Discussion with Chris
At 7:53am on October 15th, 2008, Dr. Paul A. Curto said…
The atomic oxygen problem attacks both metals and non-metals. The best coatings were being developed at Glenn in Ohio by our best materials people, but the key man retired a few months before me. It's "fixable", but not cheaply. Delete Comment
At 9:18pm on October 14th, 2008, Chris said…
They are working these issues:
www.sspi.gatech.edu/photovoltaics2006.pdf
See page 9 regarding the oxygen attack...
Delete Comment
At 7:53am on October 13th, 2008, Dr. Paul A. Curto said…
ISS has a useful life of about 15 years because it has thick structural members. A space power system has to be thin and light, but atomic oxygen just eats the materials very rapidly. When JPL did the first designs, the AO problem was unknown.
Check out the biomass and algae groups here for info on those genre. They are all water-intensive, which does not do well where water is scarce, like most of the western US and the deserts.
Best bet for your area is massive reforestation and harvesting. Since the idea involves carbon sequestration with the trees, then burning the product is carbon neutral. If you use algae farms and capture the CO2 from burning the wood in greenhouses to increase the algae yield, you come out ahead on carbon reduction. Delete Comment
At 7:45am on October 13th, 2008, Chris said…
Are you saying Satellites only last 10 years? I thought they could go 30 years or more. The biggest cost issue is getting the stuff up there. We need cheaper heavy payload cost per pound. The Space Shuttle will be decommissioned soon and it was too expensive and complicated anyway. Is there any Biomass technology that is competitive? Doesn't that just put us back to burning hydrocarbons?
Delete Comment
At 3:35am on October 13th, 2008, Dr. Paul A. Curto said…
Chris,
Space power is 100 times as expensive as terrestrial. Maybe 1000. It's a net energy loser by at least 10:1. Atomic Oxygen attack limits its life in space to less than a decade.
Seattle has other options. Its biomass potential in the region is exceptional, as well as the aquaculture and algae resource. You have water, which may become the future's most valuable commodity.
Wind has possibilities in the neighboring areas along mountain ridges in the Coastal ranges. Inland, you have areas that may provide diffuse solar resources, but not as valuable as those to your south. You already have the cheapest hydro power in the Nation. Delete Comment
At 10:35pm on October 12th, 2008, Chris said…
Ground based solar is ok when you have sun, what about the rest of us. I am in Seattle. Space Solar Power is more efficient that ground based and could also service northern latitudes. I have worked with the some of the people that presented the concept to congress and Nasa in the past. With better solar and space hardware this is an idea that needs some serious development, along with Nuclear and Wind.
Delete Comment
At 6:14am on October 12th, 2008, Dr. Paul A. Curto said…
Chris,
Study the discussion "Global Warming Impacts and Solutions" and some of the other discussions I have commented upon, and check out the following link that describes some 25-year-old work on which I was the lead.
http://www.goldenstateenergy.com/about4.html
That's for starters.
The atomic oxygen problem attacks both metals and non-metals. The best coatings were being developed at Glenn in Ohio by our best materials people, but the key man retired a few months before me. It's "fixable", but not cheaply. Delete Comment
At 9:18pm on October 14th, 2008, Chris said…
They are working these issues:
www.sspi.gatech.edu/photovoltaics2006.pdf
See page 9 regarding the oxygen attack...
Delete Comment
At 7:53am on October 13th, 2008, Dr. Paul A. Curto said…
ISS has a useful life of about 15 years because it has thick structural members. A space power system has to be thin and light, but atomic oxygen just eats the materials very rapidly. When JPL did the first designs, the AO problem was unknown.
Check out the biomass and algae groups here for info on those genre. They are all water-intensive, which does not do well where water is scarce, like most of the western US and the deserts.
Best bet for your area is massive reforestation and harvesting. Since the idea involves carbon sequestration with the trees, then burning the product is carbon neutral. If you use algae farms and capture the CO2 from burning the wood in greenhouses to increase the algae yield, you come out ahead on carbon reduction. Delete Comment
At 7:45am on October 13th, 2008, Chris said…
Are you saying Satellites only last 10 years? I thought they could go 30 years or more. The biggest cost issue is getting the stuff up there. We need cheaper heavy payload cost per pound. The Space Shuttle will be decommissioned soon and it was too expensive and complicated anyway. Is there any Biomass technology that is competitive? Doesn't that just put us back to burning hydrocarbons?
Delete Comment
At 3:35am on October 13th, 2008, Dr. Paul A. Curto said…
Chris,
Space power is 100 times as expensive as terrestrial. Maybe 1000. It's a net energy loser by at least 10:1. Atomic Oxygen attack limits its life in space to less than a decade.
Seattle has other options. Its biomass potential in the region is exceptional, as well as the aquaculture and algae resource. You have water, which may become the future's most valuable commodity.
Wind has possibilities in the neighboring areas along mountain ridges in the Coastal ranges. Inland, you have areas that may provide diffuse solar resources, but not as valuable as those to your south. You already have the cheapest hydro power in the Nation. Delete Comment
At 10:35pm on October 12th, 2008, Chris said…
Ground based solar is ok when you have sun, what about the rest of us. I am in Seattle. Space Solar Power is more efficient that ground based and could also service northern latitudes. I have worked with the some of the people that presented the concept to congress and Nasa in the past. With better solar and space hardware this is an idea that needs some serious development, along with Nuclear and Wind.
Delete Comment
At 6:14am on October 12th, 2008, Dr. Paul A. Curto said…
Chris,
Study the discussion "Global Warming Impacts and Solutions" and some of the other discussions I have commented upon, and check out the following link that describes some 25-year-old work on which I was the lead.
http://www.goldenstateenergy.com/about4.html
That's for starters.
Comment
Featured Discussion
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
You need to be a member of PickensPlan to add comments!
Join this Ning Network