ISTS 2004-r-39

ASSESSMENT OF AN INTEGRATED SPACE-TERRESTRIAL, SOLAR-BASED EURO-ASIAN ENERGY SYSTEM

L. Summerer, M. Vasile, A. Glvez, F. Ongaro European Space Agency, Advanced Concepts Team, Keplerlaan 1, 2201 AZ Noordwijk ZH The Netherlands, +31-71-565 6227, Leopold.Summerer@esa.int
Abstract
Solar power plants are among the most promising long-term options able to fulfil our electric power needs. Solar power as abundant and GHG emission free source, combined with hydrogen as energy carrier has the potential to cover the majority of humanitys energy need. This paper presents work done at the Advanced Concepts Team of the European Space Agency, comparing and integrating large-scale solar-based power generation in space with terrestrial options. The advantage of the space option (continuous, higher solar irradiance), weighted by space transportation and infrastructure needs and conversion losses, is compared to typical parameters of large-scale ground based solutions at favourable geographic locations. The paper builds upon results published earlier in [17] and [18]. A optimisation process is then applied to best integrate space plants with Sahara and Gobi desert based terrestrial solar plants. from an all-time high of about 70% to the benefit of oil and gas, the fuel of the transport industry of the 20th century. To a lower extent, the oil crisis of the 70s had a similar effect, when the introduction of nuclear energy lead to the levelling of the oil and gas share at about 60%. Currently a trend from oil to gas is observed (not shown in Figure 1), in line with the successive reduction of the carbon content of fuel. (C:H ratio: wood:~10:1, coal:~2:1, oil:~1:2, gas:~1:4)

1 Introduction
Within the next 15 to 20 years a significant portion of the European power plants will reach their definitive end-of-life and will have to be replaced. In some of the most dynamic emerging economies, energy requirements are expected to double and triple within the next 20 years.[1][2][3] This paper tries to contribute to the current debate in showing the potential of solar-based solutions. This phase assessed among other issues the potential of solar power from space compared to terrestrial solar plant solutions.
Figure 1: Evolution of humanity's energy sources (values in % of total consumption)

2.2 Energy vector hydrogen The introduction of hydrogen as energy vector could lead to another of these turning points and is in line with the steady decrease of the C:H ratio of our fuels. At the same time one observes a separation of energy sources and vectors. 2.2.1 Power Levels Seboldt et al. designed the European Solar Sail Tower SPS concept to deliver 513GWe.[5] This corresponds to the consumption of Europe in 2020, equal to 3/4 of the additional generation capacity foreseen to be installed until 2030, for a cumulative European investment of 531B.[4] The present comparison will consider plant sizes of 550, 80, 5GWe. 2.2.2 Electricity Load Profiles Typical European January and July days were taken as reference for solar irradiation data and electricity load needs. Reference January (17 Jan 01) and July (18 Jul 01) load levels were calculated based on data provided by the UCTE network, covering all European countries except Scandinavia.[6] For the prospected load levels in 2020, load profiles are

2 Scope of the comparison

2.1 Energy Situation 2020 Any attempt to influence the energy choices has to take into account the inherent conservatism of the energy sector. However, the globally steady and strong increase of power demand also allows for new sources and energy vectors to appear and gain importance without immediately threatening established energy supply branches. Plotting the proportional supply share of 1. renewables/nuclear sources, 2. coal and 3. oil and gas as done in Figure 1, shows that this situation occurred at least two times during the 20th century: Since the first world war the share of coal decreased steadily

assumed to remain unchanged, (Figure 2, right yaxis).[4]

3 Terrestrial Solar Power Plants

3.1 Plant Types and Location Two types of terrestrial solar power plants are studied: 1. Solar thermal (trough plants and solar towers) and 2. Solar photovoltaic plants. With current technology, solar trough plants show the lowest /Watt rate. Photovoltaic systems are still significantly more expensive, but offer the highest potential for efficiency increase and cost reduction. As an example, a location in the Western Sahara desert (26N,14E) with an averaged daily solar irradiance of 280W/m2 (2455kWh/a) is considered. 3.1.1 Solar Irradiation Profiles For the calculation of a typical solar irradiation profile in January and July, the horizontal irradiation data [7] were crossed with the sunrise and sunset data obtained from the Astronomical Department of the US Naval Observatory [8] and the daily data profile as measured by the Kramer Junction SEGS installation in the Mojave desert, California. Figure 2 shows the hourly irradiation data for the chosen location as well as the 2001 European electricity load profiles.

