PG&E seeks agreement to purchase Solar Power from Space.

[NYC_SKP]

SPACE SOLAR POWER: THE NEXT FRONTIER?

As part of PG&E's commitment to providing more renewable energy to its customers, the utility has supported a
wide range of technologies, including wind, geothermal, biomass, wave and tidal, and at least a half dozen types
of solar thermal and photovoltaic power.

Now PG&E is extending that approach to tap renewable energy at an entirely new level: solar power in space.
PG&E is seeking approval from state regulators for a power purchase agreement with Solaren Corp., a Southern
California company that has contracted to deliver 200 megawatts of clean, renewable power over a 15 year
period.

Solaren says it plans to generate the power using solar panels in earth orbit, then convert it to radio frequency
energy for transmission to a receiving station in Fresno County. From there, the energy will be converted to
electricity and fed into PG&E's power grid. (See interview with Solaren CEO Gary Spirnak.)



http://www.next100.com/2009/04/space-solar-power-the-next-fro.php

SEE ALSO:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090413-710658.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12134648

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30198977/

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/04/13/daily16.html

http://www.pge.com/about/environment/pge/cleanenergy/index.shtml

I think it's for real.

:patriot:

[Dead_Parrot]

1. To save me reading all those links...

...can you point me to one where they discuss the energy required to put something into geostationary orbit? Because last time I checked, it looked like bollocks.

[NYC_SKP]

2. I'm waiting to see what Solaren says about their design intent.

You probably know as much as I do about the obstacles, and if not there's a fairly good general read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite#Launch_costs

If Solaren wants to contract a PPA with the utility company, they must have a feasible plan in mind, or they're just plain crazy.

I'm sorry I don't yet know what that is.

[phantom power]

4. There may be a third answer...

they may know it's crazy from an economic and energy-return view. But they might think it makes a good high profile PR project.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Indeed...

...they might have a very good plan - just not one that includes a finished product.

[bananas]

3. According to the 2007 NSSO report, energy payback is less than one year

3.5 megabyte PDF: http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

Even considering the energy cost of launch, SBSP systems do payback the energy to construct and launch. In fact, SBSP systems have net energy payback times (<1 year except for very small 0.5 GW plants) well within their multi‐decade operational lifetimes. Payback times are equivalent and perhaps faster than terrestrial solar thermal power (Zerta et al, 2004). The reason for this is that an equivalent area in space receives 8‐10 times the energy flux for the annual average, and as much as 30‐40 times the energy flux in a given week than the same area located on a favorable place on the ground after considering day/night, summer/winter, and dust/weather cycles. Prior analyses suggest that the resulting energy payback (time to recover the energy used in deploying a power system) for SBSP is equivalent to or less than (perhaps as little as ½) comparable ground solar baseload power systems (which includes energy storage capacity for 24/7 usage, and pay back in 1.6‐1.7 years).

[NYC_SKP]

5. This is consistent with what I felt was the case.

But I didn't have good evidence to back it up.

Thanks for the reply with link.

:donut:

[phantom power]

6. some questions come to mind

One of them is, when they cite the solar energy flux through their chosen orbital band, are they accounting for the fact that a PV panel only captures certain frequencies? If they are citing the flux over the entire EM spectrum, that would yield an unfairly optimistic number.

Another is, they seem to be counting on robotic telepresence for installation and maintenance. I imagine that might be more cost effective than huge crews of human spacewalkers, but it's still going to be pretty damn expensive. And it's not fully developed technology.

Another issue is that radiation and micrometeorite impacts are pretty hard on orbital PV. I didn't notice any discussion of that.

I'd also be very interested to know what their assumptions about economic and energy cost to orbit, per unit mass, were. Maybe there is a citation in there I could drill down on later.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. I believe they're aware of the challenges

…

The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low‐intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer‐wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability.

NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this concept (by comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear fusion). The first major effort occurred in the 1970’s where scientific feasibility of the concept was established and a reference 5 GW design was proposed. Unfortunately 1970’s architecture and technology levels could not support an economic case for development relative to other lower‐cost energy alternatives on the market. In 1995‐1997 NASA initiated a “Fresh Look” Study to re‐examine the concept relative to modern technological capabilities. The report (validated by the National Research Council) indicated that technology vectors to satisfy SBSP development were converging quickly and provided recommended development focus areas, but for various reasons that again included the relatively lower cost of other energies, policy makers elected not to pursue a development effort.

…

Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low‐cost space access and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space. Solving these space access and operations challenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlement to extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to own SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the delivered energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated review finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyze SBSP development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks. This can be accomplished via an incremental research and development program that culminates with a space‐borne proof-of‐concept demonstration in the next decade. A spiral development proposal to field a 10 MW continuous pilot plant en route to gigawatts‐class systems is included in Appendix B. The second challenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will be necessary to create the partnerships and relationships (commercial-commercial, government‐commercial, and government-government) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government contribution is to become a direct early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters much as is accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems coming on‐line today.

