SPS vs. solar/wind/hydrogen debate (Long Post)

"TangoMan" wrote:
If I was submitting the post as an article for publication I'd first
proofread it, edit it, and run a spell check but as it was a stream of
consciousness effort that I dashed off in a hour or so, I think most people
are accepting of a laxer standard in e-mail and usenet posts.

The sci.* and specifically the sci.space.* folks generally are not so
accepting. This isn't alt.flame, or rec.fan.teletubbies, but rather a
group that actually attempts to maintain a reasonable standard of
discussion. (We do fail, but that does not invalidate the attempt.)

Quite frankly I'm surprised to read your criticism.

Quite frankly, if you don't want criticism, don't post on a public
newsgroup. *Nobody* here is immune to criticism, *nobody*. Indeed
all of our best and brightest seek the hottest parts of the flame,
because there metal gains its highest temper. And unlike many parts
of Usenet, our brightest and best are largely folks who are actually
doing things in the field, from notable authors and journalists to
designers to shop workers. (And not a few folks like myself,
enthusiastic amateurs with related experience.)

My humble advice to you is not to be a "grammer ninny" and pester people
about their spelling and grammer mistakes, otherwise they may find you
annoying. Take the advice or leave it.

That attitude is one of someone who is more interested in preaching
than discussion. It's also a good way to end up in kill files. With
the exception of a (very few) pet trolls, it's simple not tolerated
around here.

As to whether you judge the merit of the post by it's substance or by
whether the author signs it with a "real name" or psuedonym, that's not my
worry. I'd rather have my post judged by its substance.

If you are truly the professional you allude to being, then you know
damm well that the ability to communicate is what seperates the men
from the boys. Not caring about your communications is often a sure
sign of lack of care in the communications.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Len Lekx) wrote:

This makes no sense to me. The solar-to-microwave conversion has
to take place SOMEWHERE, and the solar flux is the same in GEO as it
is on the lunar surface,

No, the total flux in GEO is significantly *greater* than would be
seen for a lunar surface farm, which spends two weeks out of each
month in darkness. As has been pointed out here multiple times,
surviving the lunar dark is *hard*. Your 'farm' will need a source of
power, or power storage, which is seriously non-trivial.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Alex Terrell) wrote:
You might want to give a little more thought to offshore wind energy,
which is becoming cost competitve and has virtually no environmental
drawbacks.

A statement I'm not entirely certain of the truth of. To start with,
you are drawing large amounts of energy from the atmosphere.
Secondly, you will have a bunch of anchor cables (which will attract
and retain algae, sea weed, and critters) as well as numerous anchors
on the sea floor. Lastly you have a significant trenching effort to
bring the power from the farm to the shore.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

In article Yrbwb.482226$9l5.237679@pd7tw2no,
"TangoMan" wrote:

To tell you the truth I've had my fill with environmentalists. Soft
environmentalists, a group that I would belong to, actually favor careful
environmental stewardshp, but most of the vocal people in the movement are
more about the lifestyle and assorted politics.I've nothing in common with
them. I've reached that conclusion based on my personal experience.

But a group is made up of its members -- if all who can think rationally
retire from such groups, then we're left with nothing but irrational
groups wielding a fair amount of political power. I suspect you'd say
that this is already the case, and that may be so, but the flipside is
that if more of us "rational environmentalists" (or whatever you want to
call it) were to join, the nature of the group would be changed, at
least to some degree.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:18:05 GMT, "TangoMan"
wrote:

You should see the way discussions devolve in the
rec.models.rockets newsgroup. ;-)
Look at the substance of this thread thus far - most of it has to do with
the grammer issue and not the topic. Pity.

Isn't that half the fun, though...? :-) This is kinda mild,
though - one r.m.r. discussion started with organizing a local launch,
and wound up as a beer-drinking challenge.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:24:28 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

No, the total flux in GEO is significantly *greater* than would be
seen for a lunar surface farm, which spends two weeks out of each
month in darkness. As has been pointed out here multiple times,

I guess I misspoke the point I was trying to make. What I was
getting at was - barring day/night cycles (since the theory goes that
we'd place our solar farms at the lunar poles, in continual
sunlight...), the Sun puts the same amount of energy into a given
area... 1.5-something kilowatts per sqare meter... so it doesn't
matter if the collector area is in orbit or on the lunar surface.

