Solar Power Satellites (split from SpaceX)

[SpaceFace545]

1 minute ago, GuessingEveryDay said:

Why do I feel like I want to become a fusion plant manager, then force the plant to meltdown, and once the process is done, everyone can clearly see nothing bad happens. Just a little sizzle and that's it.

Honestly though, I guess fusion sounds scarier than fission. And the idea of an "artificial sun" spinning inside of an apparatus also doesn't sound too safe.

[tater]

1 minute ago, Selective Genius said:

Using PVs to generate power in orbit and transmit it to ground is not a good idea. They wont be able to produce energy when the solar radiation is not available, but if we use Solar dynamic power, not exclusively for earth, but also places where solar panels are less effective, it could be competitive.

Sun sync orbit, always lit.

About an hour and a half:

 

[Selective Genius]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

Sun sync orbit, always lit.

But transfer it to a particular region how? I imagine you need to keep your country's SPS in a Geosynchronous Orbit over your nation to beam power from SPS to ground, much like communication satellites?

And PVs wont long last in space, with micrometeorite collisions. We are looking at atleast a decade of continuous operation to pay off the cost of a SPS. Compared to PVs, the solar dynamic concept would use giant metal sheets. inexpensive and not complex to manufacture.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Selective Genius

[tater]

Just now, Selective Genius said:

But transfer it to a particular region how? I imagine you need to keep your country's SPS in a GEO over your nation to transfer power from SPS to ground?

Watch his lecture, I think his constellation concept has multiple groups such that they pass off, and 1 is always in LOS. GEO is another possibility, but his concern there is launch costs. Launch costs that are orders of magnitude higher than what might be possible soon.

[Beccab]

3 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Honestly though, I guess fusion sounds scarier than fission. And the idea of an "artificial sun" spinning inside of an apparatus also doesn't sound too safe.

That's true, at least the fact that hydrogen bombs's principle is based on fusion is less known than atomic bombs having fission. I have heard way too may people make honestly dumb connections between nuclear power stations and atomic bombs

[SpaceFace545]

Just now, Beccab said:

I have heard way too may people make honestly dumb connections between nuclear power stations and atomic bombs

"But didn't Chernobyl turn into a bomb?!"

[Selective Genius]

Just now, tater said:

Watch his lecture, I think his constellation concept has multiple groups such that they pass off, and 1 is always in LOS. GEO is another possibility, but his concern there is launch costs. Launch costs that are orders of magnitude higher than what might be possible soon.

Yes of course, but beaming off power from one sat to the other, is it feasible when they are transferring power in gigawatt range? I mean if that is possible its good, but i think a molten salt energy storage system would be a better alternative. Melt the salt in daylight, use part of it to run the turbine, and keep part of it in 'hot storage' In the dark, use the stored molten salt to run the turbines.

[southernplain]

8 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Honestly though, I guess fusion sounds scarier than fission. And the idea of an "artificial sun" spinning inside of an apparatus also doesn't sound too safe.

"In a fusion reactor, there will only be a limited amount of fuel (less than four grams) at any given moment. The reaction relies on a continuous input of fuel; if there is any perturbation in this process and the reaction ceases immediately."

ITER knows what they are talking about.

https://www.iter.org/mach/safety

[Selective Genius]

Just now, southernplain said:

"In a fusion reactor, there will only be a limited amount of fuel (less than four grams) at any given moment. The reaction relies on a continuous input of fuel; if there is any perturbation in this process and the reaction ceases immediately."

ITER knows what they are talking about.

https://www.iter.org/mach/safety

I don't think science, facts and logic can ever stop the anti-nuke cult..

[southernplain]

Just now, Selective Genius said:

I don't think science, facts and logic can ever stop the anti-nuke cult..

Well obviously not, but that doesn't mean we should stop pursuing fusion power. 

There is functionally very little nuclear waste from fusion, it is vastly superior to fission power in every way if we can scale it out economically.

[Beccab]

7 minutes ago, southernplain said:

"In a fusion reactor, there will only be a limited amount of fuel (less than four grams) at any given moment. The reaction relies on a continuous input of fuel; if there is any perturbation in this process and the reaction ceases immediately."

ITER knows what they are talking about.

"But there were (insert absurdly low number) grams of plutonium in the atomic bomb, and look and what it caused to Fukushima!"

[Selective Genius]

4 minutes ago, southernplain said:

Well obviously not, but that doesn't mean we should stop pursuing fusion power. 

There is functionally very little nuclear waste from fusion, it is vastly superior to fission power in every way if we can scale it out economically.

