[AR] Re: 500,000 tons

  • From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 16:43:20 +0100

The other thing that has possible relevance is the Megaflow Battery which
is looking like it could have some legs. It's about $27/kWh of capacity,
and they've run it a hundred cycles with no apparent degradation. If it
will hit a thousand cycles, that's a net cost of $0.027/kWh in use, and it
may go 10000 cycles for all anyone knows, no one has even tried more than a
hundred yet.

In principle you could pretty much run the whole planet off wind power (and
some solar) alongside this battery; if it works out as well as it is
currently looking. It's still very early days.

Wind power is still a lot cheaper than solar, and may well be for the
foreseeable future, barring a breakthrough. Both are still getting cheaper
as well.


On 6 May 2014 11:03, Uwe Klein <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Am 06.05.2014 02:32, schrieb James Bowery:
>
>> About 5 years ago I did a blog post titled "Arrival of the Solar Power
>> Satellite
>> <http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2009/07/ive-been-
>> following-space-solar-power.html>"
>>
>> and did a rough calculation that, based on the Powersat patents, it
>> would take 20,000 Falcon9 launches to loft 250GW capacity and the total
>> installed capacity would be under $3/W.  If you do that over the course
>>
> Medium scale Photovoltaics are now @ ~1 EURO/Wp here ( Germany )
>
>
>  of 5 years that's an average of about of one Falcon9 launch every 2 hours.
>>
>> The calculations I went through are pretty simple so any bad assumptions
>> or calculation errors should stand out.
>>
>>  Ever looked at the carbon footprint for those PowerSats ;-?
>
> Uwe
>
>
>


-- 
-Ian Woollard

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. arocket
  3. Archive
  4. 05-2014