Has anyone else noticed that terrorism from the Middle
East is motivated mostly by the U.S. presence there,
which is, in turn, required by our need to protect oil
supplies? In other words, aggressively pursuing the
energy policy set forth in Dr. O'Neill's 1992 article
holds the potential of freeing ourselves from oil
dependency, and thus of disengaging ourselves from the
madness of Islamic fundamentalism.
Shouldn't we be pointing out this connection to our
Congressional representatives?

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?

Has anyone else noticed that terrorism from the Middle
East is motivated mostly by the U.S. presence there,
which is, in turn, required by our need to protect oil
supplies? In other words, aggressively pursuing the
energy policy set forth in Dr. O'Neill's 1992 article
holds the potential of freeing ourselves from oil
dependency, and thus of disengaging ourselves from the
madness of Islamic fundamentalism.
Shouldn't we be pointing out this connection to our
Congressional representatives?

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?

Building a solar power satellite from extraterrestrial materials is near and dear to my heart. But I think we have to ask ourselves some hard questions regarding the cost and risk associated with starting such a venture vis a vis hydrocarbon alternatives.

With very little cost and virtually no elapsed time, more of Alaska could be opened to oil drilling. Doing so might reduce dependence on foreign oil. There are also reserves off the coast of California that are currently off-limits to drilling.

There's also the big hydrocarbon ace in the hole, methane hydrates (c.f., http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html):

"The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth."

How economical would retrieval of methane hydrates be vis a vis building a solar power satellite? Methane can run a power plant. I think only the Law of the Sea stands in our way from exploiting this resource, and if we're talking about countering terrorism, then I think it's fair to say that that treaty can be easily violated if we desire to do so. We wouldn't have to launch rockets to harvest marine methane hydrate deposits --- we could probably just trawl for it, or perhaps use ROVs to retrieve it.

The world is swimming in hydrocarbons. I think that solar power satellites --- though I love 'em --- are a tough sell from an economics perspective.

Others have pointed out that solar power satellites might be justified from a global warming perspective. Their argument, if I understand it correctly, is that we would be driven to use solar power satellites by restrictive emissions regulations rather than economics.

Here's a third idea, perhaps in between the other two: use a solar power satellite or satellites to run a government-run carbon sequestration facility, for example, one that liquefies carbon dioxide and pumps it into the deep cold water of the ocean depths (c.f., http://www.globalclimate.org/oldsite/Carbon%20sequestration.htm ). What do you think? With this approach, we could all keep driving our cars and having backyard cookouts, but the CO2 we generate would eventually get sequestered where it can't do any harm, courtesy of the power produced by solar power satellites. If you are correct in your hypothesis that "most members of congress sit on the board of a number of oil companies ", then perhaps the approach I outlined might appeal to them, and we might get funding for an SPS.

"Ian Magness"
09/14/01 04:10 PM

The sad and unfortunate reality of this situation is that most members of congress sit on the board of a number of oil companies and therefore will be very reluctant to see the need for natural oil dissapear.

Has anyone else noticed that terrorism from the Middle
East is motivated mostly by the U.S. presence there,
which is, in turn, required by our need to protect oil
supplies? In other words, aggressively pursuing the
energy policy set forth in Dr. O'Neill's 1992 article
holds the potential of freeing ourselves from oil
dependency, and thus of disengaging ourselves from the
madness of Islamic fundamentalism.
Shouldn't we be pointing out this connection to our
Congressional representatives?

> The sad and unfortunate reality of this situation is that most
> members of congress sit on the board of a number of oil companies
> and therefore will be very reluctant to see the need for natural
> oil dissapear.

I don't see any reason why an energy company, such as Exxon, couldn't
invest in powersats and reap huge profits. They might be happy to
see the end of worry about what OPEC will do. And the chance to make
friends with the environmentalists (instead of being the favorite
boogieman of the same).

Still, if we improved the fuel efficiency of our vehicles by a small
percentage, we would not have to import oil, and we wouldn't have to
dig up Alaska.

Xenophile (who realizes that there must be something wrong with this
argument... after all, when's the last time you saw Mobil build a
powersat?)

