Lunar Solar Power?

[Karmadillo]

And then we get lots of cheap power and then we get deep space travel and then all those Heinlein juvenile novels come true. If we're going to embrace a Big Idea, I say this is the way to go (unless it's already been debunked, in which case I knew it was nonsense all along and am just posting it for a laugh and the chance for someone to make an Amazing Criswell joke).

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/355/1

Reaping powerful ideas from a luminary
by Sam Dinkin
Monday, April 11, 2005
Professor David Criswell is Director of the Institute for Space Systems Operations at the University of Houston.

See also the backgrounder on Lunar solar power.

Sam Dinkin: How is lunar solar power (LSP) different from Earth solar or orbital solar power generation?

David Criswell: The Moon has no atmosphere, rain, or clouds to block sunlight as does the Earth. Doing the construction on the Moon is far less expensive than sending raw or processed materials to deep space for later use. There are fewer manufacturing operations. You do not have to build the platform.

Dinkin: What is the minimum money scale for a viable lunar solar power (LSP) project that would cost the same as Earth generated power?

Criswell: When LSP approaches 100 gigawatts electricity (GWe) of capacity and has delivered in excess of 500 GWe years (GWe-y) of energy the LSP energy will drop below the cost of electric energy from conventional systems. This will likely require the order of $400 to $500 billion.

This is a bit over one year of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) budget or about three years of global expenditures on exploration and development of oil and natural gas to maintain about 85 million barrels of oil per day production. A 20-terawatt-electricity (TWe) LSP is the equivalent of 1,000 million barrels of oil per day.

Dinkin: Does that include lobbying, regulatory, legal, fundraising, and marketing? Insurance? What does it include?

Criswell: The estimates are for engineering and operations costs and some interest to bring the demo to commercial scale.

Dinkin: When will the price of electricity start to drop if you were given the money today?

Criswell: Approximately 15 years after the start of an Apollo-priority program the cost of electricity would drop beneath $0.10/kilowatt electricity hour (kWe-h). By 2040 the cost would be a fraction of a cent per kWe-h.

more...

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/354/2

Rectifying the case for beaming Lunar solar power
by Sam Dinkin
Monday, April 11, 2005

<edit>

Politics is particularly fickle. Trying to explain why LSP is better than helium-3 mining or converting to a hydrogen economy requires physics and economics knowledge that is two levels removed from most legislators. The political class mostly does not associate with the scientific and economics academics (and this issue would require both at once). And if they did, the academics do not have the vocabulary to communicate the issue. Much will depend on resonance with the national mood. Who picks the movies that will be hits? Getting a hit major policy initiative is a lot like getting a hit patent, hit movie or hit song. There are some promoters that can do it well, but few that can do it for sure. And those great lobbyists and statesmen who occasionally reshape public opinion will have their own agenda to push. Therefore it is likely to be a long fight before LSP is funded even by a rich planet.

LSP starts with a heavy handicap. There are a gaggle more of well-funded fuel industries that would be threatened if LSP came to fruition such as carbon, uranium, and deuterium. When there is diffuse benefit and concentrated harm, a policy initiative has a particularly rough time to gain friends in the face of such persistent enemies.

more...

[druidity33]

1. hmmm

it does sound farfetched. But i'm all for it if it's real!

:)

k&r

[greenman3610]

2. redundant

as we have a plethora of unexploited energy
sources near at hand.
this just feeds the perception that some kind
of quantum technology leap is necessary.

[Indenturedebtor]

3. I agree - this is completely unneccesary - it's like the fuel cell cars bs

We don't need Hydrogen cars when the technology has existed for years to build electric cars that run off of renewables.

Besides - what happens if the beam of energy goes astray a little? Would you like to see 80 bajillion kilowats of microwave energy toast NYC? I sure wouldn't :hide:

[Karmadillo]

4. I'm not sure the existence of other sources of energy means

we should ignore this one. It may work well as part of a package of replacement sources and it may work to keep some of the more dangerous sources, like nuclear, from gaining prominence.

ON EDIT: Demonstrated I knew how to spell "dangerous" correctly.

[Indenturedebtor]

5. This is a dangerous source of energy though... and it's cost INTENSIVE

The only way to get that energy to earth is to beam it. I guess you could build a space elevator out of higly conductive wire and beam to that but still you're talking BOOKOO bucko's my friend. Money that could be spent on solutions today such as tidal, solar, algal, wind, etc.

It's great sci-fi but I'm afraid that it will remain so unless and until we exhaust all readily accessible renewables here on Earth.