well mastered but currently too expensive to be commercially viable to produce H 2 fuel, mainly due to high electricity costs.
Table 1: Selected H2 properties H2 generation.
E need H2O electrolysis prod. Efficiency pressurisation (20 MPa) (prod.,pressurisation) total efficiency E need for H2O electrolysis 47.7 70% 2.2 49.9 67% 825.9 kWh/kg kWh/kg kWh/kg kWh/m3 (at 20 MPa)

All H 2 energy values are based on the lower heating value of H 2. (Table 1) Water electrolysis and reversible PEM fuel cells are considered. In case of H2 generation by water electrolysis, high temperature O2+H2 driven turbines are studied for the regeneration of electricity. 3.2 Energy Storage and Transmission 3.2.1 Energy Storage System Underground hydrogen storage was chosen, representing the most cost effective short-term hydrogen storage system available.[14] If not calculated in detail (as e.g. for the H2 plant options), the total efficiency of the storage system is assumed to be 60%. 3.2.2 Electrical Power Transmission In case of electrical power transmission, high voltage direct current lines (HVDC) are assumed, presenting with current technology the lowest /(kWkm) ratio and an efficiency of 90%. (max. per-line load: 5GWe) 3.2.3 Hydrogen Power Transmission Instead of delivering energy in form of electricity to European consumer centres, hydrogen can be used as energy carrier (pipelines, trucks or ships; only pipelines considered here). Currently hydrogen pipelines are operating at 11 0 MPa at flow rates between 310 and 8,900kg/h.[14] For this study, high-pressure pipelines, operating at 20MPa and a diameter of 0 .2 5 m are considered, assuring a gas flux of 256,679kg/sm2 or a flow rate of 12.6t/s. The compressor size is estimated at 45,000kW, leading to 2.2 kWh/kg. The 90% pipeline transportation efficiency was derived from data on current natural gas pipelines and might be rather optimistic. [16] 3.2.4 Hydrogen Power Generation There are several ways to regenerate electricity from stored hydrogen. For this assessment, fuel cells with an advanced efficiency of 85% are chosen. 3.3 Solar Electricity Plants without storage In a first approach the plant was designed to deliver energy directly when it is produced, without any local storage capacity, investigating whether such plants at ideal locations would be able to cover the European morning and evening peaks and thus reduce the total required generation capacity. For a detailed assessment of the electricity plant options and characteristics we refer to [17] and [18].

Figure 2: Typical winter and summer day solar irradiation and European electricity load profiles.

3.1.2 Solar Trough Plants Current solar thermal power plants in the US and Spain operate with an overall average efficiency of 16%, result of the 45% efficiency of the parabolic troughs and the 35% efficiency of the steam engine. (near-term goal: 20%) 3.1.3 Solar Tower Plants The basic principle of solar tower plants consists of a multitude of two-axis movable mirrors focussing solar radiation onto a collector atop a solar tower, where usually molten salt is heated (currently at about 575C) to run a steam generator, in turn driving a turbine. 3.1.4 Solar Photovoltaic Plants Contrary to solar thermal conversion, PV based plants dont need the intermediate step of heat production, but generate electricity directly from direct and indirect solar irradiation. 3.1.5 Hydrogen Production This study considers only the C O2 emission free production of H 2 via electrolysis. The technology is

In the case of an 80 G Wp plant, the total capacity saving is minimal (no coverage of the evening winter peak). Even a 190 G Wp plant would reduce the capacity need by only 1GW. (Figure 3)
Table 2: 80GWe plant without storage.
receiver surface1 transport capacity total production peak power del. directly delivered capacity saving January July 442 (884) 82 (41) 291 773 39 78 291 773 0.4 (0.09%) 54.9(12.8%) km2 GW GWh/day GW GWh/day GW

and a H2 storage sphere of 31m radius.

Figure 4: 80GWe plant - January electric power delivery.

Figure 3: 190GW plant without storage winter day.

