And the production of the launch vehicle, arrays and infrastructure isn't green neither
stargazer777 - 14/7/2007 10:46 AMWell, you better hope it works or that we achieve a real breakthrough in Fusion real fast. Otherwise you and several million other Floridians along with the billions of people living in coastal areas around the world are going to be treading water full time once the melting of the polar caps and the Greenland ice sheet accelerates.
Neither fusion nor space solar is needed to stop global warming. Sufficient uranium and thorium reserves exist to power civilization through the use of breeder reactors for tens of thousands of years.
stargazer777 - 14/7/2007 1:06 PMAs should be apparent from my earlier posts, I am not opposed to nuclear power generated by fission. I am sure that fission generated power will be with us for a very long time. However, there are so many down-sides to this technology coupled with the massive and potentially dangerous waste disposal issues that no nation has successfully resolved that I don't believe it is the long term answer for the US or Europe let alone the rest of the planet.
Powering the entire world on fission energy will produce about 5000 tonnes of fission products per year, a volume that could be easily contained and which will decay rapidly to stability. Care to take a guess how much CO2 is emitted each year?
stargazer777 - 14/7/2007 1:28 PMYou are a good man and well intentioned, but I can't believe that you are seriously suggesting building hundreds if not thousands of breeder reactors all over the world. The nuclear proliferation threat issues alone are almost unimaginable. Add to that the difficulty in safely handling such reactors even in technologically advanced nations -- believe me when I say that this cure is worse than the disease.
Thank you for your kind assessment of my character, but building thousands of reactors is precisely what I am suggesting. We have thousands of coal plants spewing filth into the atmosphere--they must be replaced with fission if global warming is to be arrested.
stargazer777 - 14/7/2007 2:41 PMYour character is fine, but your proposed solution would have catastrophic consequences. There is no disagreement that coal and other fossil fueled power plants must be replaced very soon, but this is not the answer. The only countries that would endorse this idea are exactly the nations we do not want to have such technology.
stargazer777 - 14/7/2007 2:41 PMIn a peaceful world your solution might be reasonable. However, we don't live in that world. We live in a world with maniacal dictators desperate for nuclear weapons and religious fanatics like Al Quedea that would do anything to get nuclear material or better yet a fully functioning breeder reactor. We can never allow this technology to be globally disseminated.
stargazer777 - 14/7/2007 2:41 PMWe must find another solution. Think space solar power.
I can't let the discussion on this thread end on this unfortunate note.
First, there are many first rate thinkers that believe the promise of solar energy from space is real -- not imaginary -- something that is clearly attainable within our lifetimes, and which has the potential to profoundly change for the better the world we live in. At the end of this post I will list a number of recent studies and articles supporting this proposition. I am sorry, but the fact that you don't see this, Vanilla, doesn't mean it isn't true. Second, while I share the hope that nuclear power, in some form, will be a significant part of the energy solution, at least in the medium term, the course of action you have recommended is at best profoundly naive and grossly underestimates both the political complexities and the tremendous risk that the rapid and wholesale dissemination of this technology around the world would pose. You may brush off the risk of nuclear proliferation, but believe me no serious person in the government of any major power would do so and neither would they sanction a policy that would amount to a suicide pact with hostile or unstable governments and international terrorists. Nuclear proliferation is a problem and we clearly haven't been able to completely block it, but the course of action you advocate would blow the dam completely and pose an unconscionable risk for every developed nation and more broadly the entire population of this planet.If you really want to help save the planet then lets work on a solution that would leave it, and its population, alive and intact after it is implemented. If your argument against solar power is purely economic, then realize that we can, and rapidly changing circumstances due to rising energy costs and the worsening environmental situation inevitably will, dramatically change the rules of that game. A commitment by the US and other developed nations to launch a program equivalent to the Manhattan Project to develop a land based and space based solar power infrastructure would have a hugely beneficial impact not simply on the global warming crisis but also place us on the path to being able to provide clean and eventually unlimited power to every nation on the planet. No more OPEC, no more depending on unstable and erratic Third World nations, and no mushroom clouds in the bargain. And, of course, creation of the space based solar power infrastructure would have the added benefit that it would permanently put the human race in the space business and place us firmly and irrevocably on the path of being a space faring civilization.
