Indianapolis, IN 46202-5160
Phone: 317-278-0812
pjsc...@iupui.edu
http://www.lugarenergycenter.org/
From: Howard Bloom <howl...@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 8:22 PM
To: eri...@vanwyn.com; power-satell...@googlegroups.com; k.a.c...@sympatico.ca
Cc: Schubert, Peter J <pjsc...@iupui.edu>; hkeith...@gmail.com; cash...@gmail.com
Subject: [External] Re: GLOC: SPACE FOR CLIMATE ACTION - Draft Abstract
This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
erinn, you are amazing.
GLOC sounds very promising.
see if the enclosed edits work for you.
with warmth and oomph--howard
__________________________
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
trailer for BRIC-TV's 66-minute film, The Grand Unified Theory of Howard Bloom, https://youtu.be/rGkOkChazUQ
Best Picture, Science Design Film Festival. Best Documentary Feature, Not Film Festival, Italy. Now available on Apple TV, Amazon, Google Play, Microsoft, Vimeo, Vudu, and Fandango.
Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post),
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker),
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("A tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic),
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich),
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!” Timothy Leary),
The Mohammed Code (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.” David Swindle, PJ Media), and
Einstein, Michael Jackson & Me: a Search for Soul in the Power Pits of Rock & Roll ("Amazing. The writing is revelatory." Freddy DeMann, manager of Michael Jackson and Madonna), Best Book of 2020, New York Weekly Times.
A Quartz Magazine Pro
Former Visiting Scholar, Graduate Psychology Department, New York University, Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Current Kepler Space University Senior Scholar.
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project. Founder, Space Development Steering Committee. Member Of Board Of Governors, National Space Society. Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution Society. Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project.
Keith Henson
Hi Erinn, Kieran, Howard, Keith, and Tim,
While I agree an introductory article is important to this new audience, we may need a second paper specifically focused on metrics, and submitted to Session 6 on “space technology”. This companion paper could assess GHG emission reduction as a function of SSP deployment.
It might include atmospheric warming from absorption of the power beam (small, but non-negligible) and be compared to fossil fuel energy, both as a function of scale. And, most importantly, it should address EROEI – Energy Returned on Energy Invested.
Even as launch costs come down, the energy required to loft hardware into orbit remains enormous. We could also contrast space-based manufacture of SSP components to those launched from Earth as a Gen 2 solution to even further mitigate climate change.
with warmth and oomph--howard
__________________________
Keith Lofstrom
> Even as launch costs come down, the energy required
> to loft hardware into orbit remains enormous.
(gravitational and kinetic) is
E / mass = mu_Earth ( 1/R_Earth - 1/2 R_GEO )
The "1/2" instead of "1" accounts for both the climb and
GEO orbital velocity kinetic energy. A "0" second term
would be Earth escape. There are other small terms and
one very very big term, see below.
mu_Earth = 398600.4418 km³/s²
R_Earth = 6378 km (equator)
R_GEO = 42164 km
E / mass = 57.8 MJ / kg
= 16 KWhr / kg
= $2.25 / kg at Portland Oregon power rates
A rocket launch adds vastly more energy to lift rocket
structure and gobs of propellant, then discard very
energetic propellant AKA reaction mass at high speed
(but not high enough speed) in the opposite direction.
We (or most of we) don't know how to avoid that
enormous additional "tailpipe" energy expenditure,
plus the additional energy to put propellant
(temporarily) into a big heavy tank and lift both.
"... energy ... remains enormous"; sadly, very true.
Will always be enormous? That remains to be seen.
Keith L.
--
Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com
Keith Henson
gand canO Keith update his 2016 paper for this conference.
tom.poulin poulin
On January 10, 2023 10:42 PM Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com> wrote:
n Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 7:40 PM Howard Bloom < howl...@aol.com> wrote:
gand canO Ke ith update his 2016 paper for this conference.
Possibly, though it will take more than updating.
The problem is that I had assumed human workers for building power satellites.
Just after 2016 it became apparent that the space junk made building power satellites in LEO something that you really didn't want to do.
And if you go high enough to get out of the junk, then the radiation from the lower Van Allen belt kills your workers in a few hours.
The whole construction has to be robots or teleopation. Keith
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAPiwVB5TKApfRJCC7yVuk%3D7ZUXDW6T%3DHJ5FN-eBXZxie%2BQjA8w%40mail.gmail.com.
Keith Henson
<tom.p...@aerie-engineering.com> wrote:
>
> Ed McCullough's take on lunar solar power assumed a 'lights-out" facility to manufacture all of the components from lunar materials, no human labor.
Keith
Erinn van Wynsberghe
President & CEO
VanWyn Inc.
Keith Henson
> Baseload electric power can be collected in orbit and transferred wirelessly to receiving antennae on Earth. At scale, this technology, called Space Solar Power (SSP, also known as Space-Based Solar Power, or just Space Solar) has a smaller environmental foot print than electricity from uranium, coal, and natural gas.
This is probably true.
> SSP is even superior to terrestrial wind and solar when applied to baseload (“always on”) power, which requires energy storage due to their non-dispatchable (intermittent) nature.
True enough
> This work addresses reductions in global emissions in CO2-eq realized as a function of scale-up for SSP versus traditional sources of utility-scale energy generation.
While this can be addressed, you need to be careful in how this is worded to avoid ridicule. The scale-up for SSP to make a significant reduction in global emissions is immense. Done from the ground, the damage to the ozone from rockets lifting parts and reaction mass may be intolerable. (Or not, this is uncertain.)
To replace 1/3 of current FF consumption takes about 5000 GW or 1000 5 GW power satellites. Done over 20 years, that's 50 per year which requires 25,000 Starship flight per year. This is based on my best estimate of 6.5 kg/kW, and electric propulsion from LEO to GEO. You are welcome to redo this with whatever numbers you feel comfortable with.
> As with ground-based wind and solar, SSP has zero fuel costs. However, SSP requires that a significant mass is placed into orbit – a process that is very energy intensive. This study explores energy payback time, and Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) as a technology-neutral means of comparing various baseload sources of electric power at the magnitude suitable for direct grid-tie delivery into the transmission and distribution system of a region or country. SSP also requires a sizeable footprint for the receiving antenna (“rectenna”), such that its construction must be included in an inventory of direct and indirect atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Furthermore, the electromagnetic beam passing through the atmosphere has a small but non-negligible contribution to global warming, and must be included.
I believe the conversion loss at the rectenna is ten times as high as the atmospheric absorption. But this should be checked and not depend on my memory.
> SSP researchers have identified as many as 31 different methods (called “architectures”), however, this study will use representative benchmark metrics that can be adjusted easily when applied to alternate approaches (e.g. specific mass of a powersat at 1 kW/kg).
I think this number is wildly optimistic. Such studies that I think are creditable are 6-7 kg/kW. (The reason to express specific power this way is that multiplying by $/kg gives the lift cost.)
> Finally, this work will explore a second-generation SSP in which most (95%+) of the needed materials are obtained from in situ resource utilitization (ISRU), meaning that solar panels, structural elements, and power electronics are derived from lunar or asteroidal materials. The “Gen 2” approach dramatically leverages factories built on Earth that produce tens or hundreds of times their own mass in SSP materials. This represents perhaps the lowest overall global emissions scenario for anticipated future human energy needs, and presents the case for vigorous support of research, regulation, and international cooperation on this important emerging technology.
While I am in complete agreement with you that this is the way to go in the long run, it may lie outside the time frame under consideration to solve carbon and energy problems. If you have any estimate of the time and cost of building up a space industry to the scale needed for power satellites, I would be very interested.
Keith