Of course we should not stop researching a technology that could not only make us carbon neutral but carbon-negative. It is just that knowledge spreads so much slower than false alarm and rumors.

[magnemoe]

27 minutes ago, southernplain said:

Not even close. Total provable reserves are already on the order of ~2 trillion of barrels of oil equivalent.

It won't be economically or ecologically possible to exploit those reserves, but we aren't running out.

This, it has been an fear in 50 years but with fracking the reserves are more than we will use.  Price might go up as its more expensive to extract, but technology evolves. 
The real issue with oil was that the main source was the very unstable middle east . 
As we got lots of sources other places this is less of an problem. 
And its an drive to use less oil because pollution. 

7 minutes ago, southernplain said:

Well obviously not, but that doesn't mean we should stop pursuing fusion power. 

There is functionally very little nuclear waste from fusion, it is vastly superior to fission power in every way if we can scale it out economically.

The waste is basically neutron poison of the lining, you get the same in fission and its never been an panic problem. 
Yes some idiots probably try to make it an panic problem. notice the rage against wind power.
Granted you don't want an wind farm close to people as they are noisy but this is about areas none live. 

[SpaceFace545]

1 hour ago, Selective Genius said:

Fossil fuel WILL run out, one day or the other. Would you rather wait for that calamity to happen or be proactive? Those companies protested the current renewables too a few decades ago, laughing them off, but look where we are now. I mean, if you want a carbon catastrophe then i dunno... to each their own i guess.

We still will need oil, or atleast an oil alternative. Our modern life revolves around it and not just for gas. Plastic, rubber, foam, composites, carbon fiber, tires, medical garb, sanitary equipment, anything disposable, sadly water bottles, vinyl, etc. Modern civilization frankly can't exist without black gold.

[HvP]

3 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

We still will need oil, or atleast an oil alternative. Our modern life revolves around it and not just for gas. Plastic, rubber, foam, composites, carbon fiber, tires, medical garb, sanitary equipment, anything disposable, sadly water bottles, vinyl, etc. Modern civilization frankly can't exist without black gold.

I've been saying for years that one of the most important reasons to transition to renewable resources is so that we can save all that oil we are going to need for other products, instead of just burning it up.

However, it is possible to make bioplastics from plant based polymers (that's where the oil in the ground came from in the first place after all.) It's just more energy intensive than using the oil that was made naturally in the ground. If we do manage to achieve surplus energy from sustainable fusion or renewables then sustainable bioplastics industry might eventually become economical.

This might not be a good thing considering the increased disposable environmental waste it would generate, though.

Edited June 3, 2021 by HvP

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Bill Gates is a nice genuine person (probably). Jeff Bezos is chill. Mark zuckerburg is um lizard like. Musk on the other hand is just a jerk. 

That’s what I thought about Gates until I heard about the Epstein business.

Musk is neurodivergent and overestimates his expertise in some areas but is generally good at the things he understands.

Bezos has a lot more sense than Musk but he’s not quite as smart. Strikes me as the sort of person who you could hang out with and never know who he was.

Zuckerberg is an evil lizard person escaped from Area 51.

2 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

I imagine when fusion power plants are eventually built, there'll be pushback because people hear the word 'nuclear', assume that 'nuclear = bad' and not read into it any more than that.

It feels like the anti-nuclear lobby has gotten quieter over the past couple of decades. I think a lot of the old guard died out. 

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

"But didn't Chernobyl turn into a bomb?!"

Chernobyl would have been less dangerous (at least in the long-term) if it had magically transmuted into a bomb.

And by now the danger has mostly passed. The main reactor site itself will be *SPICY* for another 20,000 years or so, but the exclusion zone already has low enough radiation that it’s being resettled. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

14 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

It feels like the anti-nuclear lobby has gotten quieter over the past couple of decades. I think a lot of the old guard died out. 

My impression is that the environmentalists actually got smarter about what is going on (or wrong, in their opinion) with the world.  Before, they were filled with fear-based emotionalism that conflated nuclear power with nuclear war, and any discussion of nuclear power was tainted by the weapon fears - driven in large part by Cold-War saber rattling.

Yet as environmentalists got more educated, looking at particulate emissions, microplastic waste, waterway and coastal contamination from industry, cities and farms, etc... they came to a conclusion that realistically the world needs energy, and that most non-polluting sources are insufficient (wind/solar) or almost fully tapped (hydro).  Nuclear has a pretty damn good safety rating, and the 'disasters' (Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima) did not result in Lizard-People or Mutant Ants devastating the countryside.  Thus, to provide a rational way to meet the world's energy needs and reduce damage to the global environment, nuclear looks less scary than continuing down the Coal and Gas route.