3.5 Solar Hydrogen Production Plant The main parameters of a 5GW hydrogen plant are shown in Table 4. The dimensions of the 4 pipelines offer a total volume large enough for storing the additional daytime energy to permit a continuous H2 flow. Local storage would only be necessary if the excess production during summer months is not used otherwise.
Table 4: 5GWe hydrogen plant.
January receiver surface transport capacity pipeline number pipeline reservoir total production H2 total prod. into storage (pipeline) H2 prod. cap. total water need July 225 5 4 8,124 / 271 148 393 2,966 7,878 2,096 6,738 397 795 26,699 70,914 km2 GW t/GWh GWh/day t/day t/day t/h t/day

3.4 Solar Electricity Plant with storage A more detailed assessment of these plant options can be found in [17] and [18]. This section will only summarize the results. In a first approach, the plant was sized to be able to cover the entire European electricity need in 2020. The total receiver surface would cover over 22,000km2, equalling a square of 150km side length. It would require a minimum H 2 storage volume equal to a sphere of 145m radius.
Table 3: 80GWe storage electricity plant.
January receiver surface transport capacity total production directly delivered into storage stored over/under-capacity capacity saving H2 prod. Cap. H2 production reservoir volume total water need July km2 GW GWh/day GWh/day GWh/day GWh/day GWh/day GW GW t/day m3/day t/day 3,372 82 2,221 5,898 652 854 1,569 5,044 941 3,026 0 2,353 74 74 226 522 31,433 101,064 1,899,379 6,106,879 282,928 909,671

4 Space Solar Power Plants

Space solar power plants were first proposed on an engineering level by Peter Glaser in 1968.[19] The main idea consists in taking advantage of the permanent insolation and no weather or climate effects in outer space to transform the solar energy into electricity and transmit it via -waves to dedicated receiver sites close to terrestrial consumer centres. Different space solar power plant designs have been proposed in the last 30 years. (e.g.[5][20][21][22]) Most of these designs are based on photovoltaic energy conversion and wireless power transmission via -wave at either 2.45 or 5.8GHz. Table 5 shows the main parameter of the European Sailtower concept.[5][23] Both are somehow related to the power/mass ratio of photovoltaic cells. During the last years, the worldwide PV market has shown an increase of 32% from 1990 (16GWh) to 2001 (339GWh).[24] Space solar power plants transmitting power via laser would be able to take advantage from already existing terrestrial installations: land surfaces, receivers, power management systems and power transmission lines to consumer centres. To a certain but lower extent the same is valid for SPS transmitting via -waves, since it seems possible to either integrate rectennas into the PV surfaces or use

3.4.1 Covering 15% of European need in 2020. In order to cover about 15% of the projected European electricity need during winter months, a receiver surface of 3,400km2 is required. (Table 3) The plant would cover 17% of the summer load, while still producing an excess of 2,353GWh/day during the best summer days (transport line limit). The total capacity saving would be 74GW. (Figure 4) The minimal storage need, driven by winter conditions, is 1,569GWh, or 31,500tons of hydrogen. A 5GW plant would need a receiver surface of 225km2, have a minimal H 2 production rate of 302t/h

installation surface in brackets

them as two layers since the rectenna installation would not produce much shadow.
Table 5: European Sail Tower Concept.[32]
Orbit Final Nr. of SPS SPS Tower GEO 1870 length 15 mass 2140 electricity prod. 450 dim.+tether 150x300x350 mass 9 electricity prod. 7.4 400 000 magnetrons frequency 2.45 radius 510 mass 1,600 energy emitted 400 final number 103 antenna size 11x14 site+safety zone 27x30 per SPS tower 275 km mt MWe m mt MWe GHz m mt MW km km MWe

Table 7: Cost estimates of terrestrial plant options.

(all values in B; incl. capital costs) PV trough 500GW plant cons. adv. cons. adv. without storage 1,240 661 1,122 721 with storage min 11,867 5,223 10,965 5,681 max 15,756 6,052 14,854 6,510 H2 plant min 12,692 5,399 11,791 5,857 max 16,427 6,193 15,525 6,651 80GW plant without storage 186 99 168 108 with storage min 1,780 784 1,645 852 max 2,363 908 2,228 976 H2 plant min 1,904 810 1,769 879 max 2,465 929 2,329 998 5GW plant without storage 12 7 11 7 with storage min 119 52 109 57 max 157 60 148 65 H2 plant min 127 54 118 59 max 165 62 156 67