As the Chinese proverb says, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Time to get moving!
On the economics point, SPS has to contend with ground-based solar and all these other power sources. I think Sam Dinkin gave very compelling argument against SPS. Given that SPS is roughly four times more efficient over time than the best Earth-based solar (ignoring many relevant issues here), then the SPS has to be no more than four times the cost of an Earth-based solar power system with the corresponding long term power output. And keep in mind that most things that allow you to make a SPS installation cheaper will also allow you to make an Earth-side installation cheaper. My take is that it's going to be a long time before SPS gets below that factor of four cost.
First, no one is arguing that efforts to build ground based solar power systems should be abandoned. They certainly should not be. However Dinkins off the cuff reaction to SPS is hardly an analysis. The problem with ground based systems is 1) night and, 2) weather (e.g. clouds, snow, etc.). Many if not most parts of the Northern Hemisphere aren't suitable for large scale solar power installations due to weather. The same applies to regions in the Southern Hemisphere subject to Monsoon or rainy seasons. That doesn't mean they can't install solar panels on houses, etc. It just means that they aren't favorable for the big scale installations we would need to provide consistent power and make a serious dent in the global climate problem and the overall power demand. Space based systems are always on (power at night and during bad weather) and always operate at maximum efficiency.
Second, as is previously noted several times in this thread, the ground on which the economics argument is based is shifting rapidly. The increasing scarcity and cost of fossil fuels, the economic costs of environmental damage and the need to reverse that damage, the need for clean combustion free energy, the need to stop the rapidly advancing global warming -- these are not just a feel good tree hugger arguments, they are a fundamental change in the way we must view and calculate the cost of energy. I am not sure where Dinkins got his four times more efficient numbers -- sounds like a WAG to me -- but I don't think he is taking this analysis seriously or should be taken seriously. I say this particularly in light of his column stating emigration off the planet -- after we ruin the environment -- is the only solution to global warming.
I remember reading about other way of producing electricity from solar power in space than by fotovoltaics. It uses parabolical mirror and heat turbine....
stargazer777 - 20/7/2007 4:16 AMOn the economics point, SPS has to contend with ground-based solar and all these other power sources. I think Sam Dinkin gave very compelling argument against SPS. Given that SPS is roughly four times more efficient over time than the best Earth-based solar (ignoring many relevant issues here), then the SPS has to be no more than four times the cost of an Earth-based solar power system with the corresponding long term power output. And keep in mind that most things that allow you to make a SPS installation cheaper will also allow you to make an Earth-side installation cheaper. My take is that it's going to be a long time before SPS gets below that factor of four cost.First, no one is arguing that efforts to build ground based solar power systems should be abandoned. They certainly should not be. However Dinkins off the cuff reaction to SPS is hardly an analysis. The problem with ground based systems is 1) night and, 2) weather (e.g. clouds, snow, etc.). Many if not most parts of the Northern Hemisphere aren't suitable for large scale solar power installations due to weather. The same applies to regions in the Southern Hemisphere subject to Monsoon or rainy seasons. That doesn't mean they can't install solar panels on houses, etc. It just means that they aren't favorable for the big scale installations we would need to provide consistent power and make a serious dent in the global climate problem and the overall power demand. Space based systems are always on (power at night and during bad weather) and always operate at maximum efficiency.
stargazer777 - 20/7/2007 12:16 PMFirst, no one is arguing that efforts to build ground based solar power systems should be abandoned. They certainly should not be. However Dinkins off the cuff reaction to SPS is hardly an analysis. The problem with ground based systems is 1) night and, 2) weather (e.g. clouds, snow, etc.). Many if not most parts of the Northern Hemisphere aren't suitable for large scale solar power installations due to weather. The same applies to regions in the Southern Hemisphere subject to Monsoon or rainy seasons. That doesn't mean they can't install solar panels on houses, etc. It just means that they aren't favorable for the big scale installations we would need to provide consistent power and make a serious dent in the global climate problem and the overall power demand. Space based systems are always on (power at night and during bad weather) and always operate at maximum efficiency.