Orbital solar power plants could meet Earth's energy needs Harvesting the sun's energy from space could provide cost-effective power within 30 years
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45288950...ce-innovation/
Printable View
Orbital solar power plants could meet Earth's energy needs Harvesting the sun's energy from space could provide cost-effective power within 30 years
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45288950...ce-innovation/
^^^ since the article itself points out that 'seed money from governments' would be an essential part of getting such a project off the ground ( pun intended ), this topic arguably runs afoul of the politics ban.
From the purely economic point of view of a Dollar Den investor, it would be encouraging to see at least one terrestrial US solar company actually turn a profit in the absence of gov't subsidies before even remotely considering this sort of orbital leap.
Orbital Microwave cannon.......... Coming soon to foreign and domestic enemies here and abroad.
So this plan is getting floated again?
I want to see the transmission lines.
Here you go:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ONYX-i...184025775.html
Also of interest:
What if solar got fossil fuel subsidies?
http://holykaw.alltop.com/what-if-so...ubsidies-infog
No transmission lines, it gets beamed.
The photoelectric cells generate gigawatts of electricity. That electrical power is converted into a microwave beam that is directed downward toward Earth, at a frequency best-suited for transmission through the atmosphere.
<LI class="i4 item">Beaming it down
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/c...a.grid-4x2.jpg
Mafic Studios Inc.
The microwave beam is targeted at a rectifying antenna array on Earth. Designers say the beam would have about one-sixth the intensity of noon sunlight.
<LI class="i5 item">Back into electricity
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/c...a.grid-4x2.jpg
Regarding Onyx, it remains to be seen what the actual source of funding for the Honduran pilot project was. As to profitability, it definitely remains to be seen how much power a solar farm based on the island of Roatan will still be generating after a couple of hurricane seasons.
Didn't Ian Fleming already use this as a plot device several times ?Quote:
Orbital Microwave cannon.......... Coming soon to foreign and domestic enemies here and abroad
Given future technology upgrades which are inevitable it will likely be much more profitable than oil which also includes the massive expenditures to clean up major spills which shut-down whole industries for months at a time and do massive environmental damage as was seen in the last Gulf spill. This in addition to the $Trillions we have to spend on the military to protect the oil supplies that are in areas of the world that are hostile to us. Exactly how is the nuclear power plant in Japan fairing after the earthquake?.
There are hundreds of thousands of jobs currently working on alternative technology, there will be millions. People and companies far, far, far smarter than you are investing $billions of their own money and benefits are already being felt in the mainstream. This will grow exponentionally as time goes on. You can continue to criticize and mock all you want and remain in your closed, narrow-mined world where all change is bad- the process will continue and acelarate either way and millions of people will be investing, working, earning money and the world will become a cleaner place as a result of it.
In addition, since you analyze from ideology and not fact, many of your points are flawed or irrevelent. This being the case with subsidies towards solar as well. http://solarpowerrocks.com/infograph...s-coal-or-oil/ and http://solarpowerrocks.com/infograph...city-produced/
Yes, just as cell-phones, air-travel, space travel, and computers were all described in books and movies before they existed or were popular in reality. They all had critics and detractors just like you as well. Thankfully progress marches on due to open-minded visionaries who refuse to listen or pay attention to the close-minded naysayers.
technology theory meets the real world ... in Germany
from
(snip)"On 30 May, in the aftermath of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that Germany would close all of its 18 nuclear power plants between 2015 and 2022, which produce about 28 percent of the country's electricity.
Eight have now been taken offline, and with the winter coming on Berlin is scrambling to make up the energy shortfall lest the country suffer blackouts combined with the need to import massive amounts of electricity.
Despite Germany's Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau (German Development Bank) being set to underwrite renewable energy and energy efficiency investments in Germany worth $137.3 billion over the next five years, Merkel’s government has now announced that in addition to going green, it will also build a dozen coal-fired power plants as part of the country’s future energy mix. In order to assure the energy transition, the government also plans to subsidize new natural gas power plants as well.