> Still, if we improved the fuel efficiency of our vehicles by a small
> percentage, we would not have to import oil, and we wouldn't have to
> dig up Alaska.
>
> Xenophile (who realizes that there must be something wrong with this
> argument... after all, when's the last time you saw Mobil build a
> powersat?)
>

Hey Xeno,

The answer is simple. If you're reaping huge profits right now, why
bother investing in a way to eventually reap profits in a decade, even if
it means reducing our dependency on foreign oil and being more
environmentally sustainable. You can't even blame the oil companies for
it. They are legally required, as public corporations, to maximize
profits for their shareholders. But please don't get me started. ;)

--Justin

>
> Building a solar power satellite from extraterrestrial materials is
> near and dear to my heart. But I think we have to ask ourselves some
> hard questions regarding the cost and risk associated with starting
> such a venture vis a vis hydrocarbon alternatives.
>

Ron, I both agree and disagree with what you say.

I have posted on this many times in the past, but I am happy to repeat
my position,
and go into some things in a bit more detail.

You are correct on the economics,
space solar power cannot compete on price with hydrocarbons,
not even close.

But your analysis of the issue of greenhouse gases and global warming
is too brief and misses some of the key points.

My response:

There are enough hydrocarbons of various kinds to supply the global
economy with cheap energy for a few centuries.

The problem with hydrocarbons, is that sustained and increasing carbon
dioxide emissions continues to cause accelerating climate change.
We do not know the consequences of the global climate change,
but it is not likely to be good.

Of clourse, if you do not believe in climate change, or do not care,
then you can justify simply continuing with hydrocarbons indefinitely.

I believe that elimination of CO2 emissions is a high priority.

There are a couple of ways to do this:

1) reduce and ultimately eliminate the usage of hydrocarbons, nuclear
power and
space solar power are the only technologies available which will permit
compelte elimination
of hydrcarbons. Other sources, e.h. hydro, wind, terrrestrial solar
etc are limited
and/or expensive.

2) Sequestration of CO2 - this involes installing CO2 scrubbers on all
power stations and vehicles,
trapping the CO2 and then dumping it into a sprawling pipeline network
and transporting it to huge underground
reservoirs where it will be stored and monitored for the rest of
eternity.

3) Conservation, but this alone is not enough, not even close.

Any and all of these measures will inevitably increase the cost of
energy on our planet, to the point where space solar power will become
competitive.

> With very little cost and virtually no elapsed time, more of Alaska
> could be opened to oil drilling. Doing so might reduce dependence on
> foreign oil. There are also reserves off the coast of California that
> are currently off-limits to drilling.
>

This does not solve the problem of global warming,
and you also completely fail to address the environmental cost.
In a very real way, if we do this,
then the terrorists have won because they are forcing us to defile our
own environment.

> How economical would retrieval of methane hydrates be vis a vis
> building a solar power satellite? Methane can run a power plant. I

Hydrocarbons are much cheaper than space solar power, but they
excacerbate the
hazard of global warming.

> think only the Law of the Sea stands in our way from exploiting this
> resource, and if we're talking about countering terrorism, then I
> think it's fair to say that that treaty can be easily violated if we

Actually not, the law of the seabed has established quite clear
guidelines
on how ocean floor resources can be developed. What has happened is
that
the cost of developing the ocean floor is much more expensive than the
conventional resources which are still plentiful.

There is plenty of cheap coal, oil shale and other land based
hydrocarbons.
There will be no need to mine the ocean floor for a century or two.

>
> The world is swimming in hydrocarbons. I think that solar power
> satellites --- though I love 'em --- are a tough sell from an
> economics perspective.
>

True, but that is not the issue in my opinion.

> Others have pointed out that solar power satellites might be justified
> from a global warming perspective. Their argument, if I understand
> it correctly, is that we would be driven to use solar power satellites
> by restrictive emissions regulations rather than economics.
>

Not exactly, but close. You have rather glossed over it, we need to
consider the issues in more detail to really appreciate them.

Emission regulations themselves do not solve anything, if there is no
technical alternative the regulations will simply be ignored.
And the alternative technologies will increase the price of energy to
the
point where space solar power will become economically competitive.

There is no simple emission control technology for CO2,
you cannot simply put a catalytic convertor on your exhaust,
no such technology exists.
The sequestration system needed for trapping CO2 and transporting it to
huge underground storage areas will be horrendously expensive.

Take a look at the US DOE web site,
there are some fairly detailed analyses there concerning how to
sequestrate CO2.
The investment required will be on the same order as setting up a space
solar power system.

This is why President Bush refused to implement the CO2 emission control
treaty,
the cost of compliance will substantially increase global energy prices,
and at least in the short term that will have a major negative impact on
the economy.

