freehomepower

Everyone needs to cop onto themselves and start doing something about their own environment. The more we push this kind of technology the better we will be...from every angle. We save ourselves a bucket load of money and do something for our children's future...It comes down to that...our children are going to suffer if we don't start getting real...Go for it dude http://www.freehomepowerblog.com

Paganel75

"Cost per KWH is substantially higher with small solar to electric ground based systems than with large systems" : sorry, but you just cannot say that. 1/3rd of electricity costs are DISTRIBUTION COSTS. So tha means unless you get around 33% more efficiency by concentrating production (which was indeed the case for fuel plants), concentration is a loser game. What is eerie here is that solar energy comes to the ground already distributed. Concentrating it at no added efficiency just to add costs of distribution is unfortunately a total nonsense.

neotoy

My SSP Analysis, via YouTube: ERrwEXHnxpI Since scribd butchers the URL :/ this is just the video ID, so you'll have to put in the rest of the URL and delete all the spaces if interested. i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERrwEX...

wizodd

All "green" ground generation systems, wind, water, solar (except point of use small systems) and hydrocarbon burning systems have measurable environmental effects which are not well modeled yet. Small systems can easily coexist with SSPS without problem, ideally water and building heating can and should be done locally--it is not feasible to generate the amounts of energy used by heavy industry in the same way. Cost per KWH is substantially higher with small solar to electric ground based systems than with large systems. Maintenance and life-time costs follow suit. A wind turbine doesn't affect the environment much. 10,000 or 10,000,000 wind turbines dramatically affect the environment. "Poor countries can -- through individuals' efforts -- build local capacity before building power grids, and their new digital power grids, following the precedent of their new telecom networks, will be cheaper, smarter, more efficient and less ugly than our 20th century power grids." LANCEMCKEE, you confuse me, you are FOR connected grids but AGAINST scalar efficiency? SSPS permits reception at local grid locations to reduce transmission lose and any grid interconnects are only needed for emergency. You will note that India has not built a telephone wired network--SSPS power can be delivered nearly anywhere on the planet WITHOUT transmission lines. This includes the middle of the oceans. SSPS IS a power grid which is partially wireless. A system combining local and long-distance generation on the ground REQUIRES transmission lines. "...parity with large producers in wholesale pricing of electricity..." Nice idea, I bet all those people currently selling power to the power companies at RETAIL will love it. "...rising energy prices..." are not connected with use and have not been for some time. If they were, they would not have gotten so high this past 3 years of recession. Financial speculation has more to do than use, or imminent depletion of the oil or coal fields. Note that the available reserves of oil in N. Dakota were re-estimated this year increasing the available reserve from 30 BB to 300BB--about equal to the Saudi recoverable reserves. Your financial expectations for local generation are unrealistic. "...rooftop PV panel owners are more likely than others to buy plug-in hybrids or electric cars." Very true, but the majority of them are upper-income folk as PV systems and hybrid cars are not economically sound on an individual basis--what is right for society is not necessarily in your own interest. SSPS need no ground generators, rectennas are both rugged and cheap, transmission lines can be mostly short range. Roofs are pre-exsiting--but it is non-trivial to install systems on most because they are not designed for the weight and increased wind loads. SSSPS needs no new structures save the rectennas, and that land can be dual use for farming or industrial use. But SSPS systems are not and are not promoted as a 'quick fix.' As with nuclear plants, it takes a lot of resources to build an SSPS, and about 3x that to build the first one. If we began today, we would be in for nearly 20 years before we put the first large unit online. This makes it imperative that such a project be started sooner rather than later. Had we started building these systems in the 1970's when first the concept was proven, we could no be generating 110% of our electricity needs using SSPS eliminating all of the inefficiencies and dangers of coal, oil gas or nuclear. Since we refused to take any steps away from combustion-driven generation over the past 60 years that we have known that it was a problem, we are no stuck in a situation where we need a short-term fix along with long-term solutions. At this point it is unfortunately clear that the best quick fix is to build more nuclear power plants. There are very, very, very few problems which have only one cause or one solution. In the case of energy a strategy that mixes various solutions is more robust than any single solution. Luckily, the Bush Depression will require governments to spend huge amounts of money to keep people employed, this provides a ready workforce to work on energy and environmental remediation projects--as well as little unimportant things like providing clean air, water, food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care to all people, wiping out malaria, STD's, dental caries, and stomach ulcers along with a number of other diseases, and similar projects.

