Display:
My intent was to indicate that this is a boondoggle for the aerospace industry. But it is also another bright, shiny distraction from doing what would make sense, but what would be less profitable for PG&E than what they would like to do. When consultants and design firms have milked all they can out of this and it comes down to the hard decision to do it it will, (I would certainly hope), rejected as economically unviable, (else rate payers will be saddled with $0.60/kwhr electricity) and PG&Es will proclaim some version of "see what these renewable mandates made us do."

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 03:13:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I find the company does actuallly claim that it can bring costs down to the 12 cents region... There must be some ingenious play with three numbers: launch costs (expecting hyper-cheap next-generation private launch rockets?), power per weight (expecting super-lightweight space construction and further reduced cell weight?), and service life (it would be real bold to extend that beyond 20 years...).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 03:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Were public resources to be expended creating a permanent station on the moon and were those costs to be excluded from the final cost of solar power generated by the type of geosynchronous collectors discussed, then the cost might even be under 12C/Kwhr.  Perhaps that is the plan. :-)

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 05:01:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series