Edited June 3, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Spaceman.Spiff]

50 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Bezos has a lot more sense than Musk but he’s not quite as smart. Strikes me as the sort of person who you could hang out with and never know who he was.

Also treats his workers like garbage but that’s a topic for a different thread…

51 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Musk is neurodivergent and overestimates his expertise in some areas but is generally good at the things he understands.

his political views have been questionable in the past and the fact that people see him as some sort of all around genius is damaging when he makes certain remarks such as those about virus. 
 

Generally I assume multibillionaires are probably self centered turds because no one deserves that much money. 

[SOXBLOX]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

Zuckerberg is an evil lizard person escaped from Area 51.

I'm gonna borrow this.

45 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

his political views have been questionable in the past

As Wikipedia so frequently says, "[by whom?]".

Anyway, to avoid veering into the War of Ideas, how many boosters do SpaceX have in inventory? Ten? Thirty? A hundred?

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Also treats his workers like garbage but that’s a topic for a different thread…

Oh that’s true without question. I think Bezos would be amused to hang out with someone and not tip them off about who he was, and that’s not necessarily a good thing.

2 hours ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

his political views have been questionable in the past and the fact that people see him as some sort of all around genius is damaging when he makes certain remarks such as those about virus. 

I think engineers have their own version of Dunning-Kruger that tends to manifest in precisely these situations. 

2 hours ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Generally I assume multibillionaires are probably self centered turds because no one deserves that much money. 

I assume multibillionaires must be actively evil to get that much money in the first place.

[NFUN]

5 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

I'm gonna borrow this.

As Wikipedia so frequently says, "[by whom?]".

Anyway, to avoid veering into the War of Ideas, how many boosters do SpaceX have in inventory? Ten? Thirty? A hundred?

if you wanted to avoid veering into the War of Ideas, why did you challenge him instead of saying nothing

[SOXBLOX]

3 hours ago, NFUN said:

if you wanted to avoid veering into the War of Ideas, why did you challenge him instead of saying nothing

While we're questioning each others' motives, why did you bother asking this question? Probably for the same reason as I wrote my comment. 

8 hours ago, southernplain said:

If Wikipedia is correct, roughly 13. Of course, we don't typically know until one is spotted in the wild.

I'd never really thought about how quickly they must turn those around. Thanks.

Edited June 4, 2021 by SOXBLOX

[NFUN]

10 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

While we're questioning each others' motives, why did you bother asking this question? Probably for the same reason as I wrote my comment. 

because saying somebody is wrong then trying to shut down the conversation so you'd have the last word is obnoxious and cowardly

[wumpus]

On 6/3/2021 at 12:00 PM, Selective Genius said:

I don't think science, facts and logic can ever stop the anti-nuke cult..

Sometime in the 1990s I began to suspect that the whole cult of fusion was a concession to the anti-nuke cult and a belief that we could get it right this time with a new nuclear process.  And not only will it have to deal with the anti-nuke cult, it will also have to deal with the existing nuclear plant construction industry desperately defending their turf.  I can't see fusion doing any better than fission.

On 6/3/2021 at 2:47 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Yet as environmentalists got more educated, looking at particulate emissions, microplastic waste, waterway and coastal contamination from industry, cities and farms, etc... they came to a conclusion that realistically the world needs energy, and that most non-polluting sources are insufficient (wind/solar) or almost fully tapped (hydro).  Nuclear has a pretty damn good safety rating, and the 'disasters' (Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima) did not result in Lizard-People or Mutant Ants devastating the countryside.  Thus, to provide a rational way to meet the world's energy needs and reduce damage to the global environment, nuclear looks less scary than continuing down the Coal and Gas route.

Most of them.  But why did Germany turn off their nuclear power plants and go back to the dirtiest coal they could find?  Also, the greens aren't remotely as good at preventing new power plant construction as the nuclear power plant construction industry is at preventing nuclear power plants from being constructed (by massive delays and cost overruns).

[SOXBLOX]

4 hours ago, NFUN said:

because saying somebody is wrong then trying to shut down the conversation so you'd have the last word is obnoxious and cowardly

If the guy whom I was addressing cares, we'll discuss it. In the meantime, you may open the political debate at your leisure. I'll not join in.

9 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Also, the greens aren't remotely as good at preventing new power plant construction as the nuclear power plant construction industry is at preventing nuclear power plants from being constructed (by massive delays and cost overruns).

Sad but true. Take that how you will...

Edited June 4, 2021 by SOXBLOX