Time to start building space elevator or die

The space elevator might be the only way to save mankind from the effects of
global warming.
With the use of the elevator a large sunshield can be placed in a stable
orbit between the earth and the sun.
Rockets could be used but the scale of the project would make these
virtually useless.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:49:46 +1000, s wrote:

The space elevator might be the only way to save mankind from the effects of
global warming.
With the use of the elevator a large sunshield can be placed in a stable
orbit between the earth and the sun.
Rockets could be used but the scale of the project would make these
virtually useless.

Uh - why? Really, all we'd have to do to cut down on incoming
sunlight is spread reflective particles into orbit in a sky-writing
type rocket trail. Rockets would be perfect for that.

Of course that assumes that global warming will have a negative
effect, which has not been shown - it also hasn't been shown that just
living with the effects of global warming wouldn't be cheaper than
working to prevent or reverse it.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 08:43:50 -0400, wrote, in part:

Of course that assumes that global warming will have a negative
effect, which has not been shown - it also hasn't been shown that just
living with the effects of global warming wouldn't be cheaper than
working to prevent or reverse it.

Gambling with the continued existence of *all the people there are* is
not an option. Earth is not yet home to merely 1% of the human beings in
a Solar System opened to human settlement.

Of course, currently, we don't have one world government. Therefore, we
have competing nations, each trying to be militarily stronger than its
neighbors, so it is very difficult to get countries to limit their
energy consumption and their population. If, fifty years ago, only one
out of every hundred families had gotten a permit to have one child, the
world's energy demands would be much lower. Of course, that might be too
rapid, as it might not allow enough young people to take care of the
elderly. Perhaps one out of ten.

What's wrong with _that_ picture, of course, is that the only immediate
option for 'one world government' would be surrender to the
dictatorships; this would have the result of making human existence
pointless. Are there other options?

Why, yes, there are. We _can_ tread more gently on the Earth without
attempting to curtail human material well-being to an unrealistic
extent. There are other ways to produce energy besides the use of fossil
fuels.

Quite simple, really.

All the electricity that isn't supplied from hydroelectric power - build
nuclear power plants to produce it. Build them big enough so that their
constant output equals the peak demand, not the baseload demand.

Work like mad to develop fusion power - and to develop the thorium
breeder as well, in case it turns out to be a long wait for the former.

There is no reason to tolerate the possibility of global warming, when
it hasn't been proved that catastrophic consequences of it are
impossible. Local catastrophes have happened from resource consumption
of societies in the past; today, the world is more heavily populated
than at that time, and our reach is greater, and so global catastrophe
is not impossible.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

In article ,
John Savard wrote:

Of course, currently, we don't have one world government. Therefore, we
have competing nations, each trying to be militarily stronger than its
neighbors, so it is very difficult to get countries to limit their
energy consumption and their population. If, fifty years ago, only one
out of every hundred families had gotten a permit to have one child, the
world's energy demands would be much lower.

Or the 99% of the population deemed unsuitable for reproduction
might have overthrown the WorldGov, since while they might risk death in
a messy civil war, their families will definitely be expunged under the
WorldGov Plan.

--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:09:11 GMT, in a place far, far away,
lid (John Savard) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Why, yes, there are. We _can_ tread more gently on the Earth without
attempting to curtail human material well-being to an unrealistic
extent. There are other ways to produce energy besides the use of fossil
fuels.

Yes, and as the cost of fossil fuels rises, we will continue to shift
over to them more and more.

Which do you think would be most cost efficient.
1) Creating a reflective dust cloud round the Earth
2) Placing some kind of umbrella in orbit round the Earth
3) Placing a much smaller umbrella at the stable point between the
Earth and Sun.

Option 1 would probably continuously need topping up.

Option 2 would need to surround the whole Earth to give an effective
shield with only that on the Sun facing side working at one time.
Rather a hazzard to space flight as well.

Option 3 would need more fuel to place in position, but would be much
smaller thus might be more efficient.


Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:09:11 GMT, in a place far, far away,
lid (John Savard) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Why, yes, there are. We _can_ tread more gently on the Earth without
attempting to curtail human material well-being to an unrealistic
extent. There are other ways to produce energy besides the use of fossil
fuels.

Yes, and as the cost of fossil fuels rises, we will continue to shift
over to them more and more.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Which do you think would be most cost efficient.
1) Creating a reflective dust cloud round the Earth
2) Placing some kind of umbrella in orbit round the
Earth
3) Placing a much smaller umbrella at the stable point
between the Earth and Sun.

Option 1 would probably continuously need topping
up.

Option one will be many orders of magnitude more cost effective. If
memory serves the average life expectancy of such dust in the atmosphere
is around three years. This should enable fairly responsive regulation
of dust levels.

Perhaps a dozen 747s continuously ferrying dust to altitude might be
sufficient, (highly dependent on assumptions, particularly average
particle size). A cross the board jet fuel dust additive might be more
easily made to happen, it might only be a few percent of such fuel by
mass. Fly back artillery systems, high mountains and towers, thermals
from power stations, jet streams, etcetera, might also bring the cost
down dramatically. The type of dust might also be selected for specific
wave lengths - reduced UV might greatly reduce cancer rates.

A nuclear winter is the quick fix to global warming, and it would only
take one nuclear power to get desperate.

Lets say global warming does get bad and result in global depression,
this would quite likely result in at least a little nuclear war as
people naturally start fighting over fewer resources. So global warming
will be "naturally" counter acted. :-)

Pete.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Which do you think would be most cost efficient.
1) Creating a reflective dust cloud round the Earth
2) Placing some kind of umbrella in orbit round the Earth
3) Placing a much smaller umbrella at the stable point between the
Earth and Sun.

You left off option 4:

4) Use the space infrastructure you'd need to build giant sunshields in
space to instead build Solar Power Satellites.

The SPS would speed the retirement of fossil-fueled power plants, thus doing
more to combat global warming than would anything merely providing a bit of
shade.

But if limited to your 3 choices, I'd pick 2. I hear you that it's less
than efficient in that the shades are not always between you and the sun,
but the L-1 sunshade is also less than efficient in that the penumbra is
several times the size of the Earth by the time it gets here, meaning much
of the shadow is wasted, so to speak.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

In article , s wrote:

The space elevator might be the only way to save mankind from the effects of
global warming.
With the use of the elevator a large sunshield can be placed in a stable
orbit between the earth and the sun.
Rockets could be used but the scale of the project would make these
virtually useless.

Please don't be silly. Space elevators are a worthwhile project, and
global warming is a legitimate concern, but they have almost nothing to
do with each other, and trying to block out the Sun is not the solution.

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

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article , s wrote:

The space elevator might be the only way to save mankind from the
effects of
global warming.
With the use of the elevator a large sunshield can be placed in a stable
orbit between the earth and the sun.
Rockets could be used but the scale of the project would make these
virtually useless.

Please don't be silly. Space elevators are a worthwhile project, and
global warming is a legitimate concern, but they have almost nothing to
do with each other, and trying to block out the Sun is not the solution.

It would be far more sensible to argue that the space elevator will enable
mass construction of SPS, and that this will reduce global warming by
reducing the need for new fossil-fueled power plants, and by speeding the
retirement of existing ones.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.