Twin module

emitting antenna

receiving Antenna del. power

5 Economic Comparison
5.1 Cost factors for terrestrial solar power plants To the knowledge of the authors, nine solar thermal power plants have been installed worldwide, covering a total surface of about 7km2 and delivering around 800GWh/a. The first plant, installed 1984 in the Mojave Desert in California produced at 0.27$/kWh while the ones installed in 1991 managed to produce at rates as low as 0.12$/kWh.[25] For a plant size of several GW, economies of scale would also apply, not taken into consideration here. All main cost estimations are summarised in Table 6. For a more detailed description of the underlying cost estimates, we refer to a previous publication on this topic. [18]
Table 6: Cost estimates.
Plant cons. adv. trough surface 215 107 /m2 thermal plant (trough) 850 850 /kWe PV surface 2 1 /Wp PV surface 294 150 /m2 Transportation HVDC land line 70 56 /(kWe103km) HVDC sea line 716 572.8 /(kWe103km) HVDC stations 60 48 /kWe H2 pipeline (0.25 m) 154 103 /(kWH2103km) H2 Production and Storage .[10][12][14][16][28] H2 prod. (PEM) 1,621 333 /kW H2 compressor 800 650 /kW (20 MPa) underground storage 8 3 /kg

Including the development and operations efforts, the 5GWe option amounts to 334.6B, higher than the comparable terrestrial plant (Table 7). The 80GWe option amounts to 1,386B, lower than the conservative but higher than the optimistic terrestrial plant (including H 2 storage). The larger the plant gets, the more favourable the space option.

6 Integration of Space and Terrestrial Plants

6.1 Motivation In accordance with the preliminary results of the studies of the first phase of the ESA SPS Programme Plan, a desert solar plant can directly produce between 60 and 120 GWh/year/km2. Adding local storage increases this amount to 219 to 253 GWh/year/km2. The analysis has shown that the considered terrestrial solar power plants without storage facilities are not able to reduce the electricity generation capacity need. Using the hydrogen storage option chosen for the assessment of this paper, the total plant costs are increased by a factor 7 to 10. Local pumped hydro plants as storage means could potentially reduce this value significantly where appropriate geographical conditions are available. This option is currently investigated. In parallel, the best space-terrestrial combinations were investigated. Starting first on a European-only basis and then extending the scenario to two terrestrial solar plants both augmented by one SPS plant. Given the extrapolated power needs of Europe and China, the about 10 hour solar time difference and the availability of the Sahara desert for Europe and the Gobi desert for China, a global optimisation method was employed. Space option system costs are comparable to ground system costs. The following paragraphs show first results of an ongoing work at ESAs Advanced Concepts Team optimising combined space/ terrestrial solar plant systems. Cost regions deduced from Table 7 are approx. 50-100B and 7001,600B for 5GW and 80GW plants.

5.1.1 Energy Storage Wurster et al. estimate the cost of underground storage at about 3- 8/kg.[29] 5.1.2 Plant Costs Based on the above assumptions and the technical choices described, Table 7 list the resulting total costs for all the considered options. The cost estimates in Table 7 include approximate capital costs of 20% of the total installation costs. 5.2 Cost factors for space solar power plants Estimations of the costs involved in the development and operations of space solar power plants are subject to high uncertainties. For a more detailed description of the cost factors we refer to [18]. The main cost factors of the European Sailtower are listed in Table 8.[5]

Table 8: European Sail Tower Concept cost estimates.

development incl. LV 1 sail tower production (275 MWe) E2O transp. oper.&maint. total E2O transp. oper.&maint. total total. total. 265 1.24 0.92 0.044 3.48 22.3 16.6 0.8 62.6 360 1,009 2,254 6,327 7(18) 112(288) 700(1800) B B B B/a B B B B/a B B B B B B B B

objective problems). EPIC implements a coevolutionary approach to treat constraints and a nondominated Pareto approach for selection of optimal solutions. The co-evolutionary approach splits the population in two subpopulations co-evolving toward two different goals. One of the two minimises the constraint violation while the other population, containing feasible individuals tries to find all nondominated Pareto solutions. The number of individuals dominating a solution si is associated to si and used for fitness evaluation. Since EPIC uses a limited population of agents seeking for their final goal, during evolution it is likely that some agents reach the Pareto set and then depart from it toward another Pareto point. For this reason non-dominated solutions encountered during evolution are stored and compared at the end of the evolution process. Table 9 shows very preliminary results of three solutions obtained forcing the eccentricity to be between 0.01 and 0.9. Two solutions, one for Europe and one for China, require an high mass in orbit to maintain the required level of power on Earth in order to reduce storage. The third one reduces almost to zero the space segment with a corresponding increase of the ground storage. Until now, the combined Euro-Asian scenario has not yet been fully implemented. The model also lacks additional constraints like the maximum ground received power density for PV cells, but it already confirms the validity of the underlying assumptions in finding a quasi GEO orbit for the single ground receiver site case.
Table 9: Example for Winter optimised solutions.
Data rp e i w W l q At stored Europe 37193 km 0.04 12.54 deg 22.63 deg 46 deg 30 deg 19 deg 8400 km2 8545GW Europe 37193 km 0.04 12.54 deg 22.63 deg 6 deg -10 deg 19.82 207.6 km2 584.2 GW China 41601 km 0.6 15.2 deg 53.7 deg 12.135 deg 104.79 deg 46 deg 3217.9 km2 1503.5 GW