…

I don't understand why people seem to assume that these "rocket scientists" are ignorant.

[phantom power]

8. I'm not really trying to peg rocket scientists as ignorant...

I'm saying that rocket scientists often get to wave their hands around a lot. And that's OK, it's all part of the process. I get paid for doing that too.

But I'd like to know more about where these energy payback numbers are coming from, so I can learn more about where the handwaving shows up.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Yeah, got you

…

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP appears to be an environmentally attractive option, but one that the environmental community is largely unaware of or engaged with.

If solar is considered “green” energy, then SBSP could be considered the ultimate green energy. SBSP, if manufactured on Earth (and not in‐space using lunar or asteroidal material), will of course have very similar manufacturing/pollution impacts as ground solar—except that per unit of delivered energy, much less residual pollution needs to be produced because much less solar collection area (and therefore solar collector materials) is required with SBSP. While the advantages of a distributed grid of ground solar are clear, especially for peak power during the middle of the day, space solar has several distinct advantages over ground solar, such as its appropriateness for base‐load power (the minimum power required by the grid at all times).

• SBSP’s primary environmental benefit is in the form of nearly carbon‐free, renewable energy.


• Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends engagement with representatives of several well‐established national environmental organizations to determine general support levels for SBSP.


• Geostationary SBSP experiences nearly continuous sunlight and therefore is available more than 99% of the time and so does not incur the same difficulties of storage for terrestrial solar, which requires a corresponding increase in overcapacity.


• Even considering the energy cost of launch, SBSP systems do payback the energy to construct and launch. In fact, SBSP systems have net energy payback times (<1 year except for very small 0.5 GW plants) well within their multi‐decade operational lifetimes. Payback times are equivalent and perhaps faster than terrestrial solar thermal power (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004sps..conf...29Z">Zerta et al, 2004). The reason for this is that an equivalent area in space receives 8‐10 times the energy flux for the annual average, and as much as 30‐40 times the energy flux in a given week than the same area located on a favorable place on the ground after considering day/night, summer/winter, and dust/weather cycles. Prior analyses suggest that the resulting energy payback (time to recover the energy used in deploying a power system) for SBSP is equivalent to or less than (perhaps as little as ½) comparable ground solar baseload power systems (which includes energy storage capacity for 24/7 usage, and pay back in 1.6‐1.7 years).


• Even after losses in wireless power transmission, the reduced need for overcapacity and storage to make up for periods of low illumination translates into a much lower land usage vs. terrestrial solar for an equivalent amount of delivered energy.


• Unlike terrestrial solar facilities, microwave receiving rectennas allow greater than 90% of ambient light to pass through, but absorb almost all of the beamed energy, generating less waste heat than terrestrial solar systems because of greater coupling efficiency. This means that the area underneath the rectenna can continue to be used for agricultural or pastoral purposes. To deliver any reasonably significant amount of base‐load power, ground solar would need to cover huge regions of land with solar cells, which are major sources of waste heat. As a result, these ground solar farms would produce significant environmental impacts to their regions. The simultaneous major increases to the regional temperature, plus the blockage of sunlight from the ground, will likely kill off local plants, animals and insects that might inhabit the ground below or around these ground solar farms. This means that that a SBSP rectenna has less impact on the albedo or reflectivity of the Earth than a terrestrial solar plant of equivalent generating capacity. Moreover, the energy provided could facilitate water purification and irrigation, prevent frosts, extend growing seasons (if a little of the energy were used locally) etc. In the plains of the U.S. (e.g., South Dakota, etc), in sub‐ Saharan Africa, etc. etc. there are vast areas of arable land that could be both productive farm land and sites for SBSP rectennas.


• The final global effect is not obvious, but also important. While it may seem intuitively obvious that SBSP introduces heat into the biosphere by beaming more energy in, the net effect is quite the opposite. All energy put into the electrical grid will eventually be spent as heat, but the methods of generating electricity are of significant impact for determining which approach produces the least total global warming effect. Fossil fuel burning emits large amounts of waste heat and greenhouse gases, while terrestrial solar and wind power also emit significant amounts of waste heat via inefficient conversion. Likewise, SBSP also has solar conversion inefficiencies that produce waste heat, but the key difference is that the most of this waste heat creation occurs outside the biosphere to be radiated into space. The losses in the atmosphere are very small, on the order of a couple percent for the wavelengths considered. Because SBSP is not a greenhouse gas emitter (with the exception of initial manufacturing and launch fuel emissions), it does not contribute to the trapping action and retention of heat in the biosphere.

