--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "bmaillists@..." wrote:
>
> I am curious, why not ?
>
> B.
>
> On Wed Jun 30 1:28 , 'William' sent:
> >I am *not* an advocate of SPS.
>
In fact, the awkward truth is that space solar is a way to make solar power so exorbitantly expensive to start up that nuclear power starts looking rosy by comparison. Thats not a good sign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_renewable_energy_topics_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Sustainable_development
http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html
http://www.geo-energy.org/
http://egs.egi.utah.edu/
http://geocen.iyte.edu.tr/english/indexEnglish.htm
http://terresacree.org/geothermieprofondeanglais.htm
http://www.newsunfiltered.com/archives/2005/09/expanding_geoth.html
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn11010-us-urged-to-boost-its-geothermal-power-capacity.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal_powe.php
all geothermal power options are not equal. Dry rock for instance is a lot more hazardous.
The ideal would simply create a closed circuit with a pooling area at the bottom, and this would not cause
problems like this place did because the water would not be going out into the surrounding rock.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/geothermal-energy-and-its-advantages.html
http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/17819/Geothermal-Power-Generation-The-sleeping-giant
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/PlusSide/geothermal.html
http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/geothermal.htm
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/03-the-great-forgotten-clean-energy-source
http://www.planetpuna.com/geothermal/geothermal%20critique.htm
this is just to be fair. It should be noted that this is all about one plant thats operating too close to the magma
and not using double closed circuit.
http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/geothermal-power-station.html
> From: pan p
> simple. Geothermal power is by far cheaper and more
> accessible. Space solar is a side show, it won't get us
> habitats in space and it won't compete well at all with
> terrestrial forms of power.
pipes in just a couple of years. While it's possible to rebore the deep
shafts, cleaning the rest of the equipment remains extremely problamatical.
And SSP isn't fantastically expensive. It's just 10x the cost because it's
10x the capacity. But some of the non-conventional nuclear reactors like
LFTR, ploywell and conventional fusion also look very promising.
John
Geothermal is good, but it has drawbacks and limitations just like every
other form of electricity production. It isn't viable everywhere,
although the low temp kind would be very useful as a way to lower the
electricity required for heating and cooling in most locations.
production systems, often aligned around areas where they are most
suitable. eg Geothermal in active areas, OTEC in the tropics etc.
As for space solar, I would expect the first few built to be expensive,
but then the costs should drop off due to the build up in experience,
knowledge and infrastructure required to build them.
B.
pan p wrote:
b- it adds to the attractiveness of sps that once built there is no continuing cost for production which can't be said for most hi production methods. It's also pollution free and begins the process of ADDING energy to our system rather than systematically depleting it. Once we can get launch costs down to something approaching reasonable sps really begins to shine- it's the cost of getting men and materials to orbit that makes them expensive, not the mechanism themselves.
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 10:24 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] space solar / geothermal Energy
Geothermal is good, but it has drawbacks and limitations just like every
other form of electricity production. It isn't viable everywhere,
although the low temp kind would be very useful as a way to lower the
electricity required for heating and cooling in most locations.
Personally I think we'll end up with a mix of major electricity
production systems, often aligned around areas where they are most
suitable. eg Geothermal in active areas, OTEC in the tropics etc.
As for space solar, I would expect the first few built to be expensive,
but then the costs should drop off due to the build up in experience,
knowledge and infrastructure required to build them.
B.
pan p wrote:
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, b wrote:
>
> Geothermal is good, but it has drawbacks and limitations just like every
> other form of electricity production.
the only seriouys drawback is a high installation cost. In every other measure Geothermal outperforms every other kind of energy we have available hands down. It is cheaper by order of magnitude than even solar, it is more accessible by order of magnitude than solar, it potentially can give us yields orders of magnitude larger than nuclear,
It isn't viable everywhere,
Yes, its viable almost everywhere, there is lava underneath the crust
no matter where you go on the surface of the planet. If we can dig nine miles deep for oil we can go five miles deep for lava heat and thats the deepest you would have to go almost anywhere.
Liars and con artists like to pretend that Geothermal is only accessible at hot spots. This is a smoke and mirrors distraction.
Yes, it is easier to access there, but that does not mean that we can't access it anywhere else.
> although the low temp kind would be very useful as a way to lower the
> electricity required for heating and cooling in most locations.
>
> Personally I think we'll end up with a mix of major electricity
> production systems, often aligned around areas where they are most
> suitable. eg Geothermal in active areas, OTEC in the tropics etc.
My plan as written includes other forms of energy in combination with geothermal. OTEC is very expensive compared to geothermal and could be disasters for local ocean ecosystems.
A small number of OTEC systems is not objectionable, but to compare to even one large geothermal power station you would have to make thousands of such installations.
>
> As for space solar, I would expect the first few built to be expensive,
> but then the costs should drop off due to the build up in experience,
> knowledge and infrastructure required to build them.
The cost drops off when we start using asteroid materials instead of importing things from earth up. Until then, space solar is a silly waste of time compared to getting serious infrastructure in space in order to obtain that cost drop off.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
>
> b- it adds to the attractiveness of sps that once built there is no continuing cost for production which can't be said for most hi production methods. It's also pollution free
No, it isn't, its close, but there are ecological impacts involved in creating the materials and etc.
99.9 percent pollution free is still .1 percent polluting.
which is why space solar is a totally ludicrous abstraction until we start harvesting asteroids.
Once we have materials in space to build with, its a fine idea.
? too many people want to put carts before horses and just don't get the basics of what the situation really is.
Space solar does not get us closer to that goal. It does not give us a space habitat. It does not get us closer to asteroid capture. It does not flip the economics of space back around like actually getting those habitats and those captured asteroids done.
Space solar is just one more way for the evil overlords to make energy expensive in order to keep making money from it, instead of making energy cheap, and solve our real problems.
It is a distraction, it is a laughable and ludicrous distraction, and anybody who understands the realities knows this.