18 sail towers production (5GWe)

290 sail towers production (80GWe) 1818 sail towers production (500GWe) Ground element rectenna (5GW) rectennas (80GW) rectennas (500GW)

6.2 System Model For a preliminary analysis of a combined terrestrialspace power system we implemented a simplified model made of two parts. The terrestrial unit is modelled as an extended solar array fixed on the surface of the Earth and with normal of the array surface aligned with the local normal vector. The longitude and latitude coordinate of the ground base , and are free to vary in a limited domain corresponding to the Sahara and Gobi deserts. The orbit of the space segment is propagated analytically without considering orbit perturbation. The five orbital parameters (a,e,i,, ) are left free to vary in a given range. The SPS is modelled as a point mass to which the surface As of an extended solar array is associated. The power beam has a steering cone of 30degrees and power transmission is off during eclipses. In addition the propellant mass required to transfer the SPS from a 2 0 0 k m circular orbit to the operative orbit is considered plus the mass of the tanks computed as 10% of the propellant. Power storage on Earth is implemented according to the model described above. The total daily winter and summer power load curves for Europe and China in 2020 were extrapolated from current values with IAEA forecasts. 6.3 Multi-objective Optimisation The problem can be stated as follows: f ( x ) = storedenergy , min F ( x ) = 1 x D f 2 ( x ) = SPSmass in orbit subject to the constraint Pout Pload , where the Pout is the instantaneous power delivered by the combined terrestrial-space system including store and Pload is the power required. This is a multi-objective optimisation problem with a number of possible solutions. The way this can be effectively solved is to use a global evolutionary approach that is able to generate a good part of the Pareto set. The Pareto set is made of all non-dominated pairs of [f1,f2] where non-dominated pair means that no other pair is better in f1 and f2.[30] In this paper the problem is solved with EPIC (Matlab tool for global optimisation and extended to treat multi-

6.4 Manual Approach First, a suitable orbit had to be found that would allow the passage over a Sahara-based plant during time-periods when this one would not be able to satisfy the demand (winter evening peaks). This means automatically lower orbits than GEO, implying shorter transmission distances and the necessity of enhanced steering and attitude & orbit control. 6.4.1 Orbits In order to assure long power transmission times, three different solutions are envisaged: Opt.-1: sunsynchronous repeating Molniya orbit; Opt.-2: high elliptic nearly sun-synchronous Molniya orbit with a 1 year phase drift; Opt.-3 high repeating circular orbit. [17][18].

Figure 5: Option 2

The second option is a high elliptic orbit, with an apogee higher than GEO at 39,9 5 5 km and a comparably low perigee at 500k m. The space solar power plant stays most of the orbital time over the northern hemisphere. January ground tracks are shown in Figure 5. The effect of the high eccentricity to the gravity gradient stabilised SPS requires some additional analysis. As shown in Table 10, both plants are accessed during the (local) evening peak times in winter months. During summer, the space power plant is covering almost the entire day until the late afternoon in Europe and the second half of the local night in eastern Asia including the morning peak. As indicated in Table 10, the ground track of the satellite is only close to sun-synchronous, thus slowly drifting eastwards. The drift speed was chosen in order to allow for a 1-year phase repetition, leading to evening peak coverage in winter months and morning to mid-afternoon coverage during summer months.
Table 10: Option 2: Sahara and Gobi plant; access times.
Sahara Plant start-end / duration (GMT) / hours 18:16-05:34 / 11.3 05:38-16:27 / 10.8 20:11-01:38 / 5.5 04:40-15:56 / 11.3 06:24-11:51 / 5.4 15:49-02:40 / 10.9 Gobi Plant start-end / duration (local time) / hours 13:22-00:23 / 11.0 13:01-23:11 / 10.2 23:43-10:39 / 10.9 23:15-09:19 / 10.1