…

The http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004sps..conf...29Z">Zerta paper will give you more of the energy details you're looking for.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Ahh, thanks for finding the Zerta paper

I see the "one year payback" requires us to chuck NASA's figures out of the window and invent a launch vehicle with a 350 ton payload that only uses 4,900 tons of fuel to reach GSO.

Pass me that dilithium crystal, would you?

I'll have to find the Koelle paper, it sounds like a riot.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Sorry? "Koelle paper"

What's the context? (I don't find it mentioned in the thread.)

If you give me the context, I may be able to find it.

(On edit) I'm guessing it would probably be here:
http://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=who&term=Dietrich%20Koelle

(Which paper did you have in mind?)

[Dead_Parrot]

24. It's cited, but not fully referenced, by Zerta:

Section 7, Energy payback:

For the selected launch vehicle NEPTUNE a payload capacity of 350 tons to GEO and a fuel consumption of 14 tons per ton of payload was assumed.

The accompanying chart has a label SPS NEPTUNE (Koelle 1997) which identifies the <1yr energy payback scenario: However, he doesn't list it in his references.

I did find the L-B-Systemtechnik et al (2004) paper (pdf) which is a bit meatier and I'll chew through it after a few coffees: Haven't found any references on a flick-through, though.

Sigh. It's like Chinese whispers...

The Systemtechnik paper is an interesting fish, BTW: They carefully list the embedded energy density of everything from Argon to Vanadium for useful materials, but seem to miss the bit where they work out how much of each one they need... Maybe the coffee will find it. :)

[Dead_Parrot]

25. OK, this isn't the one, but it discusses the same concept:

http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/koelle/ILR-Mitteilungen/Archive/ILR352.pdf

[Dead_Parrot]

27. ...and the magic goes here:

Interestingly, Koelle's numbers used by Zerta (350t payload, etc) are (a) in 1993 dollars (or 2000 dollars on the other paper), and (b) to LEO, not GSO. Koelle sets the numbers out http://vulcain.fb12.tu-berlin.de/koelle/Neptun/Nep2015.html#Kap61">here, and adds:

Missions to the geostationary orbit are presently not envisioned. They will be needed in case a SOLAR SPACE POWER SYSTEM (SSPS) will be developed. The payload would go down to 1/3 and the cost would be higher by a factor of 3 than those shown for the LEO case.

Koelle's own figure to GSO (based on 16 launches per year & updated to 2008 dollars) is therefore $4,166 per kilo, and not the ~$700 Zerta picked up.

Oops.

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. Yeah, sounds like "oops" is a good word

I'll check it out when I have a chance…

In the meantime, check out the Q&A posted below:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=193309&mesg_id=193483

[Dead_Parrot]

29. Now there's a man who knows how to keep secrets

We'll see what the summer brings, I guess.

[phantom power]

12. Never mind, OK has a link

[phantom power]

13. I was right, the Zerta paper has some Olympic handwaving.

They assume some kind of bogus 20% "learning curve" cost-per-kg decrease for each payload doubling.


Current launch cost is 10,000 Euros/kg (even worse than I assumed)

<<Then a miracle occurs>>

Then we get to a magic target cost of 800 Euro/kg that they assume they need to make this scheme plausible.

[kristopher]

19. Is the Zerta paper the basis of PG&E/Solaren's effort?

IS it an analysis of costs? As I read it, it specifically disclaimed being a source for real world costs. Their data related to cost was limited to providing a sketchy analysis of where feasibility would potentially be found. Isn't it likely that the people at Solaren know something(s) we don't.

[phantom power]

23. I would love to know what Solaren is thinking/knowing, however...

The thing that kneecaps SBSS is the energy and economic costs to schlep stuff up out of our gravity well. If there's some hypothetical secret disruptive technology out there that could turn this around, I think it would be in the arena of aerospace, not PV.

If I take that Zerta paper at face value, a successful space elevator might actually put this into a realistic cost/energy envelope. But space elevators remain in the realm of hand-waving too. Much as I'm rooting for those LiftPort guys.

:shrug:

[bananas]

31. Interesting Solaren patent from 2005

Solaren patent from 2005: http://www.google.com/patents?id=YEcVAAAAEBAJ&dq=Solaren
Free-floating reflectors instead of a massive rigid structure.
No assembly required.

One of the news articles said it will only take 4 or 5 launches to send the whole thing up. They didn't specify which rocket. According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems
the Falcon 9 Heavy costs around $100M per launch carrying 30,000kg to LEO or 15,000kg to GEO.
4 launches would be $400M, total weight 120,000kg to LEO or 60,000kg to GEO.
For a 200MW system, the launch cost is $2/W, averaging 3.3W/g or 1.25W/g.