Now the consequences of the 30 June Bundestag law phasing out nuclear power are impacting. On 19 October Germany’s Minister of Economics and Technology Philipp Roesler somberly told Parliament, "The real work starts now," adding that the ministry now had the goals "To ensure the security of the energy supply and to protect the environment, within acceptable financial conditions." Afterwards, Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen told legislators at the same session, "Renewable energy and energy efficiency are the two pillars of the new energy policy." The next day Roesler in the company of Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble in a joint press conference informed reporters that Germany had sharply lowered its 2012 growth forecast to 1 percent. In April, the month following Fukushima but before the German government decided to phase out nuclear power, the Economy Ministry had predicted a 2012 growth rate of 1.8 percent.
The government’s newly pragmatic approach contrasts with the hopes of many environmentalists, who believe that Germany now has an historic opportunity to embrace renewable power rather than pursuing the retrograde step of commissioning new coal burning power plants. But government ministers are increasingly concerned primarily with ensuring the security of the nation’s energy supply, even though the 30 June legislation mandated that Germany’s share of energy from renewable sources must increase from 17 percent to 35 percent in 2020 and reach 80 percent by 2050. A modest start has already been made, as since the eight reactors were closed Germany increased its share of electricity produced from renewable energy sources from 17 percent to 20.8 percent. But the renewable power sources will be costly. On 19 October the German Association of Industrial Energy and Power Users complained that electricity price had increased even though its quality has decreased and noted that next year its members will see their electrical power invoices increase by 9 percent. As for the economics of the shift, electricity from conventional coal fired plants costs roughly $83 per megawatt-hour, the price increases roughly 50 percent to $124 per megawatt-hour for wind energy, $207 per megawatt-hour for offshore wind power, and $268 per megawatt-hour for solar, the last more than three times the cost of coal-fired electricity.
Despite that renewable energy has such high differential costs, most Germans accept it. According to a recent TNS Infratest survey, 79 percent of Germans polled felt that the "new energy" fees were "reasonable," with only 15 percent considering them "too high." Germany Trade & Invest economic development agency photovoltaic-industry expert Tobias Homann said, “With the decision to abandon nuclear power earlier this year, it was clear that the road ahead would be challenging. But Germany is in a very promising position to be the first industrialized country to rely entirely on renewable energy.”
Despite the cost associated with renewable energy Germany is one of the world’s largest producers of wind power, with 27 gigawatts of generating power installed, roughly 16 percent of the world’s current wind power generating capacity in the world, making it Europe’s biggest consumer of electricity from wind power. In the new austere Germany, the shift to renewable energy sources comes at a bad time for the exports-driven German economy, as increased energy costs can only add to the expensiveness of exports. ."(snip)
^^^^Not really sure what your point is in this post nor why it seems to be impossible for you to post anything that involves even a slightly positive point of view.
While I think it a bit drastic and knee-jerk of Germany to yank all the Nuclear so suddenly and not allow a phased in transition, they may just take some tough medicine now and get great benefits down the line by doing a forced fast transition. As the technology improves prices will get lower and lower for the renewables and all kinds of related savings will make their use more economically feasible.
It's already happening, Brazil is a great example: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...n-clean-energy Argentina and Mexico having success in the same areas as are a number of forward thinking countries.
^^^ the non-political point of my post was to emphasize the differences in actual cost / price of the different sources of electricity ... as well as to pass on German fears that rapidly rising energy prices for German export companies will make their products less competitive globally versus companies making similar products in other countries at far lower energy price levels.
As to Brazil's 'renewable energy' success, the facts are that 75% of Brazil's electricity already comes from 'renewable' hydropower. The economics of hydropower are well documented, being even less expensive than coal. Personally speaking, I'm a 100% supporter of hydropower development. But for better or worse, while Brazil is developing their potential hydropower resources with large public / private investments, the US is shutting down existing hydropower generators ( see ) and obstructing new hydroelectric power development ( see ).
~
I believe the article stated that most Germans didn't mind the additional costs:
Despite that renewable energy has such high differential costs, most Germans accept it. According to a recent TNS Infratest survey, 79 percent of Germans polled felt that the "new energy" fees were "reasonable," with only 15 percent considering them "too high."
Besides this in the US, the cost associated with oil would have to include expensive clean-up, large-scale industry interuption, $Billions in lawsuits and $Trillions spent on keeping our supplies in foreign countries accessable.
