|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Mike Combs" wrote: 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. Agreed. Though of course, nuclear power could do the same thing. (But it has its own set of problems.) ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Combs" wrote in message
... "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. Lets assume for a moment that global dimming is a reality, (there is some disturbing evidence). This perhaps goes something like all the pollution currently released with greenhouse gases is blocking the sun and largely counteracting global warming, (who knows?). Inference being that halting such pollution without similarly stopping the greenhouse gases would result in greatly accelerated global warming. It might be a fair assumption that under SPS we would not use electric aircraft, cars, etcetera, but instead use LH2 or hydrocarbon fuels energised by SPS. This scenario would see a similar release of greenhouse gases, (especially H2O), without the accompanying sun blocking pollution. The result of this might be SPS induced accelerated global warming. :-) Seriously though, sun blocking is almost the only practical solution to global warming that I can envisage, should one be required. BOTE calculations inferred a few billion dollars annually to add sufficient dust into the upper atmosphere. This is a few orders of magnitude cheaper than Kyoto, and it should actually work. This is the emergency short term fix should we need it. The long term solution to global warming is to take control of global wind and water currents. This enables crude and localised climate control, (temperature and humidity/rainfall), and also enables sea level management, (by freezing the poles). Obviously this would not be a small undertaking, however, the increased agricultural output should more than pay for it. As a by product, it also produces enough energy to serve the world's needs. Deserts, land and sea, (the latter nutrient poor), can be partially phased out, greatly increasing global biomass. Pete. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Joe Strout wrote: ...and trying to block out the Sun is not the solution. A recent paper in Science ("Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: energy for a greenhouse planet", 1 Nov 2002 issue) concluded that "planetary engineering" strategies -- like partial blocking of sunlight -- were worth exploring as a backup strategy, although more direct solutions seemed preferable. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CEV PDQ | Scott Lowther | History | 829 | June 12th 05 07:17 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 4th 05 05:21 AM |
CRACK THIS CODE!!! WHY DID IT HAPPEN READ THIS DISTRUCTION!!!! | zetasum | History | 0 | February 3rd 05 01:28 AM |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 02:32 PM |