Getting from LEO to GEO, I only took a quick look at the Solaren patent, maybe they can act as solar sails.
Or maybe they'll use something based on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_specific_impulse_magnetoplasma_rocket

<snip>

Based on data released from previous VX-100 testing<7>, we can expect that the VF-200 engine (to be installed on ISS) will have a system efficiency of 60-65% and thrust level of 5N. Optimal specific impulse appears to be around 5000s using low cost argon propellant.

<snip>

On December 10th, 2008 Ad Astra Company signed an agreement with NASA to arrange the placement and testing of a flight version of the VASIMR, the VF-200, on the International Space Station (ISS). Its launch is expected to be in 2011-2012.<8><2><9>

The ISS VASIMR engine will operate in burst mode. Since ISS's power generation is not great enough, the system will include a trickle-charged battery system allowing for 10 min pulses of thrust. This however, is expected to be sufficient to maintain ISS altitude, eliminating the need for costly, periodic chemical rocket reboosting operations.

Space tug : Orbital Transfer Vehicle

The most important near-future application of VASIMR-powered spacecraft is transportation of cargo. Numerous studies have shown that, despite longer transit times, VASIMR-powered spacecraft will be much more efficient than traditional integrated chemical rockets at moving goods through space. An OTV (space tug) powered by a single VF-200 engine would be capable of transporting about 7 metric tons of cargo from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to Low Lunar Orbit (LLO) with about a six month long transit time. NASA envisages delivering about 34 metric tons of useful cargo to LLO in a single flight with a chemically propelled vehicle. To make that trip, about 60 tonnes of LOX-LH2 propellant would be burned. A comparable OTV would need to employ 5 VF-200 engines powered by a 1 MW solar array. To do the same job, such OTV would need to expend only about 8 metric tonnes of argon propellant. The OTV transit times can be reduced by flighting with lighter loads and/or expanding more argon propellant with VASIMR throttled down to lower Isp. For instance, an empty OTV on the return trip to Earth covers the distance in about 23 days at optimal specific impulse of 5000s or in about 14 days at Isp of 3000s.

<snip>

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. Yes! That patent is interesting!

I think we've all been imagining a superstructure, like NASA proposed back in the 60's.


This puts things in an entirely different, eh… "light."

If there's a "down side" to this patent, it seems to be that it's so all-encompassing…

[Dead_Parrot]

37. I think we can let ourselves off...

...Since also seems to be the approach of most of the papers we've been looking at. Of course, I'm still not sure it will work, but at least it's for a different set of reasons...

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. I think we were all suffering from a lack of imagination

This approach is simply marvelous for clear-headed, "out-of-the-box" thinking.

We're out in space! Why do we need all of this structure/rigidity?

I really think they're on to something here.

[Dead_Parrot]

40. Because physics rears it's ugly head

They're asking a constellation of satellites to swing half way around the planet in one order:
lenses - base - mirrors
but swing the other way in a different order:
mirrors - base - lenses
all aligned towards the sun the whole time, whilst fighting photon pressure.

It's like following a guy into a revolving door and coming out in front of him, whilst riding a unicycle. That's on fire. Twice a day for 15 years. With no sleep.

If there's a way of rigging it without having the thrusters on the whole time, I can't see it. And firing thrusters for 15 years is going to hurt in lots of ways.

We'll see. :shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

41. Twice a day for 15 years. With no sleep.

Computers are used to working such long hours with no sleep. Solve the orbital dynamics once, and you've pretty much solved them for the next 6,000 orbits.

The constellation of mirrors etc. will maintain its same orientation to the Sun at all times. The transmitter will maintain its orientation to the Earth at all times. When you're in GEO, how much do you have to worry about them shifting their relative positions?

What I want to see is a demonstration of long-range energy transmission.

[Dead_Parrot]

44. That's the thing - they *need* to change

left to their own inertia, they'll orbit the earth in the same order, and maintain their positions relative to it: but to work, they need to maintain their positions relative to the sun, which means artificially orbiting the mirrors and lenses around the central unit once every 24 hours. Computers are perfectly capable of calculating the adjustments, but the amount of fuel needed might be a real headache.

The beaming down part doesn't strike me as a major hurdle - RF & microwave engineering is pretty mature. I've got a dish on my roof that collects energy from a satellite now: Granted it's only a few hundred nanowatts, and there nothing worth watching (as usual), but the technology is tried and tested.

[Dead_Parrot]

35. I think Falcon is out

In the interview with Spirnak (see #22) he mentions vehicles that "primarily use natural fuels (H2, O2)", whereas Falcon is RP1 based: That leaves him Ares or Ariane, but if they can squeeze into 4 or 5 launches cost isn't quite the killer it would be for a normal array. Hey, they might even break even... And they might as well go straight to GSO, since there doesn't seem to be any need for assembly - and it would be a nightmare getting a 5-part constellation up there intact.

