Technical Feasibility


In the energy discourse, we see all sorts of interesting possibilities to generate electricity but the first thing we have to understand is that electricity is a commodity and thus price is all important. One cent per kWh can make or break a technology.

Consequently, all technologies aspiring to a significant participation in the energy market need to calculate what the cost of their kWh will eventually be.

Just yesterday, this idea was brought to my attention:

http://www.lunarsolarpower.org/

Their value proposition is:

"Harnessing solar energy using solar panels on the moon would not be an easy undertaking, but if you consider what we stand to gain, Lunar Solar Power is not just a solution for our power needs as a country, it is the solution for the power needs of the world!" 

It sounds interesting, but we have to make the pertinent engineering questions:

1. How will they deal with the (long) lunar night. On Earth the intermittency of solar is bad enough and it tends to cycle in 24 hours. The lunar night lasts for a full fortnight.

2. What would be the efficiency of the conversion / transmission / conversion of the system? In other words, there is an efficiency conversion in the moon between the solar panels and the microwave transmitters, then there are losses in the space between the moon and Earth, then only a fraction of the energy emitted by the moon antennae reaches the receiving Earth antennae, and then there is further loss in the conversion of that microwave energy back to electricity.

3. What would be the useful life of the solar panels on the moon? The moon does not have an atmosphere to shield the panels from micrometeorites and thus in space the useful life of panels tends to be considerably shorter than on Earth.

4. What will be the size of the area dedicated on Earth for the receiving microwave antennae? Where will they be located? What percent of the total microwave energy emitted from the moon will hit the receiving antennae on Earth?

5. Would the population around these antennae experience any negative health effects? Would there be significant NIMBY opposition to such a project?

6. What is the time frame for a "proof of concept?" In other words, when can we expect to have running a say, one MW experimental unit on the moon beaming microwave power to the Earth?

7. And finally, all important, what would be the anticipated cost of the kWh produced by these means? If the ultimate cost is say, more than 15 cents (US), then it is probably time to go back to the drawing board.

What is the probability of more than 1% of the Earth's energy requirements supplied by this Lunar Solar Power project in 100 years? 


Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Starved for CO2

Image
This article is speculation, and yet, it is something to ponder about. During millions of years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been dropping. Actually the drop had been quite dramatic between the late Jurassic (more than 2,000 ppm) to recent times (less than 400 ppm). This is no fine tuning, the difference is in the range of five to one. Important reserves of carbon in the form of ancient life remains had been trapped "forever" inside the Earth. These reserves were in the form of coal, oil and natural gas. No natural mechanism could pump back to the atmosphere those "forever" sequestered amounts of carbon. No natural mechanism...  but could the Earth naturally create unnatural occurrences to return to the biosphere that long lost carbon or, would the Earth itself slowly starve due to insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere? It was inconceivable for any plant or animal species of the time to actually extract billions of tons of ca...
Read more

550.org

Image
We are launching an alternate organization to 350.org because we believe that just wishing for something to happen (in other words for the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to go back to 350 ppm) is absurd in the light that we break a new CO2 emissions record every year. So, it makes no sense to invest time, effort and money in pursuing an impossible objective.  Let's state here in what we firmly believe: nobody alive today will ever see again 350 ppm. So, if not 350, where are we headed?  We are "easily" headed for 550 ppm, thus the name of our non-profit. Before we proceed further, let us state why we believe our non-profit will be more attractive than 350.org: We will not, ever, under any circumstances ask for donations. Hell, we won't even accept them even if somebody volunteers some money. We won't be dogmatic. We won't believe blindly in models, organizations (e.g. IPCC) or the Pope. We will strive to actually list...
Read more

Going Solar

Image
Some people insist that solar PV has achieved "grid parity" but to claim this they obviously have to consider grid connected PV. The real cost of solar PV is masked when grid connected. In order to better understand the real cost of solar PV, let's make a simplified exercise here. What would be needed to go off grid? The following: Obviously, the solar PV panels. Storage batteries A gasoline electric generator (unless you plan to store heroic amounts of electricity, you would need the backup generator). We'll consider the following parameters in our installation (feel free to substitute your own numbers): Annual solar capacity factor: 18%. Cost of the PV installation (including inverters, installation, etc.): $3 per Watt. We'll use Tesla storage batteries (the 7kW version) at a cost of $6,000 including installation. Solar panel useful life: 20 years. Batteries useful life: 10 years. Annual electricity usage: 8,400 kWh. So, this ho...
Read more