- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,750
- Reaction score
- 14,483
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
There is much more effective solutions. A Space Based Solar Network (SBSN) could provide the power demand of the entire world three times over and provide energy at half the cost that we are paying now. I read a business plan, and essentially the fuel for the space planes, space planes, launching facilities, and materials themselves would cost 100 billion dollars over 10 years. These costs does not include R&D facilities and all labor. I am not educated enough on the subject to give an accurate estimate on the rest of the project, but we could be safe in our assumptions. Let's assume 100 billion dollars for 10 years, to a total of 1 trillion dollars.
If we really wanted to as a country, through deficit spending we could solve the entire world's energy needs if we wanted to. And, we could transition the network to the private sector. The beauty of this is this method will produce excess energy 24 hours a day. The network will be capable to produce three times the world's demand of power. Therefore, there is room for development across the globe. There is absolutely no pollution. There would have to be no fly zones over power retrieval stations across the globe, but there are no fly zones across nuclear power plants.
The NASA design of such a network is compartmentalized. This basically means they can add more, or take away compartments, based off of repair or upgrades. The network could probably be scaled past the 155 TW marker when we need it to.
To me that is a solution because it ends the debate. We wouldn't release carbon powering the grid at least, and we could rest at ease in the fact that we would greatly reduce the amount of CO2 released into the air. The deficit spending isn't a big deal in my opinion (I don't want to get into a debate about economics). I've written my representatives though, and the republican who actually wrote back to me, said he only wants to harness the available carbon resources in the country. He has no interest in such a project.
To me that smells of lobby.
But I think this system of continuing to make hydrocarbons is a bad idea. What is so bad about harnessing the sun?
I like bold ideas, and Space Based Solar Network (SBSN) definitely fits there, but we are a long way from
that being practical, and we would still need to convert the power into a portable storage mechanism like hydrocarbons.
Man made hydrocarbons use atmospheric Co2 to make the hydrocarbons, and so are 100% carbon neutral.
The source of the energy is another matter. SBSN, if the technology and cost could be validated as viable
could be a good source for power.
Storing the energy as hydrocarbons, would be an easy way to adapt it to existing infrastructures.