Difference of opinion about space solar

I had forgotten about this.  Lewis advocates a bit for space solar.  For a time there, I agreed.  Then I found out about LFTRs, and that was all she wrote for space solar.

Sorensen believes that the moon will require a nuclear reactor because of the long lunar night.  Lewis proposes that solar power can crack water and then recombine the hydrogen and oxygen for energy when the sun isn't shining.  Lewis' idea sounds plausible for a lunar base, and leaves open the possibility for something more ambitious.

However, it may not be the optimal solution on the moon, or elsewhere for that matter.  I can't answer that question any better than before.

One thing though.  Let's say that you were to manufacture the solar cells on the moon, then transport them to GEO.  The cost to get them there from the moon, as opposed to from Earth, would be much less.  It would then become a matter of converting the energy to a useful form on the ground at a reasonable price.  If such a industry could be created by building these factories and launch sites on the moon, it could give an economic reason to develop the moon.

Lewis shows a way that a base could be created.  But a base is not profitable nor self-sustaining.  The solar power idea is a way to make it profitable.  Intriguing idea.

Update:

Why do solar at all?  Solar requires very big arrays that will have to be maintained somehow.  Not to mention getting them into space in the first place.

I'm shifting back to Sorensen's point of view.  Forget solar.

One more thought.  If you want to make the lunar colony self-supporting, then send energy via LFTRs instead.  You'd have to get around all the anti-nukes, though.  You could say that by using a CANDU reactor to start several LFTR's, you could generate enough power on the lunar surface that could be exported in order for the colony to pay its own way.

How do you get nuke reactors on the moon?  See this for the answer.