wizodd

"Something nobody really talks about with these beam power through the skies is the obvious. You're going to be sending a immensely powerful, typically invisible (microwave or laser), shaft of death that would fry any life form that passes through it (birds, airplanes, hot air balloons, you name it). Its a great ivory tower idea, but not very practical in a nation that abhors birds dying from flying into visible wind turbines and with a freedom to navigate the skies for the population the way we do." b757200 if you are going to post things, at LEAST do your homework! These issues have been discussed to exhaustion on a regular basis since the transmission technology was verified in the mid-1970's!. "...shaft of death...?" Hardly. The planned energy densitiees are not even high enough to raise animal body temperatures more than a small fraction of a degree F. It will NOT "...pass thorough airplanes..." except for non-metallic planes. Metal reflects or absorbs these radiation types. (both are very close to the frequencies we call "light" and can see with out unaided eyes.) Even if there were any such possibility, in order to protect the rectenna from sabotage, it would probably be considered a "no fly" zone just as areas above military bases. Ground vehicles present no problem as they reflect the energy too. Finally, to reiterate, the danger to unprotected animal life is that of raising the body temperature a fraction of one degree F--not a likely "shaft of death!" Generation in space permits the first energy losses in the system--conversion from radiant to electrical energy to transmission--to be radiated into space instead of released on the ground, this leaves only the conversion from microwave to electricity waste heat. No energy used to produce or transport fuel (a major issue with conventional hydrocarbon and nuclear generators.) No waste materials to dispose of. Less susceptible to weather or other damage than any ground or sea based system. 10,000 times as much collection area, higher energy density and 24/7 availability reduce the cost per KWH. This is an extremely important point because there is no limit to the thirst for energy. With sufficient power you can do nearly anything physically possible. All "green" ground generation systems, wind, water, solar (except point of use small systems) and hydrocarbon burning systems have measurable environmental effects which are not well modeled yet. Small systems can easily coexist with SSPS without problem, ideally water and building heating can and should be done locally--it is not feasible to generate the amounts of energy used by heavy industry in the same way. Cost per KWH is substantially higher with small solar to electric ground based systems than with large systems. Maintenance and life-time costs follow suit. A wind turbine doesn't affect the environment much. 10,000 or 10,000,000 wind turbines dramatically affect the environment. "Poor countries can -- through individuals' efforts -- build local capacity before building power grids, and their new digital power grids, following the precedent of their new telecom networks, will be cheaper, smarter, more efficient and less ugly than our 20th century power grids." LANCEMCKEE, you confuse me, you are FOR connected grids but AGAINST scalar efficiency? SSPS permits reception at local grid locations to reduce transmission lose and any grid interconnects are only needed for emergency. You will note that India has not built a telephone wired network--SSPS power can be delivered nearly anywhere on the planet WITHOUT transmission lines. This includes the middle of the oceans. SSPS IS a power grid which is partially wireless. A system combining local and long-distance generation on the ground REQUIRES transmission lines. "...parity with large producers in wholesale pricing of electricity..." Nice idea, I bet all those people currently selling power to the power companies at RETAIL will love it. "...rising energy prices..." are not connected with use and have not been for some time. If they were, they would not have gotten so high this past 3 years of recession. Financial speculation has more to do than use, or imminent depletion of the oil or coal fields. Note that the available reserves of oil in N. Dakota were re-estimated this year increasing the available reserve from 30 BB to 300BB--about equal to the Saudi recoverable reserves. Your financial expectations for local generation are unrealistic. "...rooftop PV panel owners are more likely than others to buy plug-in hybrids or electric cars." Very true, but the majority of them are upper-income folk as PV systems and hybrid cars are not economically sound on an individual basis--what is right for society is not necessarily in your own interest. SSPS need no ground generators, rectennas are both rugged and cheap, transmission lines can be mostly short range. Roofs are pre-exsiting--but it is non-trivial to install systems on most bec