As usual you've glossed over many key points from the earlier posts like how much oil and coal have been and continue to be subsidized. Why is it that if anything of a positive nature is posted you have to go out of your way and go off topic to slam it?. I answer your request for a successful US company that isn't getting subsidies and you make a crack about hurricanes. I post about the hundreds of thousands of US workers making livings in this field and the great prospects that are ahead and you post an obscure article about Germany.
When the car was first invented it was many, many times more expensive than a horse. Only the very, very rich could buy them and only a few real visionaries would get involved in investing or manufacturing them. It took huge subsidies to create the road system and get mass-manufacturing of automobiles to be a reality. But, that effort played arguably the largest part in making America's standard of living the highest the world has ever seen. We now live in a global economy and while the US itself won't benefit exclusively from this epocal technological opportunity (largely because of critics like yourself) the world will. It is a huge movement and nothing will stop it from moving forward, $trillioms will be made and those who get it will prosper. Those who don't will be in much the same shape as a blacksmith around 1920. Big oil and a corrupt system have surpressed development of these types of ideas for almost 100 years, the cats out of the bag now and it's not going back in.
That's absolutely true ... at this moment. It remains to be seen if it is still true a couple of years down the road, after the German economy actually experiences greatly increased energy prices, loss of export product related German jobs etc.Quote:
I believe the article stated that most Germans didn't mind the additional costs:
Despite that renewable energy has such high differential costs, most Germans accept it. According to a recent TNS Infratest survey, 79 percent of Germans polled felt that the "new energy" fees were "reasonable," with only 15 percent considering them "too high."
Point one ... asserting a positive is not the same as demonstrating a positive. Point 2 the Germans were the only ones to actually assemble all of the numbers regarding relative costs of electricity generating by different sources. That is certainly on topic when the topic is advocation of a technology which will be even more expensive than the most expensive terrestrial technology involving solar power.Quote:
Why is it that if anything of a positive nature is posted you have to go out of your way and go off topic to slam it?.
Toward your last point, I am unaware of any major US gov't subsidies involving the industrial production / sales of automobiles in the early 20th century. Things have obviously changed in the 21st century !
Yes there was a large amount of public sector spending to construct paved roads in the early part of the 20th century ... but that was arguably a RE-action to Ford's real world mass production manufacturing methods reducing the actual costs of auto production thus actual sales price of automobiles to a level where unsubsidized voluntary purchases in high volumes took place of their own accord ... unsubsidized voluntary auto owners who then demanded more paved roads. While I don't discount this future possibility for 'renewable energy' manufactured products ( i.e. reducing unsubsidized production costs / sale prices to the point where a large number of people will voluntarily make purchases in the absence of subsidies ), for a fact it hasn't actually come close to happening so far ... with the sole exception of hydropower.Quote:
It took huge subsidies to create the road system and get mass-manufacturing of automobiles to be a reality
The premise is 20 years old.
It is still $10,000 dollars a pound to put something into Low Earth Orbit, even more for a La Grange point.
Also the Russians and a few others will oppose it because it makes a damn fine weapon. There are treaties in place against the weaponization of space.
Once again as always you are playing the "What if" game. Only problem is that it goes both ways.....what if technology improvements with renewables greatly lower the expense and greatly raise the output?. What if there are a number of nuclear catastrophies like that in Japan?, all of a sudden the Germans are going to look pretty smart and be pretty happy with their decision. Americans are obsessed with quaterly profit and short-term results, many other parts of the world are more mature and focus on delayed gratification and long-term results which foster greater sustainability.