And we still have a problem in that sequestration is a limited
resource.
It is limited by the cost of creating underground storage,
which will become more and more expensive and more and more difficult as
time goes on.
Ultimately CO2 sequestration will become much more expensive than space
solar power.

> Here's a third idea, perhaps in between the other two: use a solar
> power satellite or satellites to run a government-run carbon
> sequestration facility, for example, one that liquefies carbon dioxide
> and pumps it into the deep cold water of the ocean depths (c.f.,

CO2 sequestration is a limited resource and quite expensive.
With electricity from SPS it
would be cheaper and more efficient to go to a hydrogen economy and drop
hydrocarbons
completely.

> http://www.globalclimate.org/oldsite/Carbon%20sequestration.htm ).
> What do you think? With this approach, we could all keep driving our
> cars and having backyard cookouts, but the CO2 we generate would
> eventually get sequestered where it can't do any harm, courtesy of the

It would be cheaper to set up a hydrogen economy,
H2O does not need any sequestration.

H2 can be created easily with electricity.

We can also use electric cars and trains,
batteries and flywheel energy storage etc.

Heck, maybe even ballistic mass drivers for cargo delivery.

> power produced by solar power satellites. If you are correct in your
> hypothesis that "most members of congress sit on the board of a number
> of oil companies ", then perhaps the approach I outlined might appeal
> to them, and we might get funding for an SPS.
>

Nah, they are in a complete state of denial.

Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!

>
> Still, if we improved the fuel efficiency of our vehicles by a small
> percentage, we would not have to import oil, and we wouldn't have to
> dig up Alaska.
>

This is completely false.

Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!

> >
> > Still, if we improved the fuel efficiency of our vehicles by a small
> > percentage, we would not have to import oil, and we wouldn't have to
> > dig up Alaska.
> >
> This is completely false.
>

I'm afraid so. While making our cars more fuel efficient is laudable, and
it's better to drive a car that gets 35 miles to the gallon rather than
15, we would still be completely dependent on foreign oil to keep gas
prices as cheap as Americans insist that they must be. This is also true
regardless of whether we drill in Alaska. We need a complete paradigm
shift in thinking about energy if we are to become independent from
foreign oil, and that's where something like SPS fits in.

--Justin

>>> Still, if we improved the fuel efficiency of our vehicles by a
>>> small percentage, we would not have to import oil, and we
>>> wouldn't have to dig up Alaska.

>> This is completely false.

Well, I don't *think* I'm wrong, but I find myself unable to back
this statement up with good refs, so I won't argue the point. I
could even be wrong; it's been known to happen.

> I'm afraid so. While making our cars more fuel efficient is
> laudable, and it's better to drive a car that gets 35 miles to the
> gallon rather than 15,

I was thinking more along the lines of 45 to 80. Maybe I
shouldn't've said "a small percentage," but 45 to 80 is doable.

> we would still be completely dependent on foreign oil to keep gas
> prices as cheap as Americans insist that they must be.

To keep gas below $2/gallon, yes. But it's OK for gas to cost more
if you don't need as much of it. If your car gets 25 mpg, and gas
costs $1/per gallon, you are getting 25 mp$; if gas costs $3 per
gallon, and your car gets 75 mpg, then you are still getting 25 mp$.

And surely, we wouldn't have to import *as much* if we upped
efficiency.

> This is also true regardless of whether we drill in Alaska. We
> need a complete paradigm shift in thinking about energy if we are
> to become independent from foreign oil, and that's where something
> like SPS fits in.

Well, now, that I won't argue against, because I think you happen to
be right. And this has a great deal of truth whether 75mpg cars
would make foreign oil unnecessary... or not.

> --Justin

Xenophile (I read that thing someplace... maybe I heard it on TV??
In that case, it MUST be true, right? ^_~ )

Good post, Charles. Upon reflection, my original post was not that well considered.

Ron Menich

Charles Radley
09/15/01 10:33 AM

>
> Building a solar power satellite from extraterrestrial materials is
> near and dear to my heart. But I think we have to ask ourselves some
> hard questions regarding the cost and risk associated with starting
> such a venture vis a vis hydrocarbon alternatives.
>

Ron, I both agree and disagree with what you say.

I have posted on this many times in the past, but I am happy to repeat
my position,
and go into some things in a bit more detail.

You are correct on the economics,
space solar power cannot compete on price with hydrocarbons,
not even close.

But your analysis of the issue of greenhouse gases and global warming
is too brief and misses some of the key points.

My response:

There are enough hydrocarbons of various kinds to supply the global
economy with cheap energy for a few centuries.

