Sylvia Else wrote in
:

somefools wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote in
:

jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:
Who on the planet would not
benefit from reversing the current energy trend, and creating a
trend of ever more abundant, cleaner and cheaper energy over
time?
I'm afraid I can't agree about the space solar power concept. I
just can't see how the economics pan out compared with surface
based solar power.
The economics are irrelevant, it's the trend reversal that matters.

Those are two different things. Compare the economics with a
world of fifteen billion people which is almost /entirely
industrialized/. The current solution they are moving to is coal,
not solar btw. Those are two very ominous trends. Combine that
with the realization that the current estimates of oil reserves are
highly inflated. Due to OPEC basing annual quotas on estimated
reserves, the more a country /claims/ to have in the ground, the
more they can pump. There is roughly half the oil left than is
currently estimated.

The recent spike in oil from $40 to $160 is a non-linear response
characteristic of a stressed or thin system. Where a minor
disruption on the in put side, creates a massive response on the
output. This is the sign of a system wide breaking or tipping
point. We are ALREADY AT THE TIPPING POINT for fossil fuels
and few seem to appreciate it.

A small disturbance, at a tipping or critical point, say the
impending sanctions on Iran, can cascade into a massive panic
situation overnight. A panic situation so well displayed by the
recent stock market crash. The mathematics of such panics are my
hobby as they form the basis of my trading strategy.

And the oil CRASH will happen as quickly as the stock market crash,
overnight. We can recover from the stock market crash, since it was
essentially a hoarding of cash.where people sold everything and
waited it out.

But when the oil crash hits, that will be something entirely
different as the sudden overnight hoarding of oil will bring down
the industrialized world...overnight. How about a generation
returned against their will to a pre- industrial state? The world
wide collapse of our cities. It's going to happen overnight someday
soon unless a new source of energy, even an expensive one, even a
pipe-dream enters the market with the p r o m i s e ....of .... e
n d l e s s g r o w t h.

It is that PERCEPTION of a new endless source that will prevent
The Next Great Crash. Panics are not started by FACTS, they are
started by FEARS amidst a thin or critically behaving system.

We need that promising new source and we need it soon.

The decision itself, the commitment alone is enough to
avert a panic situation, as markets based their decisions
on what will be, not what is. They anticipate.

The world needs to believe our energy future is bright.
They need to be convinced by a dedicating ourselves
to that goal. That perception is needed, and soon.

The oil crash can be averted without building single
solar powered satellite. The economics, the details
don't matter right now.

We need a new direction. What solutions are finally settled
on down the road will take care of themselves, it' the...
NEW TREND which has the ability to change the world.

Combine at that with the simple fact NASA itself needs a
new direction, a new reason for being. I mean, the world
is there for the saving.

It's right there waiting to be saved.
I fear I'm not succeeding in making my point properly. Nothing new
there.

If a point is reached, or has been reached, at which the use of
fossil fuels, or the increased use thereof, is not acceptable
because of the effects on the evironment, and/or climate, then an
alternative needs to be found.

But that doesn't mean that because space based solar power is an
alternative, that it's what must be used.

Land based solar power is also an alternative. Fusion power is also
possibly an alternative, but it's twenty five years away, and always
has been.

But of the acceptable alternatives, you want to use the cheapest. To
do otherwise involves throwing money away. I don't see how space
based solar power can be cheaper than land based solar power, even
after you've address the particular issues that the latter has.

No clouds. No night. No degradation/corrosion. No atmospheric losses.
No overheating of the cells.

Why no overheating?

Because it's very cold in the shadows.

There are many advantages to space based solar power.

The only disadvantage is launch costs. The space elevator concept
could solve that for us by making geosynchronous orbit a (long)
elevator ride away.

The only disadvantage? Other than bringing the down on cables
supported by the space elevator (which requires materials of strengths
we don't possess), you'd need some sort of power beaming technology

We have both, and not just in the lab. There have been demonstrations of
the needed tech and improvements are made every year.

What of the scope for a nation threatening to beam its power at an
adversory rather than at the ground stations intended to receive the
power? What about that happening by accident?

What happens to birds that fly through the beams?

The micro wave beams could be made so dispersed as to be harmless to
birds or in the extremely unlikely event the array could be re-purposed
somehow (ala Dr Evil).

But the most important thing to recognize is that "costs" are a funny
game. Depending on where you draw you system boundaries, the "costs"
of not doing space based solar power may far outstrip the
competition.

How do you account for the cost of the two Iraq wars, for instance?
Those were a cost-of-doing-business expense in order to maintain our
oil addiction. A cost that could have been avoided, if it were not
for our addiction to dinosaur juice.

The dicussion here is not about whether we should stick to fossil
fuels. It's about whether ground based solar is cheaper than space
based, even after the issues with it are addressed.

Cheaper is in the eye of the beholder... that was my point.

Or how do you put a dollar value on the loss of habitat and species?

Ground based solar isn't going to cause that.

It already has. Just getting the permits to let cooling water evaporate
is a big deal, let alone the vast amount land that will be covered by
mirrors... permanently changing the micro climate of the area under
them.

What about the costs of human disease cased by pollution?

If all these things were taken into account some how, fossil fuels
would likely rank lower on the cost effective scale, as would nuclear
once the cost of containment over a 100 thousand years is factored
into it.

It doesn't cost much in the scheme of things to contain fuel for 100
thousand years. Look up discounted cash flow and net present value.

In the grand scheme of things we are all going to be extinct...