[Spaceships] [UT] Orbital Power Plants, Beamed Power and Cost of Energy

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

I was intending to use the relays from an orbital power plant through beamed power to ground receivers as a reasonably efficient way to get energy. So I took a look at Spaceships 6, page 8.
So, it's TL9, SM+8, and provides an output of 6 Power Points. At the initial investment of $71M. Assuming that results in 100% efficiency (which is dubious, due to 22k miles of range between the beamer and the receiver), that's almost $12M per PP beamed (i.e. not accounting for the receivers).

However, even at TL8, an SM+8 Fission Reactor costs $3M, provides the same 1 PP, works like that for 25 years, doesn't require being put into orbit, doesn't require extra resources spent on receivers, and can be 'refueled' without launching an expedition into space. Did I mention that it has no blackouts due to being on the night side of the orbit, no matter how short?

Even if we make a orbital power plant made of pure solar arrays, we'll still be losing money, since SM+8 Solar Panels cost $5M and provide the same 1 PP, with all the complications.

So . . . anybody has any adjustments to make Orbital Power Plants economically plausible? I'm toying with making something technobabbly/supperscience along the lines of Vacuum Energy Power Plant (same stats as the SS7-16 one, but needs to be exposed to natural vacuum and the CMBR; it's superscience anyway). But even that would require reducing the price of VE plants to something silly low - perhaps in the range of $5M for a 3-PP-producing plant, maybe even less (depending on other factors).

Thoughts?
Thanks in advance!

[Peter Knutsen]

I think the ideas is that orbital beamed solar power is supposed to be reasonable - or even attractive - when compared to current (1980's or 2012'ish) tech, not to TL9 far future stuff like fusion power.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I think the ideas is that orbital beamed solar power is supposed to be reasonable - or even attractive - when compared to current (1980's or 2012'ish) tech, not to TL9 far future stuff like fusion power.

Basically, this. While I wouldn't describe Fusion as "far future" tech, it's something which has still eluded our scientists for decades (though with heart-warming progress in recent years). If a TL9 society has still failed to develop Fusion power (or make it as cheap as presented in UT and SS) they may turn to the solar alternative. However, I suspect that would involve massive terrestrial solar farms, rather than orbital facilities which require every pound of material to be rocketed off the planet at great expense.

Something else to consider is that an Orbital power plant could beam energy to sites where power plant construction is unfeasible. Still, with a single Fusion reactor system being cheaper than an equal-sized Solar collector system, one must wonder why they'd even bother using Solar for that. All I can say to that is that GURPS may be giving Fusion an optimistically small price-tag, especially for a setting in which it is a cutting-edge technology.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

However, even at TL8, an SM+8 Fusion Reactor costs $3M,

There are no TL 8 fusion reactors. You are looking at fission reactors. Now for fusion reactors, they cost 5 million per power point which happens to be the same as a solar panel system. However the solar panels are available earlier, and produce no waste disposal problem. Once the fusion reactor is done you do have the problem of what to do with it's highly radioactive innards.

[Peter Knutsen]

I don't think the most serious plans for orbital solar assume everything will get launched up through the gravity well. I think the assumption is that the solar panels will be manufactured in space, from lunar soil or asteroid ore.

Also, it's fairly easy to assign a x2 or x5 or x10 or x20 cost multiplier to cutting-edge tech. There might even be a provision for that somewhere in the RAW.

I'm still hoping for controlled fusion, but it has been a case of "we'll have mastered this thing in 30 years" every since before I was born.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

There are no TL 8 fusion reactors. You are looking at fission reactors. Now for fusion reactors, they cost 5 million per power point which happens to be the same as a solar panel system. However the solar panels are available earlier, and produce no waste disposal problem. Once the fusion reactor is done you do have the problem of what to do with it's highly radioactive innards.

Typo. Was referring to fission.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Typo. Was referring to fission.

Um...it's pretty obvious why the choice between solar power sats and fission reactors isn't just a matter of cash price on the barrel.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Um...it's pretty obvious why the choice between solar power sats and fission reactors isn't just a matter of cash price on the barrel.

Right - the matter of the dangerous fuel and waste product, and the somewhat reduced endurance. This can be an especially big concern if there are international restrictions on who can even have access to Fissionable materials, as there are in our own modern world. Environmental concerns may also come into this, with people not wanting to put satellites into orbit that could spread radioactive material across the globe if they suffered calamity.

[Fred Brackin]

[QUOTE=vierasmarius;1356177]Basically, this. While I wouldn't describe Fusion as "far future" tech, it's something which has still eluded our scientists for decades (though with heart-warming progress in recent years). QUOTE]

Quibbles about what exacty constitutes "far" are possible but the "progress" in recent years has in my eyes mostly helped prove that simple magnetic confinement will never be viable. I can't tell you what a an economically viable fusion power plant would look like but I'm pretty sure the answer is not "a _Ginormous_ tokamak!".

Perhaps rather than simple magnetic confinement it would be something that qualified as "complex" magnetic confinement or inertial confinement or electrostatic or something we haven't really thought of yet. If you can't really describe in current scientific terms how a certain thing would work then it's proably at least a "medium far" future development.

So maybe fusion power isn't just aroud the corner. Then you attack the other end of the problem by creating a launch technology that scales upwards well and decreases the cost to send (at least large things) to orbit to make solar cheaper.

This doesn't have to be all in one fell swoop though that is one path. It might be something that sends medium size loads up at a rapid pace.

As a romantic version of the first option you follow the path of the Big Dumb Booster. The idea is that you use non-cutting edge rocket technologies (which are theoretically cheaper) and scale way, way up in raw size (think mega oil tanker rather than Saturn 5) and thus theoretically reaping great cost benefits due to effiencies of scale.

Eh, maybe. I'm not sure how dumb and cheap a hypersonic vehicle can be.

The alternative is a ground-based assist system such as laser launch or EM catapult. This might be enhanced by favorable location such as a mountaintop. There's a non-negligable benefit to truly equatorial lunches and if you go from the hjghest Andes peak you avoid having to fight your way through the first 20,000 feet (6000 meters) of atmosphere.

So realistic fusion prospects and optimistic space launching might fudge your results to the desired end.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Once the fusion reactor is done you do have the problem of what to do with it's highly radioactive innards.

Probably only mildy radioactive.

As just one example, if you make the structural members out of nanocarbone and the thermal shielding out of graphite those are relatively unlikely to be radioactive at all. Even neutron-bombarded structural steel wouldn't be anything like spent fission fuel.