b757200

Something nobody really talks about with these beam power through the skies is the obvious. You're going to be sending a immensely powerful, typically invisible (microwave or laser), shaft of death that would fry any lifeform that passes through it (birds, airplanes, hot air balloons, you name it). Its a great ivory tower idea, but not very practical in a nation that abhors birds dying from flying into visible wind turbines and with a freedom to navigate the skies for the population the way we do. I'd vote not to waste money on this, stick it in power generating facilities that are easy to access and fix (wind and solar), right here on the ground.

LanceMcKee

Three more reasons for distributed ownership of distributed generation assets: * Less anxiety and guilt: Rooftop systems help citizens worry less about cash flow in their retirement years and help them feel they are personally doing something to preserve a peaceful, prosperous and livable world for their children. * A growing market for small scale systems and components in the US will lead to economies of scale and increased exports to developing nations. These affordable systems, paired with the distributed ownership example, will promote middle classes, prosperity, public health, phone and internet usage, democracy, friends and good trading partners everywhere. Poor countries can -- through individuals' efforts -- build local capacity before building power grids, and their new digital power grids, following the precedent of their new telecom networks, will be cheaper, smarter, more efficient and less ugly than our 20th century power grids. "Big energy", including SSP, contributes to the rich/poor energy gap, which creates suffering and destabilizes the world. (But which creates a double whammy business opportunity for nuclear companies like Kellog Brown & Root / Halliburton and likely SSP beneficiaries like Lockheed Martin.) * Why delay the inevitable metaprogress toward open networks? Like automobiles, electric appliances, computers, and cell phones, the Clean Energy Revolution is about widespread personal ownership of affordable, high tech devices that use a shared -- and mostly fair and open -- network infrastructure to increase opportunities for individuals. When America loses leadership in what it offers individuals, we have lost what makes us great, and what makes us unique and admired in the world.

