|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:15 pm
yoyoman1_7 Personally, I thought that the most efficient way to make/collect usable energy was nuclear fusion. Can you explain why we might do the solar sails (...or wtvr you plan on calling this) instead of Nuclear Fusion? Because fusion requires temperatures of millions of degrees? Unless someone has found a way to implement cold fusion, which as far as I know, they have not.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:05 pm
ZigguratII yoyoman1_7 Personally, I thought that the most efficient way to make/collect usable energy was nuclear fusion. Can you explain why we might do the solar sails (...or wtvr you plan on calling this) instead of Nuclear Fusion? Because fusion requires temperatures of millions of degrees? Unless someone has found a way to implement cold fusion, which as far as I know, they have not. interestingly enough, there has been a new developement. He3!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:14 pm
yoyoman1_7 Personally, I thought that the most efficient way to make/collect usable energy was nuclear fusion. Can you explain why we might do the solar sails (...or wtvr you plan on calling this) instead of Nuclear Fusion? Given current fusion technology, fusion reactions have negative efficiency. In other words, burning cow pies is better better than fusion. Although, that does misrepresent the situation, as we're talking about possible future rather than current technology, but even then, things are not quite as clear. There is almost no hydrogen or helium in the solar system that is not found in a rather deep gravitational well, be it the Sun, Jupiter, or just Earth (there is plenty of hydrogen here in the form of H₂O). Considering the energy costs of extracting the fuel and putting it into a space (the setting of the OP), it is quite conceivable and even likely that solar power would be much more efficient than fusion even if fusion technology actually achieves break-even.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:22 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:25 pm
Interesting, I think we should look more into what NASA and other Space programs have to say. After all, those guys are the genius physicists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:51 am
VorpalNeko poweroutage interestingly enough, there has been a new developement. He3!!! Can you provide some details? Which reaction involving �He is favorable? There is D+�He, but it has maximal cross-section at 58keV--about 670 million kelvin. That's not exactly cold, even relative to other fusion reactions. I think she must mean He-3/He-3, which is even hotter - the point is that it is also far closer to Aneutronic, which means it would be much easier to get energy out of it than with Fast Neutrons from Tritium-Deutirium. I don't really see how this would be very good directly for propulsion, unless you use the heat from it to push stuff out the back (whether that involves turning it into electricity or otherwise).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:57 am
yoyoman1_7 Personally, I thought that the most efficient way to make/collect usable energy was nuclear fusion. Can you explain why we might do the solar sails (...or wtvr you plan on calling this) instead of Nuclear Fusion? Well.... have you ever eaten a bag of crisps before? Well, when I eat a bag of crisps and turn it inside out I see the exact same type of material that would be used for a Solar Sail - that reflective foil (Aluminised PET) is one of the major contendors for Solar Sail Material. Which sounds more expensive; a collosal Superconducting magnetic Torus weighing perhaps thousands of tonnes and capable of generating an electromagnetic field so powerfull that Hydrogen could be induced into Fusion within it, or a big piece of crisp packet material? smile Seriously, you can get the same sort of speeds out of it over a long enough period of time, but without anywhere near the weight of a Fusion System (thats why I'd not recommend it for Military applications, since it would take forever to turn or change speed).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:58 am
yoyoman1_7 Interesting, I think we should look more into what NASA and other Space programs have to say. After all, those guys are the genius physicists. Does anybody in their employ have a Username on Gaia?!! lol, if you can tell me who (s)he is I'll add them to my friendslist right now!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:56 am
hmm..... you have a point there
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:03 pm
VorpalNeko yoyoman1_7 Personally, I thought that the most efficient way to make/collect usable energy was nuclear fusion. Can you explain why we might do the solar sails (...or wtvr you plan on calling this) instead of Nuclear Fusion? Given current fusion technology, fusion reactions have negative efficiency. In other words, burning cow pies is better better than fusion. Although, that does misrepresent the situation, as we're talking about possible future rather than current technology, but even then, things are not quite as clear. There is almost no hydrogen or helium in the solar system that is not found in a rather deep gravitational well, be it the Sun, Jupiter, or just Earth (there is plenty of hydrogen here in the form of H₂O). Considering the energy costs of extracting the fuel and putting it into a space (the setting of the OP), it is quite conceivable and even likely that solar power would be much more efficient than fusion even if fusion technology actually achieves break-even. If we were to begin using fusion power then we would in all likely hood not produce it in space at all but here on earth and then beam it into space via the ever helpful microwaves. While a tokamak reactor would be entirely to cumbersome to carry into space with us it is certainly not too cumbersome to build here. That is not to mention that laser inertial confinement fusion if we could breach break even with it would be much more portable and might even be light enough to make it a practical means of energy production on site in space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:02 am
I'm not going to be as skeptical about this as some as I've been thinking about this technology ever since I heard about solar sails.. like, 5 years ago? I think it's brilliant. I will say that I agree that the beam would be unstable and it would need to be broad if the receiver is on the ground. Plus the possibility of fatality due to exposure. burning_eyes
However, let's say we could construct a massive array of reflective sheets in a fixed orbit above the north pole, giving the array constant access to sunlight and making it infinitely more reliable. Then, we have the array concaved to concentrate the light into a receiver and convert it into a concentrated microwave emission pointed to a facility at the pole. (I might add that electricity is conducted better in colder temperatures.) This facility would need to include an array of panel receivers stretching as far as they need to accomodate the error margin. The microwaves are collected and converted back into electricity and sent through pipelines of cables to wherever the electricity is needed.
This sounds expensive, and it sure as hell would be. But it's more reliable than having many arrays for multiple cities that are only exposed to sunlight for half the day.
Problems with this idea:
- Cloud cover or blizzards could interfere with the transmission. (Not sure about microwaves, but obviously light in the visible spectrum is blocked.)
- The entire world's power grid would have to be remade, adding to costs.
- The cost and permission of such a massive undertaking would require global participation.. not very easy to obtain.
Another idea:
Let's say we developed a ground-based system that involved a tower array for each city/town. The array would concentrate the light into the converter much like a satelite dish. The electricity generated would then be fed via pipeline into the city/town. We would of course have a capacitor to hold unused energy and a back-up electrical generator for night time. This would cut electrical costs by at least a quarter probably.
Problems with this idea:
- Initial costs would be tremendous. Many rural areas wouldn't be able to afford such a system.
- Not as efficient as other ideas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
