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?


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

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?


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.


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

Ground based solar isn't going to cause that.


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.

Sylvia.