LanceMcKee

Decisions about energy systems should consider all the externalities and foreseeable risks and rewards. A key factor, always, is who will pay, who will own, and who will profit. All costs considered, SSP, nuclear power, and hot fusion won't be able to produce electricity at the price we enjoy now. Current and already emerging renewable energy technologies will. First, we must separate grid ownership from generator ownership and make sure homeowners, businesses, communities, schools, and places of worship have parity with large producers in wholesale pricing of electricity, assignment of renewable energy credits, tax benefits, credit availability, freedom from unreasonable connection fees, and rights to install local distribution facilities. Then we can all benefit from rising energy prices. The emerging "Smart Grid" and the arrival of low-cost solar panels plus cost-effective small wind turbines and small co-gen plants will make a real-time open market and distributed ownership of distributed generation facilities feasible. Here's why distributed generation WITH DISTRIBUTED OWNERSHIP is the model that most benefits citizens: * When individuals, businesses, municipalities, schools and churches invest in on-site clean energy production, communities benefit from energy dollars circulating locally and from the creation of durable local jobs. * Conservation is the key. The opportunity to sell surplus power has been shown to inspire more electricity conservation than higher prices alone inspire. And California shows that rooftop PV panel owners are more likely than others to buy plug-in hybrids or electric cars. * If utilities must compete on a fair playing field with thousands of small electricity producer/users, they will offer better value in "let us rent your roof" schemes, leading to more distributed generation overall. The more small generators we have on the grid the less susceptible the grid is to storms, infrastructure failures and sabotage; the fewer large power plants and transmission lines will be sited against local objections; the less we will depend on fossil fuel-driven generators; the less we will need nuclear power with its attendant nuclear proliferation and waste management risks; and the less we will need to commit security forces to protect oil and gas fields and oil and gas infrastructure -- or SSP facilities. * Because roofs are pre-existing structures, maximizing the number of rooftop energy systems minimizes the need for new structures and large footprints. * Maximizing roof-top solar minimizes transmission losses. * Policy future-proofing: Most of the "fringe physics" (e.g. "over unity" and "cold fusion") research topics will, if any succeeds commercially in 10 - 30 years, have the potential to yield systems that can be scaled for distributed generation and distributed ownership. * Less anxiety and guilt: Rooftop systems help citizens worry less about cash flow in their retirement years and help them feel they are personally doing something to preserve a peaceful, prosperous and livable world for their children. * A growing market for small scale systems and components in the US will lead to economies of scale and increased exports to developing nations. These affordable systems, paired with the distributed ownership example, will promote middle classes, prosperity, public health, phone and internet usage, democracy, friends and good trading partners everywhere. Poor countries can -- through individuals' efforts -- build local capacity before building power grids, and their new digital power grids, following the precedent of their new telecom networks, will be cheaper, smarter, more efficient and less ugly than our 20th century power grids. "Big energy", including SSP, contributes to the rich/poor energy gap, which creates suffering and destabilizes the world. (But which creates a double whammy business opportunity for nuclear companies like Kellog Brown & Root / Halliburton and likely SSP beneficiaries like Lockheed Martin.) Why delay the inevitable metaprogress toward open networks? Like automobiles, electric appliances, computers, and cell phones, the Clean Energy Revolution is about widespread personal ownership of affordable, high tech devices that use a shared -- and mostly fair and open -- network infrastructure to increase opportunities for individuals. When America loses leadership in what it offers individuals, we have lost what makes us great, and what makes us unique and admired in the world.

JRGHA

I think SSP is definitely something for the future, but right now I think the focus and goals should be on what we can do today. I have been researching energy independence since 2005, and the solution is a lot closer than people think. Someone just has to put it together. What is needed is a support system for companies with a core focus in MRES (Multi-Renewable Energy Systems) MRES are an integrated system comprised of 3 parts. 1. Energy Collection - Through multiple renewable sources (wind/solar/geo-thermal,natural systems) working in conjunction. 2. A battery subsystem to help collect and store the energy 3. A current regulation system to tie it into the grid at a consistent output. (The major problem with the grid and natural energy is that it is not consistent) MRES are similar to that of the computer. Multiple vendors all trying to provide technological advances for the next generation of MRES. With competition , free market, and R&D the US could be powering itself with 100% autonomy by 2025.

Paganel75

First, it is clear that if we drive back to Eartth enormous amounts of energy that were previously lost in space, we are going to ADD to the problem of warmth dissipation, not decrease it. Morevover, while the project is interesting, I wonder how many tons of matter will need to be put into orbit, and how many tons of hydrogen will be needed to put each and every on these tons in orbit as well. The investment in both energy and capital (which is presently in shortage, remember ?) is huge and it would be better not to be shortsighted here, disrobing Peter to dress Paul. Best of luck for the study, anyway. This is simply the kind of project that marks a great civilization.

Cedricktattoo

This is a tremendous opportunity. I agree that this should fall under Department of Energy oversight rather than NASA, but the question of security is one of the big obstacles now that more states with antipathy toward the US (have/are) developing significant space and missile technologies. Also, I wonder if keeping it under DOE makes this more appealing to commercial space-craft developers than under NASA. It seems a project like this could fall under the category of infrastructure development and contracted out to reputable businesses by the DOE. Something like this could represent part of a significant new manufacturing base, which would be an added benefit.

Sfharper

I like this idea. but it's a bit geocentric. It would help if someone had the responsibility of identifying key power usage industries and providing recommendations about moving them off Earth. In this way, you provide a dual incentive to industry to help clean up the planet by moving it elsewhere where the power is cheap and the resources "freely" available. This program could then support those industries. :) Sheri Fresonke Harper