The problem with hydrocarbons, is that sustained and increasing carbon
dioxide emissions continues to cause accelerating climate change.
We do not know the consequences of the global climate change,
but it is not likely to be good.

Of clourse, if you do not believe in climate change, or do not care,
then you can justify simply continuing with hydrocarbons indefinitely.

I believe that elimination of CO2 emissions is a high priority.

There are a couple of ways to do this:

1) reduce and ultimately eliminate the usage of hydrocarbons, nuclear
power and
space solar power are the only technologies available which will permit
compelte elimination
of hydrcarbons. Other sources, e.h. hydro, wind, terrrestrial solar
etc are limited
and/or expensive.

2) Sequestration of CO2 - this involes installing CO2 scrubbers on all
power stations and vehicles,
trapping the CO2 and then dumping it into a sprawling pipeline network
and transporting it to huge underground
reservoirs where it will be stored and monitored for the rest of
eternity.

3) Conservation, but this alone is not enough, not even close.

Any and all of these measures will inevitably increase the cost of
energy on our planet, to the point where space solar power will become
competitive.

> With very little cost and virtually no elapsed time, more of Alaska
> could be opened to oil drilling. Doing so might reduce dependence on
> foreign oil. There are also reserves off the coast of California that
> are currently off-limits to drilling.
>

This does not solve the problem of global warming,
and you also completely fail to address the environmental cost.
In a very real way, if we do this,
then the terrorists have won because they are forcing us to defile our
own environment.

> How economical would retrieval of methane hydrates be vis a vis
> building a solar power satellite? Methane can run a power plant. I

Hydrocarbons are much cheaper than space solar power, but they
excacerbate the
hazard of global warming.

> think only the Law of the Sea stands in our way from exploiting this
> resource, and if we're talking about countering terrorism, then I
> think it's fair to say that that treaty can be easily violated if we

Actually not, the law of the seabed has established quite clear
guidelines
on how ocean floor resources can be developed. What has happened is
that
the cost of developing the ocean floor is much more expensive than the
conventional resources which are still plentiful.

There is plenty of cheap coal, oil shale and other land based
hydrocarbons.
There will be no need to mine the ocean floor for a century or two.

>
> The world is swimming in hydrocarbons. I think that solar power
> satellites --- though I love 'em --- are a tough sell from an
> economics perspective.
>

True, but that is not the issue in my opinion.

> Others have pointed out that solar power satellites might be justified
> from a global warming perspective. Their argument, if I understand
> it correctly, is that we would be driven to use solar power satellites
> by restrictive emissions regulations rather than economics.
>

Not exactly, but close. You have rather glossed over it, we need to
consider the issues in more detail to really appreciate them.

Emission regulations themselves do not solve anything, if there is no
technical alternative the regulations will simply be ignored.
And the alternative technologies will increase the price of energy to
the
point where space solar power will become economically competitive.

There is no simple emission control technology for CO2,
you cannot simply put a catalytic convertor on your exhaust,
no such technology exists.
The sequestration system needed for trapping CO2 and transporting it to
huge underground storage areas will be horrendously expensive.

Take a look at the US DOE web site,
there are some fairly detailed analyses there concerning how to
sequestrate CO2.
The investment required will be on the same order as setting up a space
solar power system.

This is why President Bush refused to implement the CO2 emission control
treaty,
the cost of compliance will substantially increase global energy prices,
and at least in the short term that will have a major negative impact on
the economy.

And we still have a problem in that sequestration is a limited
resource.
It is limited by the cost of creating underground storage,
which will become more and more expensive and more and more difficult as
time goes on.
Ultimately CO2 sequestration will become much more expensive than space
solar power.

> Here's a third idea, perhaps in between the other two: use a solar
> power satellite or satellites to run a government-run carbon
> sequestration facility, for example, one that liquefies carbon dioxide
> and pumps it into the deep cold water of the ocean depths (c.f.,

CO2 sequestration is a limited resource and quite expensive.
With electricity from SPS it
would be cheaper and more efficient to go to a hydrogen economy and drop
hydrocarbons
completely.

> http://www.globalclimate.org/oldsite/Carbon%20sequestration.htm ).
> What do you think? With this approach, we could all keep driving our
> cars and having backyard cookouts, but the CO2 we generate would
> eventually get sequestered where it can't do any harm, courtesy of the

It would be cheaper to set up a hydrogen economy,
H2O does not need any sequestration.

H2 can be created easily with electricity.