Of course, it will be a nightmare keeping the geometry intact when it's there anyway, and I'll be buggered if I can think of a set of orbits that leave it lined up and pointing the same way (unless they plan on firing the thrusters constantly) - But it's a damn sight more sane than Zerta's ramblings.

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. "No new space launch vehicle capabilities need to be developed to launch our satellites."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=193309&mesg_id=193483

[phantom power]

33. I have no doubt they can launch their hardware with existing vehicles.

I have every doubt that they can achieve cost and energy effectiveness with existing vehicles.

What they're going to do is build a small pilot system. They'll show that yes, we can generate PV electricity in orbit and beam it down to the surface. Ironically, they don't need to build it to convince me of that. It's easy to see that the basic concept works from a purely technical perspective.

[OKIsItJustMe]

36. Check out their patent (if you haven't already)

It really is a fundamentally different approach.

Forget every diagram you've ever seen of an orbital power station, and instead think "inflatables" (kind of like CoolEarthSolar's technology http://www.coolearthsolar.com/technology )

[phantom power]

38. I can say this: if they make it work, it won't hurt my feelings.

Have at it, hoss!

[tinrobot]

14. So what happpens to someone who gets in the way of that radio beam?

I'm sure 200MW of radio frequency energy beamed through the atmosphere would have a significant environmental impact.

[phantom power]

16. Not much. It's a wide, low-intensity beam.

[kristopher]

15. Contract for Procurement... from PG&E’s Power Purchase Agreement with Solaren Corporation

Note the last section below - you have until until April 30th to demonstrate to PG&E how your 30 minutes of research shows that the people at PG&E/Solaren (who have been working on this for decades) are such ignorant fools. :eyes:

There are few things that strip away the bullshit so well and are as convincing as entering into a signed contract to deliver...



April 10, 2009

Advice 3449-E
(Pacific Gas and Electric Company ID U39 E)

Public Utilities Commission of the State of California

Subject: Contract for Procurement of Renewable Energy Resources
Resulting from PG&E’s Power Purchase Agreement with Solaren
Corporation

I. INTRODUCTION:

A. Purpose and Overview

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) seeks California Public Utilities
Commission (“Commission” or “CPUC”) approval of a power purchase agreement
(“PPA”) that PG&E has executed with Solaren Corporation (“Solaren”). PG&E
submits the PPA for CPUC review and approval to establish PG&E’s ability to
recover the cost of payments made pursuant to the PPA through its Energy
Resource Recovery Account (“ERRA”).

The Commission’s approval of the PPA will authorize PG&E to accept deliveries
for up to 200 megawatts (“MW”) of Renewables Portfolio Standard (“RPS”)-
eligible energy from a new space solar power project (“Project”) with a ground
receiving station in Fresno County, for a term of 15 years. If completed by 2016,
the project would deliver an average of 850 gigawatt hours (“GWh”) for the first
year of the term, and 1,700 GWh per year over the remaining term of the PPA,
which would contribute significantly toward PG&E’s RPS goals after 2016.

Solaren is using an innovative space-based solar technology, which, if successful,
would represent a break-through in the renewable power industry. While emerging
technologies like space solar face considerable hurdles under a traditional viability
analysis, PG&E believes that potential, significant benefits to its customers from a
successful space solar installation outweigh the challenges associated with a new
and unproven technology.

Advice 3449-E - 2 - April 10, 2009



Although the Solaren PPA was initiated through bilateral negotiations, negotiations
occurred during the pendency of the 2008 RPS Solicitation, and the results of the
2008 Solicitation provide a logical context for reviewing the reasonableness of the
Solaren PPA. Consistent with the protocol used for review of RPS contracts
resulting from the 2008 RPS Solicitations, PG&E has included Confidential
Appendices A through H, which demonstrate the reasonableness of the PPA. As
discussed below, PG&E requests confidential treatment of the information
contained in these appendices.

PG&E requests that the Commission issue a resolution no later than October 29,
2009 approving the PPA and payments to be made by PG&E under the PPA, and
containing the findings required by the definition of CPUC Approval adopted by
D.07-11-025 and D.08-04-009.1 If CPUC Approval is not obtained prior to that
date, either party may terminate the contract, as further described in Confidential
Appendix D.

B. Detailed Description of the Project

If successful, the Solaren project will provide baseload power from a space-based
technology that collects solar energy as it travels in a geosynchronous orbit and
converts the energy into radio frequency (“RF”) power for transmission to a
receiving station located in Fresno County, CA. The RF power will then be
converted to renewable electricity for delivery to PG&E and its customers.

