On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:54:13 -0700, Robert Fisher
<garciasghostvw@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

>http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/index.html
>
>We've discussed this before... strange article; it says "The country that
>takes the lead on space solar power will be the energy-exporting country
for
>the entire planet for the next few hundred years" then it says somebody
>needs to foot a billion dollars for it... I'm thinking that must be a
typo.
>
>At any rate, considering what we're spending in Iraq, etc. plus all the
>costs of the current power setup and the environmental damage, you'd think
>the money part of this would be a no-brainer, particulary for
>a international cooperative of gov'ts.
>
>I understand from other reading I've done that the 'beams' might be
>environmentally dangerous, however; they're not sure yet about the effect
on
>the atmosphere and nearby organisms, where to put the collection
structures,
>etc.
>
>Cya,
>Robert

list:

article contains many ridiculous claims, albiet possibly taken accurately
from government and industry reports.

the total solar intensity at the earth is 1.4 kW per square meter.
therefore, per square km the incident power is 1.4 thousand megawatts,
roughly the actual output of one conventional power plant. being generous
and assuming 5% of this incident solar power actually finds its way to the
grid, that means 20 square km of collector would be needed to provide the
output of one conventional power plant. of course, even then, electrical
power is not liquid fuel. and yet, the article claims that the solar
energy incident on just one square km, for one year, equals the chemical
energy stored in the remaining conventional petroleum.

dan