January April July October

7 Conclusions
Large scale terrestrial and space based solar power plants were compared for the 2020/30 time scale. First assessments have shown that space and terrestrial solar power plants are comparable in terms of total investment especially at high power levels. Based on the comparison, a multi-objective optimisation model was developed and preliminary first results presented. More detailed work on the optimisation process and parameters is currently ongoing. __________________________
[1] L. Summerer, F. Ongaro, M. Vasile, and A. Glvez, Prospects for Space Power Work in Europe. Acta Astronautica 53, 571 (2003). [2] T. Wirth et al, An energy strategy for the future. Foreign Affairs 82, 132 (2003). [3] Hoffert et al., Advanced technology path to global climate stability: Energy for a greenhouse planet. Science 298, 981 (2002).

[4] IEA/OECD, World Energy Outlook 2002. Tech. Rep., International Energy Agency (2002). [5] W. Seboldt et al, European Sailtower Concept. Acta Astronautica 48, 785 (2001). [6] UCTE, website (2003), www.ucte.org (acc. Aug.03). [7] NASA, Surface meteorology and solar energy, http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/ (accessed Aug.03). [8] US Naval Obervatory Astronomical Applications Department, Sun and moon data, website (2003), http://aa.usno.navy.mil/ (acc. Aug.03). [9] F. Olmo et al. Prediction of global irradiance on inclined surfaces from horizontal global irradiance, Energy 24, 689 (1999). [10] C. Pardo et al. Survey of the Economics of Hydrogen Technologies, NREL/TP-570-27079. (1999). [11] K. Blok et al., Hydrogen production from Natural Gas, Sequestration of recovered CO2 in depleted gas wells and enhanced natural gas recovery Int. Journal of Hydrogen Energy 22, 161 (1997). [12] T.N. Veziroglu et al. Hydrogen Energy Technologies Emerging Technology Series, UNIDO, (1998). [13] J. R. Bolton, Solar Photoproduction of Hydrogen, IEA Tech.Rep. IEA/H2/TR-96, (1996). [14] W. Amos. Cost of Storing and Transporting Hydrogen. Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-570-25106, (1998). [15] T. Lipman et al., Hydrogen-fuelled vehicles, Int. J. of Vehicle Design 17, 562 (1996). [16] W. True, U.S. pipelines continue gains into 1996. Oil and Gas Journal pp. 3958 (1996). [17] L. Summerer et al. Space and Ground Based LargeScale Power Plants A European Perspective, IAC03/R.1.09, 2003 [18] L. Summerer. Space and Terrestrial Solar Power Sources for Large-scale Hydrogen Production. Hypothesis V, Sardinia (I), p.233-258, 2003 [19] P. Glaser, Science 162, 856 (1968). [20] J. Mankins et al. Fresh Look Study, Tech. Rep. SIAC-97/1005, NASA, SAIC, Futron Corp. (1997). [21] N. Kaya, Space Energy and Transportation 1, 205 (1996). [22] P. Glaser, F. Davidson, and K. Csigi, Solar Power Satellites (John Wiley & Sons, 1998). [23] M. Klimke, DLR-Forschungsbericht-2001-12, 2001. [24] L. Metzroth, Renewables Information, IEA Statistics, International Energy Agency, Paris (2003). [25] V. Quaschning et al. Solar Power - Photovoltaics or Solar Thermal Power Plants? in Proceeding VGB Congress, Brussels (2001). [26] D. E. Osborn et al., in ASES Solar 96 (NSE Conf., Asheville, NC, 1996), Online Report http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/ases96.html (acc, Aug. 18, 2003). [27] A. Miller et al., Sustainable and Economic Hydrogen Co-generation from Nuclear Energy in Competitive Power Marketsin Int. Energy Workshop, IIASA Laxenburg (A), (2003). [28] F. Oney et al., Evaluation of pipeline transportation of hydrogen and natural gas Mixtures Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 19, 813 (1994). [29] R. Wurster et al, Hydrogen energy. in E n e r g y Technologies to Reduce CO2 Emissions in Europe: Prospects, Competition, Synergy (IEA, OECD, Petten Netherlands, 1994), pp. 115158. [30] Vasile M. A Systematic-Heuristic Approach for space Trajectory Design. Conf. on New Trends in Astrodynamics and Application, Washington Jan 2003.