<snip>

Concept Research
As a concept, SSP is clearly an emerging technology, although a number of experts
believe it holds great promise as a potential new source of energy. The concept has
been researched in the United States over the past 40 years. The most recent report
was the 2007 Department of Defense (“DOD”) National Security Space Office
(“NSSO”) study on Space Solar Power.8 Previously, in the 1990s and early 2000s,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) supported several
studies and assessments9,10 which built on the work of the first major study on the
topic, the 1978 Department of Energy “Solar Power Satellite Reference System
Report” study.11

The 2007 NSSO report “Space Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic
Security” is a review of the Space Solar Concept. This report was based on
feedback from over 170 participants and evaluated Space Solar from a broad
conceptual perspective. While the report did include discussion about utility scale
development, it primarily focused on DOD energy goals such as battlefield and
humanitarian needs.

In the 1990’s and early 2000s there was a series of “fresh look” studies conducted
by NASA. One comprehensive report was the National Research Council’s (NRC)
“Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power.”12 The NRC provided an
independent assessment of the viability of NASA’s Space Solar Power Concepts,
SSP Research and Technology, and SSP System Demonstrations.



8
Space Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security, National Security Space
Office, October 2007 (available at
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf) (last visited April 8, 2009).
9
J. C. Mankins, “A Fresh Look at Space Solar Power: New Architectures, Concepts and
Technologies,” Acta Astronautica, 41, 4-10, 1997, pp. 347-359
10
Congressional Testimony for NASA'S Study of Space Solar Power, 1997 U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Science (available at
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy297160.000/hsy297160_0.HTM) (last visited
April 8, 2009).
11
U.S. Department of Energy and NASA, DOE/ER-0023, October 1978 (available at
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/1978DOESPS-ReferenceSystemReport.pdf) (last visited
April 8, 2009).
12
Committee for the Assessment of NASA's Space Solar Power Investment Strategy, Aeronautics
and Space Engineering Board, National Research Council (2001) (available at
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2001-LayingTheFoundationForSpaceSolarPower.pdf)
(last visited April 8, 2009).
Advice 3449-E - 11 - April 10, 2009


Concept Demonstration
The concept of wireless transmission of power has been validated in both the US
and Japan through numerous engineering demonstrations. A 1974 NASA Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (“JPL”) transmitted 34 kW of energy 1.5 kilometers across
the NASA Goldstone antenna range and achieved greater than 80% conversion
efficiency of energy to electricity. According to Solaren, in 2008, Dr. Neville I.
Marzwell from NASA JPL conducted a Discovery Channel wireless power
transmission demonstration using ground solar cells to generate electricity to drive a
SSPA array and transmit RF energy a distance of 92 miles (148 km) between two
Hawaiian Islands. Dr. Marzwell’s demonstration achieved greater than 90%
conversion efficiency of RF energy to electricity.
Space solar technology is based on components that are in use today or being
developed for use with satellite communications, radar systems, and other
applications. Consistent with its designation as an emerging technology, these
components must be engineered, tested, manufactured and integrated into large-
scale SSP satellite and ground system architectures.

Solaren Project

Solaren’s patented SSP Plant design employs the SSP concept described above to
deliver renewable electricity to PG&E. The viability of the Project is further evaluated
in Confidential Appendix E, “Project Viability.”

<snip>

Protests:

Anyone wishing to protest this filing may do so by sending a letter by April 30,
2009, which is 20 days from the date of this filing. The protest must state the
grounds upon which it is based, including such items as financial and service
impact, and should be submitted expeditiously. Protests should be mailed to:

CPUC Energy Division
Attention: Tariff Unit, 4th Floor
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102

Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail] and [e-mail]

Copies should also be mailed to the attention of the Director, Energy Division,
Room 4005 and Honesto Gatchalian, Energy Division, at the address shown above.

The protest also should be sent via U.S. mail (and by facsimile and electronically, if
possible) to PG&E at the address shown on the following page on the same date it
is mailed or delivered to the Commission.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Attention: Brian Cherry
Vice President, Regulatory Relations
77 Beale Street, Mail Code B10C
P.O. Box 770000
San Francisco, California 94177

Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

[Dead_Parrot]

17. If you engage your cerebellum for 5 minutes...

...you'll see we have until April 30th to argue why it should be subject to regulatory oversight on grounds "including such items as financial and service impact". Since there's no sign PG&E are shutting anything down, and have categorically stated they aren't paying a bean until the juice starts flowing, that is something of a non-argument.

Hell, I'll even join them: I'll also agree to buy 3% of electricity from Solaren, but I'm not paying until they deliver and won't be disconnecting any of my usual supply in anticipation.

There, happy?