I'm not talking about the Germans, I'm talking about you.... I don't think I've seen you make more than 1 or 2 postive statements in thousands and thousands of posts. Hundreds of thousands of people are making a living designing, manufacturing, delivering and installing these renewable energy products- at a time when we desperately need jobs, that is a good thing. There are many green companies in the US that are making a profit, providing good wages to US workers and are not receiving any subsidies, that is a good thing. You however dismiss and mock those ideas and instead chose to focus on negative, sometimes absurdly like the case of hurricanes in Hondoras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
It was not in reaction to the mass-production of automobiles, it was because of the massive outlay in public funds to build the roads that the mass-production of automobiles occured. The industry needed to be stimulated and Ford and other manufacturers did not have enough money to build roads throughout the entire country to facilitate automobile travel. Far thinking individuals in commerce and government made the connection between an initial outlay to get the industry off the ground and the employment, taxes revenue and economic activity that would occur once the key components were in place. For sure there were thousands of people just like you saying "Why spend all that tax money on building these silly roads when the horse will get me their just fine?", "Why pay $500 for a car when I can buy a horse for $30". "What a stupid invention, in order for it to go I have to buy gas that has to be refined, transported and someone has to get paid to put it into the tank-my horse just has to eat hay... that will never work."Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Looks like another alternative-fuel innovation:
Why Cooking Oil, Algae Will Help Power Navy Fleets
"A mixed scent of used cooking oil and algae scum apparently smells like victory in the morning for the U.S. Navy. The seafaring arm of the U.S. military has just placed the largest biofuel order in government history to fuel the fighter jets and warships of its "Green Strike Group," scheduled for a test run in 2012."
http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com/7...een-fleet.html
^^^ indeed this is an Awesome energy concept as the title states ...
First we get taxpayer dollars spent on gov't guaranteed loans / grants / subsidies / tax breaks via the stimulus package, eventually resulting in embarrassment as Solyndra and many other solar companies file for bankruptcy plus wind generator supplier GE draws heat for paying zero corporate taxes.
So then we get taxpayer dollars spent on gov't guaranteed loans / grants / subsidies through the Dep't of Energy ... which provides a layer of separation. We still get the embarrassment of bankruptcy filings by the likes of Ener1 ...
(snip)"Rechargeable car battery stock Ener1 (HEVV), a recipient of taxpayer funding, has followed Solyndra into bankruptcy, meaning it might be a good idea to take a look at other battered battery stocks like A123 Systems (NASDAQ: AONE), Valence Technology (NASDAQ: VLNC) and Ultralife (NASDAQ: ULBI) to see if they might follow suit. Specifically and according to the Wall Street Journal, Ener1 (HEVV) was using a $118.5 million Energy Department grant to build a factory in Indiana before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Thursday – meaning its the latest green-energy company trumpeted and supported by the Obama administration that has run into trouble. (snip)
... but because of the Dep't of Energy 'layer' in the taxpayer funding chain, the news media doesn't make as big of a deal out of this taxpayer loss ( or the similar taxpayer loss resulting from this week's bankruptcy filing by fellow battery maker A123 ) as it did with high profile taxpayer funded Solyndra.
So now we get this announcement that an even thicker 'layer' of obfuscation in the taxpayer funding chain is going to be employed to subsidize new BioDiesel and Algae Fuel companies - via Dep't of Defense grants / loans as well as by non-competitive bid contracts to supply the Dep't of Defense ( at a cost that is merely ~3 times as high as the conventional fuels they replace ). I wonder if future bankruptcy filings by these companies will be treated as a 'matter of national security'.
found the degree of US taxpayer subsidies to A123 ...
(snip)"And a third DOE-supported battery company, A123 Systems, laid off 125 employees late last year. DOE gave A123 $249.1 million to help launch two battery-manufacturing plants in Michigan. The company also received grants and tax credits from the state that could total more than $135 million. In a separate federal grant as a subcontractor for another grantee, A123 received nearly $30 million for a wind energy storage project. But despite all the government help, through the end of September A123 had a net loss of $172.8 million"(snip)
Getting seriously tired of skirting around the central issue, let me put it bluntly. These companies are not actually designed for long term profitable operations from day one. Instead they are designed to provide short term high visibility employment / investment in areas of particular political interest ( both geographically and ideologically ), with little regard to future sustainability once the initial grants stop coming, once the gov't guaranteed loans must start being repaid etc. As such, they are arguably de-facto US taxpayer funded 'advertising' which also creates additional short term US taxpayer funded high paying jobs that don't actually produce anything of 'real' value ( particularly so where executive pay and bonuses are concerned ).
Unfortunately, with the Solyndra example already on the table, the eventual fate of these subsidy dependent companies is now being much more closely monitored. And so is the political affiliations of their executives i.e. alleged bundling of political contributions for Obama and the Democratic National Committee. Politics completely aside, this smacks of 'pay for play' economics at the US taxpayers' expense.