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article Yrbwb.482226$9l5.237679@pd7tw2no,
"TangoMan" wrote:

To tell you the truth I've had my fill with environmentalists. Soft
environmentalists, a group that I would belong to, actually favor
careful
environmental stewardshp, but most of the vocal people in the movement
are
more about the lifestyle and assorted politics.I've nothing in common
with
them. I've reached that conclusion based on my personal experience.

But a group is made up of its members -- if all who can think rationally
retire from such groups, then we're left with nothing but irrational
groups wielding a fair amount of political power. I suspect you'd say
that this is already the case, and that may be so, but the flipside is
that if more of us "rational environmentalists" (or whatever you want to
call it) were to join, the nature of the group would be changed, at
least to some degree.

What you write makes sense, but for me at least, I've run out of tolerance
for
the baggage that comes with those movements.

I think it comes down to individual priorities and for me the *battle* to
change the character of the environmental movement isn't important enough to
devote much time to. If, OTOH, there was a group formed that consisted of,
rational environmentalists, for lack of a better term, then I'd much more
enjoy the company of like-minded people.

I hope that you have influence within the Sierra Club. Solar and wind power
do have a role to play but they are not adequate means to provide baseload
power. Is SPS? There are many problems with the concept as well and I think
the jury is still out, but it does warrant further study and it bothers me
that the environmentalists dismiss it so quickly and keep blindly chanting
the mantra of solar and wind power for the future.

Perhaps if you, and other rationalists, devote the energy to getting the
message out things will change. You may have noticed from the tone of my
post that my frustration level at the obstinance of the environmentalist
postition has pretty much crested.

I tend to think that the reaction a rationalist will get from the
environmentalist movement is the same a communist will get from the John
Birch Society I hope I'm wrong.

TangoMan

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"TangoMan" wrote:
If I was submitting the post as an article for publication I'd first
proofread it, edit it, and run a spell check but as it was a stream of
consciousness effort that I dashed off in a hour or so, I think most
people
are accepting of a laxer standard in e-mail and usenet posts.

The sci.* and specifically the sci.space.* folks generally are not so
accepting.

Really? I don't see any posts starting with proper salutations. The absense
of such saluatations seems to me to be indicative of a laxer standard in
e-mail and usenet etiquette. I don't see proper footnoting either. Linking
seems to be used as a less rigorous substitute, and that's appropriate for
this form of communication.

This isn't alt.flame, or rec.fan.teletubbies, but rather a
group that actually attempts to maintain a reasonable standard of
discussion. (We do fail, but that does not invalidate the attempt.)

I agree and try to meet the standard. I didn't dispute the observations
about the grammer, for he was correct, rather I just found it surprising
that the poster thought they were worthy of mention.

This type of thing can quickly become a ****ing contest, ergo the nature of
this thread.

Quite frankly I'm surprised to read your criticism.

Quite frankly, if you don't want criticism, don't post on a public
newsgroup.

It seems you're looking for the ****ing contest, so I'll comply.

To help you along with your comprehension of the English language you may
not know that 'surprise' doesn't mean intolerance. I'm quite willing to take
criticism but found the nature of the criticism, not unwarranted, but rather
tangetial to the issue.

*Nobody* here is immune to criticism, *nobody*.

Thanks for that tip, for as much as I looked I couldn't find the list of the
sacrosanct anywhere. I'm so relieved that I'm able to use your post to test
the waters on this matter.

Indeed all of our best and brightest seek the hottest parts of the flame,
because there metal gains its highest temper.

Then what are you doing in this part of the flame?

And unlike many parts of Usenet, our brightest and best are largely folks
who are actually doing things in the field, from notable authors and
journalists to
designers to shop workers. (And not a few folks like myself,
enthusiastic amateurs with related experience.)