[kristopher]

18. Not really.

I've yet to see you on the correct side of *any* issue involving the evaluation of a technology.

Edited in an attempt to be nicer...

[XemaSab]

42. Somehow I don't think you're on the same grid as Fresno county

:P

[Nihil]

20. "to establish PG&E’s ability to recover the cost of payments made"

> There are few things that strip away the bullshit so well and are as
> convincing as entering into a signed contract to deliver...

Yes, Enron proved that one didn't it? :eyes:


Keep holding your breath ...

> "The Commission’s approval of the PPA will authorize PG&E to accept deliveries
> for up to 200 megawatts (“MW”) of Renewables Portfolio Standard (“RPS”)-
> eligible energy from a new space solar power project (“Project”) with a
> ground receiving station in Fresno County, for a term of 15 years."

I wonder if this "authorisation" would be good for a little dip into the
"Renewables" support funds in the meantime? Just to support their investment
in Fresno County of course ... and this has to be well in advance of any
possible future delivery of energy ... can't have a corporation being out
of pocket (or without tax-deductible activities) as long as there is a
gullible taxpayer around ...
:think:


There are plenty of get-outs before it costs PG&E any money:

> "If CPUC Approval is not obtained prior to that date, either party may
> terminate the contract, as further described in Confidential Appendix D."

> "The viability of the Project is further evaluated in Confidential Appendix E"

> "Solaren is using an innovative space-based solar technology, which,
> if successful, would represent a break-through ..."

> "If successful, the Solaren project will provide ..."

> "If completed by 2016, the project would deliver ..."

> PG&E submits the PPA for CPUC review and approval to establish PG&E’s
> ability to recover the cost of payments made pursuant to the PPA


Then, of course, we get to the good old deliverable figures:

> If completed by 2016, the project would deliver an average of 850 gigawatt
> hours (“GWh”) for the first year of the term, and 1,700 GWh per year over
> the remaining term of the PPA

2.3GWh per day for 1 year then 4.6GWh per day for 14 years.
Assuming it is completed on schedule.
Assuming it works as promised.
Five years in the future.

PG&E could deliver any "shortfall" in the above "supply" by switching in
one of its coal-fired power stations as they would be able to get the
emergency approval by the good old extortion method ("Well, if you don't
let us do it, you ain't gonna get your energy are you?"). Not only do they
get to screw the public for the funding for this pork, they get to charge
them at emergency rates for making up the losses when it fails.


> you have until until April 30th to demonstrate to PG&E how your 30 minutes
> of research shows that the people at PG&E/Solaren ... are such ignorant fools.

No, I don't think the people at PG&E/Solaren are ignorant fools at all.
I think they are very smart salesmen who have learned a lot from the Enron
activities (not to mention the recent bailouts of losing gamblers) and who
are well on their way to conning California out of some more money.

:hi:

[kristopher]

26. You do well at recognizing words and letters at least...

The contract is for 1,700,000,000 kwh/year. If we assume a wholesale price of $0.08 kwh, that is the approximate cost of baseload from a new EPA compliant coal plant (without CCS).

So, what is the cash flow?
Somewhere in the neighborhood of $136,000,000 per year for 15 years from ratepayers, plus $35,700,000 per year in the form federal PTC plus any other green energy incentives like accelerated depreciation or carbon offsets that might be floating around as a result of the final policy solution arrived at for carbon trading.

Why are power purchase agreements drafted and what is the significance of a PPA to a developer's ability to get investors for a project? It is a reduction of probably 10% or more in the cost of venture capital because the cash stream is locked in if the technology delivers.

As you note the cash flow and PG$E's obligations begin with delivered electricity, so if there is a failure to deliver it is on the backs of the investors, not the taxpayers. The part you highlighted with bold font is a formal request to be able to bill customers for the delivered electricity. That means your all of your "Enron" and "con the public" shit is just that, shit you are concocting because you don't really understand the basics of what you're reading.

Let me stress that there is no reason you should be familiar with the marketing of electricity and energy project development unless you deal with it in a manner that justifies the large investment of your time to learn how this system works.

Now you might think that PG&E makes a habit of giving con artists the ability to go out and raise cheap money, but I don't think it is a fair assessment of the oversight process by, in this case, the CPUC.

$170,000,000 in yearly cash flow is a lot of money to launch a satellite.

Edited to add:
:toast:

[Nihil]

30. And you *certainly* do well in writing words and letters ...

... but, to be fair, I appreciated some of the information in that post too!

> if there is a failure to deliver it is on the backs of the investors,
> not the taxpayers.

I will have to go back and try re-reading the earlier posts in the light of
your last one as it looks like I have misunderstood the situation (and for
that I apologise). The way I read it, on successful delivery, the end-users
pay for the power received (as normal) but in the event of a failure to
deliver, the state was on the hook for a significant amount of money to be
recovered for PG&E. That (mis)understanding joined with my ongoing doubt of
the integrity of oversight/regulatory bodies led to my comparisons to Enron.