^^^Exactly how many $billions of dollars have we spent oil subsidies and tax benefits over the last decades (while they rake in $billions in profits), how many $trillions have we spent over the last decades to keep our oil supply secure.
Attachment 29257
"Energy industries have enjoyed a century of federal support. From 1918 to 2009, the oil and gas industry received $446.96 billion (adjusted for inflation) in cumulative energy subsidies. Renewable energy sources received $5.93 billion (adjusted for inflation) for a much shorter period from 1994-2009.
Average annual support for the oil and gas industry has been $4.86 billion (1918-2009), compared to $3.50 billion for nuclear (1947-1999) and $0.37 billion (1994-2009) for renewable energy."
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...s.-Renewables/
Solandra is one company, there are tens of thousands of renewable energy related companies in the US alone making a wide diversity of components andproducts and the majority of them are profitable. You name 5 or 6 companies that have gone out of business or are in trouble- there are thousands of businesses in every industry that go bankrupt or get into trouble. China is heavily subsidizing the renewable energy industry and if we stand by they will likely be able to control the industry and the technology that goes with it. Then in addition to missing out on a whole ton of good paying jobs, we may one day be reliant on them and their technology and products for our energy, just as we are today on the Middle East for oil.
The entire world is trending towards renewable energy, it will be one of the biggest growth engines of the next 100 years and will have huge economic as well as security issues for almost every major country. The governments who get on board now and assist in building this emerging technology will reap the benefits for years to come.
^^^ note that conventional oil and gas companies wind up paying out far more in the way of tax revenues than the dollar value of the 'subsidies' they receive. This is clearly NOT the case with many renewable energy companies, whose real business model involves 'burning through' gov't grant and loan money then filing for bankruptcy.
No Melonie, I won't note that. First off the oil and gas companies have had many decades to evolve their business models, 2nd, when you factor in all the money we have to spend cleaning up their messes, the adverse health effects caused by their products and the money we have to spend militarily to keep product flowing from their foreign locations, it is in no way a good deal for the tax-payer or American citizen. Besides that, you are making up and lying about the business model of renewable energy companies being made to burn through government money and declare bankruptcy, there are tens of thousands of them both big and small and only a very tiny percentage have gone bankrupt, a good many of them are profitable.
Agreed in pure theory. However, as discussed in detail in the PetroDollars thread, all Americans benefit from America's present position, and certain Americans benefit greatly. Also, withdrawl of US military spending to protect mideast oil shipments ... which primarily go to western europe ... would involve 'secondary effects' that could be extremely nasty ( as in World War 3 or a global economic collapse ).Quote:
when you factor in all the money we have to spend cleaning up their messes, the adverse health effects caused by their products and the money we have to spend militarily to keep product flowing from their foreign locations, it is in no way a good deal for the tax-payer or American citizen
As to 'profitable' renewable energy companies, they typically utilize a different business model. For example, First Solar now imports Chinese solar panels as well as Chinese solar panel support frames, and low skill low wage US workers bolt them together with a 'made in America' sticker applied to preserve eligibility for certain US gov't subsidies.
As always that's pure supposition on your part, and as always it is of course slanted to the negative, worst case scenario. What is also possible and in fact more likely, is that if we get our nose out of everyone's business and stop interfering in the internal and external policies of other countries the threat level to us would almost certainly go down. If we take the money previously spent on securing our oil supply and invest it domestically into infrastructure, retraining the workforce and research and development for products and technology of the future, we would almost certainly be in a much better economic and social position.
Once again, you pick 1 company that does one thing that fits your ideology and ignore the tens of thousands of other companies that are making renewable energy related items in the US, using US employees. I could be wrong but I believe a majority of the technological research and improvements currently being done (and there are a lot of them) are taking place in the US.Quote:
As to 'profitable' renewable energy companies, they typically utilize a different business model. For example, First Solar now imports Chinese solar panels as well as Chinese solar panel support frames, and low skill low wage US workers bolt them together with a 'made in America' sticker applied to preserve eligibility for certain US gov't subsidies.