Which is why I enjoy reading the commentary from knowledgeable people and
why I prefaced my post with this note:

"I'm looking for info, links and criticism to strengthen the case of SPS vs.
terrestrial solar and wind power that I present below so I appeal to the
resident experts who frequent this group."

My humble advice to you is not to be a "grammer ninny" and pester people
about their spelling and grammer mistakes, otherwise they may find you
annoying. Take the advice or leave it.

That attitude is one of someone who is more interested in preaching
than discussion.

From a faulty premise flows a faulty conclusion, or in your case, with an
appeal to no premise comes a conclusion without any substantiation.

It's also a good way to end up in kill files. With
the exception of a (very few) pet trolls, it's simple not tolerated
around here.

It looks like I've stirred the ire of the group's resident pedant.

As to whether you judge the merit of the post by it's substance or by
whether the author signs it with a "real name" or psuedonym, that's not
my
worry. I'd rather have my post judged by its substance.

If you are truly the professional you allude to being, then you know
damm well that the ability to communicate is what seperates the men
from the boys.

First off, do you make a habit of questioning the integrity of all your
correspondents? My professional status, or lack of it, has no bearing on the
substance of what I wrote. I make no claims of authority based on my
profession. I only referenced it to be courteous and explain why I post
under a psuedonym, and I do so responsibly for that is the reputation I wish
to maintain.

So an error in grammer is now sufficient evidence of an inability to
communicate. How curious. I'll have to keep a close eye on this matter and
see how many others also share this failing.

Not caring about your communications is often a sure
sign of lack of care in the communications.

LOL, this is a tautological statement! Surely, as the group's pedant you can
do better than this!

See what I mean about the thread going off-topic.

TangoMan

"Len Lekx" wrote in message
news:3fc16d5a.884413029@nntp...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:18:05 GMT, "TangoMan"
wrote:

You should see the way discussions devolve in the
rec.models.rockets newsgroup. ;-)
Look at the substance of this thread thus far - most of it has to do with
the grammer issue and not the topic. Pity.

Isn't that half the fun, though...? :-) This is kinda mild,
though - one r.m.r. discussion started with organizing a local launch,
and wound up as a beer-drinking challenge.

Sure it's fun to get into verbal jousting, especially without malice, but
right now I've got a fire in my belly about willful environmentalist
blindness. The mental gymnastics that they go through rather than admit that
some of their philopshies are built on a tenuous foundation is amazing to
watch.

I was looking for others to help strengthen the argument I made so that it
could be tightened and made harder for the greenies to refute.

If I didn't have that green burr in my sides then I'd definitely enjoy more
all the sparring regardless of the topic.

Yes, you're right, the falmes are mild, and are a tempest in a teapot.
Hopefully more criticism and suggestions about how the actual argument can
be strengthened will follow.

TangoMan

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Len Lekx wrote:

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:23:42 GMT
From: Len Lekx
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: SPS vs. solar/wind/hydrogen debate (Long Post)

On 23 Nov 2003 10:27:22 -0800, (Alex Terrell)
wrote:

You might want to give a little more thought to offshore wind energy,
which is becoming cost competitve and has virtually no environmental

But that still doesn't address the irregularity of wind power... or
do you know of an offshore site where the wind blows at a constant
rate, 24/7...? ;-)


----------------------------------------------
Direct windpower is intermittent, although if the electricity is fed
from very dispersed sites it is less so. However, most scenarios don't
involve 100% reliance on windpower. Right now, Denmark gets 20% of all
its electricity from the wind and Germany gets 5% (and rapidly
growing). So
windpower is usually considered one of several major energy forms in a
mix.

However, I have read that indirect windpower, in which wind generated
electicity is used to electrolize water, could produce hydrogen so that
the H2 equivalnet of a gallon of gasoline would cost $2.50 (this includes
the pieplines and other aspects of distribution) provided that the direct
cost of wind power was $0.03 kwh. Since some (but not most) wind turbines
currently operate at $0.025 kwh, we are not all that far from that goal.
And H2 would be a continuous source of energy.

-- Larry