We can also use electric cars and trains,
batteries and flywheel energy storage etc.

Heck, maybe even ballistic mass drivers for cargo delivery.

> power produced by solar power satellites. If you are correct in your
> hypothesis that "most members of congress sit on the board of a number
> of oil companies ", then perhaps the approach I outlined might appeal
> to them, and we might get funding for an SPS.
>

Nah, they are in a complete state of denial.

I don't see any reason why an energy company, such as Exxon, couldn't
invest in powersats and reap huge profits. They might be happy to
see the end of worry about what OPEC will do. And the chance to make
friends with the environmentalists (instead of being the favorite
boogieman of the same). I'm convinced this is so. I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a friend on SPS. He said, "The oil companies would never allow it, because then no one would buy oil." Of course that ignores the fact petroleum has many uses besides energy production. But I argued from a different tack. I asked him to imagine that we were having a conversation back in the 1950's. In a spectacular display of prescience, I tell him that in the future, home movies will not be made on film, but on videotape, in handy cassettes. Unlike film, one can re-record. No waiting for development. There will be machines which we'll hook up to our TV sets to watch our home movies, and the old projector and movie screen will collect dust in our closets. I then told him his reaction would be, "It'll never happen. All the companies which make home movie film will suppress this new technology, because then no one would buy home movie film anymore and they'd go out of business". But what is our present-day reality? We walk into Wal-Mart, and find shelf after shelf of VHS cassettes with names on them like Polaroid and Kodak. Companies can change what they do to remain at the forefront of technological change. Indeed, those who fail to do so perish. Xenophile (who realizes that there must be something wrong with this
argument... after all, when's the last time you saw Mobil build a
powersat?) The reason may be nothing other than the "giggle factor". Maybe government money spent to fund a proof-of-concept prototype might be money well-spent.

Regards,

Mike Combs

[snikt]
> I don't see any reason why an energy company, such as Exxon, couldn't
> invest in powersats and reap huge profits. They might be happy to
> see the end of worry about what OPEC will do. And the chance to make
> friends with the environmentalists (instead of being the favorite
> boogieman of the same).
>

You are being too optimistic about the average ecofreak (as I call the
environmentalists, in my lack of political correctness). The less sensate
fraction of them - i.e., the fraction that gets more attention in the
media - is fundamentally anti-technology. If SPS becomes a reality, they
will make up stories like "space launches are enlarging the ozone hole" or
"SPS beams cause cancer in nearby areas" or something like that; in fact,
I've heard absurdities such as that even though SPS is just a possibility
for now. They will do everything they can to bring us back to the Dark Ages
and celebrate Gaia in Celtic cults and the like. (Yes, I'm stereotyping.)

[snikt]
> Xenophile (who realizes that there must be something wrong with this
> argument... after all, when's the last time you saw Mobil build a
> powersat?)

Dr. Omni (Who realizes that he does not like ecofreaks and so may not have a
neutral opinion of the situation...)

>
> > Still, if we improved the fuel efficiency of our vehicles by a small
> > percentage, we would not have to import oil, and we wouldn't have to
> > dig up Alaska.
> >
> This is completely false.

? No, it's only half false, and almost understandably given some of the
rhetoric that's been expended on behalf of opening up the ANWR (which is
I assume what the reference to "digging up Alaska" is about). Since we
import about half our oil, and our transportation vehicles account for
about 65% of oil usage, to eliminate oil imports just by increasing fuel
efficiency would mean that 65% would have to be cut to 15% of current
oil usage, or more than a factor of 4. Not a small percentage by any
means!

But ANWR is, even in the most optimistic, money-no-object estimates,
predicted to produce only about 12 billion barrels of oil over a period
of about 30 years - increasing the supply of oil by an average 6% on a
yearly basis, compared to current domestic and import numbers (and only
until it runs out). Not only does this not make a significant dent in
"our dependence on foreign oil" (and it makes us MORE dependent on
foreign oil when the oil here runs out!) but the same reduction in oil
imports could be achived by a 10% improvement in vehicle fuel
efficiency, which doesn't sound "completely false" to describe as a
small percentage increase.

Arthur (apsmith@...

Tangentially related to this thread is the idea that petroleum and natural gas deposits are sometimes associated with impact craters on Earth.

See the list entitled, "Prospecting for Oil: Look in asteroid impact craters" at http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/reading.html#ez10, and see some of the links referenced there (e.g., http://www.edge.ou.edu/news/Donofrio.PDF).