I still think that the satellite generating concept *is* pie in the sky but
this will only be definitively confirmed or refuted in the next 6 years or so.
In the meantime, I thank you for your explanation.

:toast:

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Space-Based Solar Power Coming to California in 2016

http://www.physorg.com/news159020477.html

Space-Based Solar Power Coming to California in 2016
April 15th, 2009 by Lisa Zyga

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the near future, a solar power satellite may be supplying electricity to 250,000 homes around Fresno County, California. Unlike ground-based solar arrays, satellites would be unaffected by cloudy weather or night, and could generate power 24 hours a day. If successful and affordable, the project could mark the beginning of space-based solar power in other locations, as well.

Solaren Corp., a solar power start-up, has convinced Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), California's largest utility company, to purchase 200 megawatts of electricity when its system is in place, which is expected to be 2016. According to Solaren, the system could generate 1.2 to 4.8 gigawatts of power at a price comparable to that of other renewable energy sources.

In Solaren's proposal, solar power satellites would be positioned in stationary orbit about 22,000 miles above the equator. The satellites - whose arrays of mirrors could be several miles across - would collect the sun's rays on photoelectric cells and convert them into radio waves. The radio waves would then be beamed to a receiving station on the ground, where they would be converted into electricity and delivered to PG&E's power grid. Because the radio beam is spread out over a wide area, it would not be dangerous to people, airplanes, or wildlife.

The plan requires a large area of land to host the ground receiving station's antenna array, and several square miles of scrubland in western Fresno County could provide an ideal location. In addition to being sparsely populated, the region is also near transmission lines and a load center. While many of today's land-based solar stations are located far out in the desert, a station closer to customers could offer greater convenience and economic advantages.

Gary Spirnak, CEO of Solaren Corp. and a former aerospace engineer, noted that the project will cost more than $2 billion, mostly going toward engineering development and building of the ground station, as well as launching four or five satellites. So far, Solaren has raised an undisclosed sum from private investors.

…

http://www.next100.com/2009/04/interview-with-solaren-ceo-gar.php

Apr 13 2009

Interview with Solaren CEO Gary Spirnak

NEXT100 asked Solaren CEO Gary Spirnak to offer his perspective on the business strategy and technological approach behind his company's contract to deliver 200 MW of baseload space solar power to PG&E's customers by 2016. Here are his answers:

…

Q: What gives you the confidence that you can design the system?

A: The SSP pilot plant system design will work hand and glove with an extensive Solaren engineering development program. Before the Solaren SSP plant is constructed, an engineering development program will be implemented to reduce the cost, schedule and engineering risk associated with the Solaren SSP pilot project. The engineering development program is a meticulous step-by-step process that will validate all SSP components, subsystems and systems. In addition to laboratory and ground tests, Solaren plans to test and evaluate critical SSP system deployments and functionality in space. The rigorous SSP pilot plant design will be created from the foundation of engineering data generated through the SSP development program's component, subsystem and system tests.

Q: What gives you confidence that you can launch this system into space?

A: The SSP pilot plant satellites are designed to use existing launch capabilities. No new space launch vehicle capabilities need to be developed to launch our satellites into space. The SSP pilot plant design for the power satellites and ground receive station will be built and validated and the power satellites prepared for shipment to the launch site during the construction phase. At the launch site, the power satellites are launched into space using existing launch vehicle capabilities and moved to their final orbital positions.

Q: Finally, what gives you the confidence that you can start generating power by 2016?

A: What gives us the confidence that we can start generating power in 2016 is the experience of Solaren's team and suppliers, and these five steps. First, our meticulous SSP engineering development program will reduce program risk. Second, our rigorous SSP Pilot plant design will ensure that we meet or exceed our SSP system performance requirements and that the design is buildable. Third, the construction of the SSP Pilot plant is built to exacting specifications, which are each verified and validated. Fourth, the SSP satellites undergo a final verification prior to launch, and use low risk, existing launch vehicle capabilities for delivery to space. Fifth, once in geosynchronous orbit, a series of SSP pilot plant system tests will validate the satellites and ground receive station functions and verify performance, safety and key parameters to ensure successful operations. When we complete these steps, we will then be ready to deliver power to PG&E in 2016.

…

[NNadir]

43. Personally, I am seeking an agreement to buy my electricity from Jesus.

Both agreements have the same basis, since both provide, um, zero.

The word for this seeking is spelled "M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G."

It is a similar procedure to that used by major corporations when they pay Amory Lovins, sometimes confused with Jesus, to greenwash any and all of the operations.