--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com 13172, "hitssquad" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com 13166, "sailor.barsoom" wrote:
> > In something set three hundred years from, [...] most people on Earth live in clean cities with aggressive recycling and energy from space. [...] How much of this is realistic?
> Energy from space (to Earth) isn't realistic, given the presence of cheaper alternatives. A population of less than a billion is realistic, but not necessary. Most of the planet could be set aside as a nature preserve even with an Earth population of a trillion.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com 13292, "hitssquad" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com 13291, "sailor.barsoom" wrote:
> > hitsquad [...] says flatly that X cannot be done for Y reason
> What did I say couldn't be done? Please quote me.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com 13294, "sailor.barsoom" wrote:
> You stated that 100 trillion people on Earth was more realistic than power from space, because of tidal forces.

No, I said: "Energy from space (to Earth) isn't realistic, given the presence of cheaper alternatives."

The bottom line is that there's already an electricity supply on Earth, and there's nothing compelling enough about electricity from space to figure on it being a good bet. People want hot showers and cold beer. They have that. You need to find a different product or service -- hopefully something people want, that they don't already have:
https://www.google.com/search?q=make+things+people+want

273 million hits.

> Then because of a quadrillion bucks a GW.

People already have cold beer and hot showers. Time to move on.

My take on what people want, flip it: what they don't want is
electricity outages, high electricity cost, high heating/cooling costs,
high fuel costs in their vehicles.

Also remember that the US is not the world. While there may be adequate
supplies of electricity, hot showers and cold beer in some of the world,
there are parts where there isn't.

There is also the consideration of what to replace fossil fuel use in
vehicles with (although Shale products may replace petrol for a while),
if it's hydrogen or batteries, you're going to need a lot more
electricity production.

Annual electricity consumption worldwide went from just under 16,400
TW/hrs in 2006 to just over 18,460 TW/hrs in 2010. That's off an
installed capacity base of 4,300 GW in 2006 through to 5,060 GW in
2010. (from
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=7) A
decent percentage of that needs to be replaced each year as older power
stations get taken off line, without even considering the number of
extra stations required for the increase.

Take the 3 Gorges Dam, the largest power station by installed capacity,
22.5 GW, when it was designed it was expected to supply 10% of China's
electricity, now built and at full operational capacity it only covers 1.7%

I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

Brett

On 03/07/2013 20:57, hitssquad wrote:

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com 13296, b wrote:
> people [...] don't want [...] high electricity cost

Do you have a plan for reducing electricity cost further?

> There is also the consideration of what to replace fossil fuel use in vehicles with

If you meant liquid hydrocarbons, the answer is "no".

> there are parts [of the world] where there isn't [electricity]

...Where faulty economic arrangements obtain. This doesn't mean there's a market for SSP there.

The world already produces electricity. Electric power plants aren't natural resources. People made them. People can make more of them -- where there aren't faulty economic arrangements.

> Take the 3 Gorges Dam

How are you planning on stopping China from building the 28 land-based nuclear power reactors it already has under construction, the 49 it has planned, and the 120 it has proposed?:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/World-Nuclear-Power-Reactors-and-Uranium-Requirements/

Why would you want to stop them building the nuclear power stations?
they need the electricity, more than what they currently produce, and
the current nuclear stations are a drop in the bucket compared to their
fossil fuel powered stations.

Electricity production needs to come from multiple sources, particularly
in the next few decades. Even if SSP production was ramped right up it
will take time to replace just the fossil fuel stations. There are also
advantages to not having all your eggs in one basket.

People can make more power stations, where there are suitable fuel
sources and where those sources are cost effective. However most of
those sources are getting more expensive. Again, shale may change that
equation for the next few years.

With vehicles I wasn't talking about hydrocarbons, but if you are
replacing petrol and diesel with hydrogen, the main source of hydrogen
production at the moment is fossil fuels. To do otherwise you need large
amounts of cheap electricity. Same if you swap to rechargeable batteries.

Brett

On 03/07/2013 22:51, hitssquad wrote:

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, b wrote:
> Electricity production needs to come from multiple sources,

No.

> There are [...] advantages to not having all your eggs in one basket.

...Then build more than one nuclear power plant, and build reactors of more than one kind. China is doing both of those things:
http://world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/#.UdQgfr7n-M8

> With vehicles I wasn't talking about hydrocarbons

You said "fossil fuels". I corrected you, since liquid hydrocarbon fuels don't have to come from fossils.

> but if you are replacing petrol and diesel with hydrogen

That was done long ago. 5% of the energy in the gasoline in your tank wasn't there when that gasoline was in the form of oil. It was added -- by people -- in the form of hydrogen.

> the main source of hydrogen production at the moment is fossil fuels. To do otherwise you need large amounts of cheap electricity.

Nuclear power reactors make electricity. That's a problem for SSP.

Also, nuclear reactors can make hydrogen more efficiently than can be done with electricity alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur%E2%80%93iodine_cycle

That's another problem for SSP.

Nuclear is a competitor, not a show stopper, or a major problem. I would
even go as far as to say competitors are a good thing.

Brett

On 03/07/2013 23:20, hitssquad wrote:

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, b wrote:
> Nuclear is a competitor, not a show stopper

Yes. That's a problem for SSP, if SSP is supposed to be a cash cow. Electricity is not a business you want to be in if you want to make a lot of money.

> competitors are a good thing.

Let's see your plan.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "hitssquad" wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, b wrote:
> > Electricity production needs to come from multiple sources,
>
> No.
>
> > There are [...] advantages to not having all your eggs in one basket.
>
> ...Then build more than one nuclear power plant, and build reactors of more than one kind. China is doing both of those things:
> http://world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/#.UdQgfr7n-M8

Nuclear power is the most expensive power to build on Earth, it is so risky and expensive that Wall Street will not invest in it. The federal government has to take on all the risk in order to get them built and even then we haven't built a new reactor since the 70's. I don't favor closing the current reactors, they should have increased safety regulations though, but new ones should not come online until they are more economical. There are interesting developments in small nuclear reactors and I support continued research as I think there is huge potential but at the moment it is not a good investment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_nuclear_reactor_designs

A carbon tax though would make all fossil fuels more expensive and all alternatives including nuclear, SSP, etc. cheaper in comparison.
Brooks

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com 13303, "brooksn" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com 13299, "hitssquad" wrote:
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, b wrote:
> > > There are [...] advantages to not having all your eggs in one basket.
> > ...Then build more than one nuclear power plant, and build reactors of more than one kind. China is doing both of those things:
http://world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/#.UdQgfr7n-M8
> Nuclear power is the most expensive power to build on Earth

...And?

I'm happy to outline my ideas on how I would approach it if I was in a
position to do so. You'll have to bear with me though, as it will take
several long emails which I won't have time to sit down and write in one
hit, so will spread over a few days.

To start with, in response to your comment below while SSP can be a cash
cow in the right circumstances, it shouldn't be the reason for doing it,
and it would be rather short sighted to only consider it as a cash cow.

For me the main goal is to create a self sustaining infrastructure off
the surface of the planet. To do that means looking beyond SSP and it
will also require competitors as that is not something that could be
brought about in a monopoly. Besides which as soon as it is shown to
work, there will be plenty of people, companies and countries trying to
put their own spin on it, so it's much better to see it as a stepping
stone to other things.

Brett

On 03/07/2013 23:48, hitssquad wrote: