The fact that the USA is going to spend $87 billion to secure their
energy supplies in the Middle East speaks volumes.

$87 billion is "real money" (you know, a billion here, a billion
there...etc)

For that kind of money, we can certainly build a system of solar
power satellites, with all the inherent advantages that has over
importing oil.

The only question remaining now is, for $87 billion, how many SPSes
can we build, and how long will it take to get them online ?

> The fact that the USA is going to spend $87 billion to secure their
> energy supplies in the Middle East speaks volumes.

> $87 billion is "real money" (you know, a billion here, a billion
> there...etc)
>
> For that kind of money, we can certainly build a system of solar
> power satellites, with all the inherent advantages that has over
> importing oil.

I should think so. The price was quoted at $75 billion back in the
early part of this year. Funny haow it keeps going up.

> The only question remaining now is, for $87 billion, how many SPSes
> can we build, and how long will it take to get them online ?

Well, my copy of _Space Settlements, A Design Study_ gives the
following costs and times:

Total cost from GO to 10,000 people living at Island One:
$190.8 billion and 22 years.

SSPS comes online 10 years after GO and after a cost of $16 billion.

Of course, this was in 1976.(*) There has been both inflation and
technological progress since then. I suspect that tech progress
drives the cost down faster than inflation drives it up. I
understand that as early as 1977 some discovery was made which halved
the cost.(**) Perhaps somebody here knows more about this than I
do. Then, of course, there is WATER ON THE MOON! This would tend to
drive costs down magnificently.

I also read somewhere that, after the first Island One is built, and
all that infrastructure is in place, that the per-habitat cost would
be $5 billion buckaroonies. I don't see a powersat being any more
than a habitat, probably less.

So those seem like some numbers to start with: $16 billion and 10
years to the first operating powersat, followed 6 years and $174.8
billion later by a fully operational habitat that starts chucking out
3 powersats a year at $5 billion each, and a new habitat every 3
years, also at $5 billion each.

This amount, $190.8 billion, is about two and a quarter the $87
billion you mention, but it would be spread out over 22 years.

(*) SS,ADS also suggests that by spending more in the earlier years,
close to a third of the total cost could be eliminated.

(**) In the L-5 News, IIRC.

Xenophile (Anybody else got better numbers?)

--- In ssi_list@... "Charles F. Radley"
> The fact that the USA is going to spend $87 billion to secure their
> energy supplies in the Middle East speaks volumes.
>
> $87 billion is "real money" (you know, a billion here, a billion
> there...etc)
>
> For that kind of money, we can certainly build a system of solar
> power satellites, with all the inherent advantages that has over
> importing oil.
>
> The only question remaining now is, for $87 billion, how many SPSes
> can we build, and how long will it take to get them online ?

First off, it's nice to see you posting again. Welcome back.

It's interesting that you raised this question for I've been
thinking about this very issue recently.

As you and I have both noted in the past, our oil dependancy, US
military spending, Mid-East stability, US presence in the Mid-East,
and Islamic threats to the West are all linked together.

Let me deconstruct the logic chain for those who are just joining
this dialogue.

Let me first address the issue of the oil dependency relationship by
looking at the economics and trade flows. Today's price of North Sea
Brent Crude Oil is $28.60 per barrel.
http://www.wtrg.com/daily/brentcrudeoilprice.html

The World's largest petroleum exporters are
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html

Between them, Saudia Arabia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait,
Iraq, Algeria and Libya export 17,150,000 barrels of oil per day.

Their export earnings from the oil industry amount to $179 billion
dollars per year.

In 2002, the US imported 19.8% of its oil from Persian Gulf States,
down from 23.3% in 2001 (slowdown in the economy most likely
accounts for the reduction.)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0504.html

Total US imports of oil amounted to 10.6 million barrels per day.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables3_4.html

In other words, the US contributed $21.9 billion towards the $179
billion the Mid-East countries earn from their oil exports.

You may have noted that I'm not referencing the oil that is imported
from non Mid-East countries. Of course that oil further exacerbates
the West's oil dependency but that dependency isn't AS TIGHTLY
LINKED to the need for US militrary predominance, Mid-East
instability, terror threats to the West and the need to find oil
substitues as is the dependency on Mid-East oil.

While the US may be one of the largest per capita users of oil, they
are not the most dependent on imported oil. These figures capture
the situation as it existed in 2001: Japan, South Korea and France
are all 100% dependent on imported oil, Germany is 96% dependent,
India 65%, the US 55%, China 33%, Brazil 25%, while Russia and
Canada are completely import independent in their oil consumption.
http://www.networkideas.org/news/mar2003/World_Oil_Market.pdf

Current Total World oil consumption is about 75 million barrels/day.
http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw266.shtml

The current proven reserves (including Canada's extensive Tar Sands)
are about 1,212 billion barrels.

Thus we have extractable oil for about 44 years, but that's not
accounting for growth in demand, nor growth in reserves.

It would be irresponsible to neglect to factor in the rapid
industrialization of the Far East, with particular attention focused
on China.

China has been the economic driver for increasing world oil demand
this past year.

"Global oil demand, meanwhile, was "broadly flat," BP said,
increasing 290,000 bpd to 75.7 mm bpd from 75.5 mm bpd. "All of the
increase is attributable to China where oil consumption increased
5.8 % or 332,000 bpd"

"China, meanwhile, accounted for 68.5 % of the increase in global
primary energy consumption in 2002 and has become a "major energy
consumer and importer," according to BP's report. "Consumption of
coal, which accounts for 66 % of Chinese energy use, grew a massive
27.9 %. Oil consumption increased 5.8 %, or 332,000 bpd, accounting
for all of the world's oil consumption growth in 2002," BP reported,
adding, "China replaced Japan as the world's second largest oil
consumer."

"Coal was "the fastest growing fuel in 2002," BP said, with
consumption of the fuel rising 6.9 % during last year. This increase
was "on the strength of an extraordinary reported increase in China
of 27.9 %," BP said. Excluding China, world consumption of
coal "increased just 0.6 %," BP said. Nuclear power demand,
meanwhile, rose 1.5 %, "with most of the increase coming in Asia,"
BP said. "World consumption of hydroelectric power increased 1.3 %
from 2001 but was still less than in 2000," the report said,
adding, "Nuclear and hydroelectric power each account for about 6 %
of total world energy consumption."

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex32825.htm

Recall that China currently imports only 33% of its oil needs. It
has 18.25 billion barrels of reserves. It is now the world's second
largest consumer of oil, and the world's largest consumer of coal.
It's economy is growing at a rapid clip and so too is the demand for
energy intensive lifestyles. As China grows wealthier it's demand
for oil will grow beyond its ability to tap its own reserves and
thus it will increasingly be looking to the Middle-East for its
supply.

Note that in 2001 China burned more coal per year (1.382 billion
short tons), and has for all of the 1990s (that's as far back as
these statistics go) than the US (1.06 billion short tons), or all
of North America (1.147 billion short tons) or the rest of Asia
(1.014 b.s.t.) and nearly as much as all of Europe and Russia
combined (1.483 b.s.t.).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table14.html

Before I turn to the other factors, consider what China's rise means
for oil prices in the future, what it's extensive use of coal means
for greenhouse gases, and what this future demand for oil will mean
for export earnings for the Mid-East countries.

Now I'd like to turn the discussion over to the topic of Mid-East
instability.

Each of the Middle-East countries mentioned above has a repressive
government and a citizenry that lacks freedom, opportunity and
economic vitality and under such conditions zealotry and
revolutionary activities become a viable substitute for goals and
activities that we in the West follow. Here we seek a better life
through education, political involvement and career. If youth access
to education was limited, or the education was channeled through a
Madrassa which limited its scope to the strict study of the Koran,
the advancement that following the route of education allowed would
be limited.

If a better life is sought by involving oneself in the polity then
there would be hope for a better tomorrow, but unfortunately that
route has also been curtailed in the countries mentioned above.

How about career advancement and economic enrichment? The economies
of the Middle East are in a shambles. Consider:

". . . many of the so-called 'oil-rich states' are rich in very
little else. Crude oil is their only export, making them uniquely
vulnerable to world oil prices."

"So when prices fell to $10 a barrel in 1998, it had a devastating
effect on their economies."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/689609.stm

Consider the case of Libya, which has OPEC's highest ratio of oil
exports as a percentage of total exports, at 97.26%, followed by
Kuwait - 92.4%, Iran - 89%, Saudia Arabia - 86.24%, Nigeria -
82.53%, Iraq - 79.7%, Venezuela - 74.06%, Qutar - 67.96%, Algeria -
61.62%, United Arab Emerates - 54.13%, and Indonesia 16.35%.

http://www.networkideas.org/news/mar2003/World_Oil_Market.pdf

When was the last time that you turned over a product and saw "Made
in Saudia Arabia" imprinted on it, or used a drug researched and
developed in Libya, or were entertained by a cultural export from
Kuwait?

All told, Libya earned $12,213,630,000 from oil exports (1.17
million barrels/day * 365 days/year * $28.60/barrel).

This $12.213 billion accounted for 97.26% of its total export
earnings. The remainder of its economy exported just $344,081,000.

Now factor in the population time bomb that the Mid-East is facing
and you have a very dysfunctional region of the world.

http://www.csis.org/stratassessment/reports/demograp.pdf

The world as a whole, at current growth rates, will double its
population in 46 years. The developing world will double in 37
years. The countries of the Middle East: Algeria - 29; Bahrain - 27;
Egypt - 31; Iraq - 24; Jordon - 27; Kuwait - 30; Lebanon - 34;
Libya - 31; Oman - 14; Gaza & West Bank - 16; Qatar - 43; Saudia
Arabia - 23; Syria - 28; United Arab Emirates -36; and Yemen - 22.

The developed world's population will double in 162 years!

The region is in the midst of economic stagnation. Consider:

"For generations, Arab regimes squandered enormous wealth generated
by oil, tourist sites, and strategic ports and waterways, and now
the countries lack the modern institutions needed to absorb a
growing legion of jobless and increasingly restless youths."

"Unleashed into a shrinking job market, they inhabit a near-stagnant
economy that is growing three times slower than its population."

"The rest of the world largely avoids doing business with the Middle
East. Foreign direct investment in the region is less than half the
global average. In Egypt, exports account for about 8 percent of
gross domestic product compared with 15 percent for Mexico and
Thailand and 44 percent for South Korea."

"With 60 percent of its population under the age of 24, the region
faces a looming unemployment crisis. According to the World Bank
report, the average Arab jobless rate, at 15 percent, has doubled in
the last two years and is now among the highest in the world."

"Rather than aggressively pursuing privatization, say economists,
Egypt is expanding the public payroll as an employer-of-last-resort
for its ballooning population."

"There are 7 million civil servants in Egypt, and the government is
still recruiting," said Heba Handoussa, managing director of the
Economic Research Forum, a Cairo think tank. "Payrolls have not been
reduced, and I'm sure they have increased.""

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/08/24/land_of_econ
omic_unrest/

Consider how demographic trends, dependency on oil exports, lack of
economic diversity, limited educational opportunities, and lack of
political freedom combine to form societal dysfunction and a threat
to the West.

Consider that the lack of opportunity often drives disaffected youth
into nationalistic or terrorist organizations. Often their goal is
to drive the infidel out of their lands and to institute pure
Islamic societies. This expunging of Western mores and ideals, and
the resultant isolation further exacerbates the economic decline of
the region, which in turns fuels resentment at their lot. As Bernard
Lewis has noted,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?
xml=/opinion/2002/05/03/do0301.xml

there currently exists a pervasive inferiority complex throughout
the Mid-East with resepct to the West. I have no idea how the Mid-
East can industrialize and develop their economies, take advantage
of their cheaper currencies when they will look upon that economic
bootstrapping process as being beneath them, of being subservient to
the West. Right now, the revenues from oil export are masking many
of the ills that befall these societies but the mask is becoming
increasingly transparent for the per capita income is falling as the
population growth rate rockets upward. There are simply not enough
jobs for the citizenry. These societies are a time bomb.

Further consider that technological advancement may render the bulk
of the Middle East economy no more valuable than Human Waste.

"At present it costs twice as much to produce as diesel fuel.
However the advantage is that, unlike the oil made in the Earth, the
supply of ingredients for this people-derived fuel will never dry
up."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/768672.stm

Think about that for a second - your crap is now worth half the cost
of oil and when it reaches price parity, the economic output of 300
million people will be near worthless.

http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?
CCODE=MNA&PTYPE=CP

Also consider all of the difficulties that Africa has to contend
with and realize that "Despite a difficult economic environment,
growth in Africa has averaged about 3 percent in the last fiscal
year, and well-managed countries which have implemented solid reform
agendas and built a record of stability and good governance had an
average growth of 4 percent."

http://www.worldbank.org/afr/countries.htm

and compare the above to the World Bank analysis for the Mid-East,
which states that "Economic growth for the region fell from 3.2
percent in 2001 to 2.5 percent in 2002, with continuing declines in
investor confidence, export market growth, and tourism."

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20040954~
menuPK:34480~pagePK:36694~piPK:116742~theSitePK:4607,00.html

Africa, with all of it's problems, has more economic vitality than
the Middle East! For those of you who are really curious, factor out
the oil revenue from the Gross Domestic Products of the Mid-East
countries and see what kind of economy is left standing.

If you're still reading at this point, you may be wondering what
this whole essay has to do with SPS and the $87.5 Billion
appropriation question that Charles started this thread with. Bear
with me for a little longer as I try to wrap it all up.

I contend that the US went into Iraq because it viewed Iraw as
either an immediate direct threat (W.M.D., Saddam's behavior, etc),
a long term threat (repressive regime, failed state, embittered
populace, terrorist spawning ground, etc) or as a means of
stabilizing a region via a domino principle in order to secure
stable oil supplies for the future for itself and for the rest of
the world. I think these positions wholly encompass the Iraq debate,
pro and con.

The point I'm driving at is that something had to be done, whether
or not you agree with what was done. If the war didn't transpire,
and Saddam remained, then we'd have to pay the piper some time in
the future, for the region is a quagmire. It may not have been Iraq.
Perhaps Iran or Saudia Arabia would have been the powder keg that
threatened world stabilty, whether in the form of a nuclear armed
Iran targeting Israel and then the Sunni's of Saudia Arabia, or the
fall of the House of Saud, and a strict Wahabbi regime taking its
place in Riyadh and cutting off contact and oil exports to the West,
the threat to us would still be real, and would have dire
consequences for the everyday Joe.

Consider the prospect of a nuclear armed Saudia Arabia.

"The Sunni Saudis have concluded that nothing will deter Shiite Iran
from continuing its quest for nuclear weapons. Pakistan, on the
other hand, is openly concerned about the recent armaments agreement
between India, its nuclear rival, and Israel, a long-time nuclear
power whose inventory is estimated at between 200 and 400 weapons.
Iran and India, located on either side of Pakistan, have also signed
a strategic agreement whose aim is regarded with suspicion in
Islamabad."

"To counter what Pakistani and Saudi leaders regard as a
multiregional threats, they have decided quietly to move ahead with
a two-way exchange -- free or cheap oil for nuclear know-how and
expertise."

"In their private talks, according to the United Press International
source, Abdullah and Musharraf also discussed the possibility of
Pakistan supplying troops, not to Iraq, but to the kingdom. Abdullah
can see that the world's largest oil reserves look increasingly
vulnerable over the next 10 years."

"To this day, the Saudi clergy continues to fund Pakistan's madrasas
that are a substitute for the country's non-existent national
education system. The only schools outside madrasas are expensive
private institutions. Pakistan, with a crushing defense burden, only
spends 1.7 percent of GDP on education (vs. 8 percent in India and
16.5 percent in the United States)."

"Some 12,000 Koranic schools provide free room and board to some
700,000 Pakistani boys (ages 6 to 16) where they are taught to read
and write in Urdu and Arabic and recite the Koran by heart. No other
disciplines are practiced, but students are proselytized with anti-
American, anti-Israeli and anti-Indian propaganda. By the time they
graduate, the majority is convinced that becoming a jihadi, or holy
warrior, is the only way to block America's alleged plans to destroy
Islam."
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID 031020-115059-8319r

It is the last sentence in the above quote that provides the tie in
to the next point I wish to make.

The US in particular, and the rest of the West in general, has
chosen to engage with the Mid-East rather than disengage, because it
must do so in order to insure a reliable supply of oil.

The form of engagement is primarily of a military nature in order to
insure stable, though despicable, regimes, who in turn insure a
steady supply of oil.

The $87.5 billion that the US is commiting to Iraq for THIS YEAR, is
far out of proportion to the amount of oil it imports from the
region as a whole, recall from above, that amounts to a total of
$21.9 billion, just shy of a 4x premium. Does this look like a cheap
tactic to secure oil for the US? No, but it is securing oil for the
world as a whole, which includes the free riders of China and Europe.

This military presence in Iraq and the whole campaign has spawned
retribution from the Islamic terrorists who are taught to believe
that America is out to destroy Islam.

Now, in light of all of the above, do you really think that the
price of gas at the pump is the REAL cost of gas that you are paying?

The only reason that a policy of engagement is being followed is
that the region has oil that we need. If we didn't need that oil,
who really thinks that America would be as deeply involved in the
region? I don't.

I do hope that sooner, rather than later, a policy of disengagement
will be developed that will be centered on a national security
premise of energy independence. I'm certain though, that this policy
will come later rather than sooner because trying to squeeze
incremental improvements from the status quo is an easier task, and
a more obvious policy choice, than redesigning the energy policy and
infrastructure of a modern, industrialized society. But it will
happen for the powder keg that is the Middle East will make the
changing of the status quo a more appealing option as the region
becomes more and more unstable and security of energy supply will
require greater sacrifices of blood and treasure.

Now rather than paying the $87.5 billion tax for THIS YEAR, what if
that was expended on developing CATS, developing orbital
infrastructure, developing SPS, creating markets in orbit? These
tasks couldn't be financed on just $87.5 billion, but if you think
that the US will be finished with it's Iraq commitments after this
expenditure, that no part of the military budget goes to insuring
stable and secure shipping lanes, foiling terrorist threats, and
stabilizing regimes with oil to sell, then I'd like to hear your
case for that position.

The status quo with respect to the Middle-East is throwing good
money after bad; at least with orbital development, we would have
energy independence, could develop a hydrogen economy through the
electrolysis of water, rather than the chemical process of
extracting hydrogen from natural gas and then having to deal with
carbon sequestration, we'd get the benefits that derive from volume
with respect to launch activities which in turn would lower the
price threshold for now marginal space activities. Further, we'd get
orbital resource development which I hope would be self-sustaining
after it reaches some "ignition point" of critical mass of volume of
resources used and the diversity of actors using them.

Lastly, we could use the cheap electricity to synthesize Human waste
to produce oil and then completely disengage from involvement with
the Middle East. Of course, no one really suspects that this would
molify the region, for even though they'd be left to engage with the
West on their own volition, we'd still be looked upon as the cause
of their dysfunction by our very act of disengagement but at least
we wouldn't be held hostage to engagement, nor would we have to
dedicate significant military and budgetary resources to securing a
stable oil supply for the entire world.

TangoMan

PS, below are a few sources that I wanted to work into this post but
forgot about and I don't want to edit the above to make their
inclusion cohesive.

If you're interested please take a look.

US transportation network analysis of trains vs. planes as a
comparison to Europe and to PARTIALLY explain higher US per capita
oil consumption figures.
http://avoyagetoarcturus.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_avoyagetoarcturus_ar
chive.html#106592169754609424

Oil Outlook for the Future
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html

> Good grief! Where do you find the time...???
>

:)

Well, with work my time really gets chewed up during times of crisis
for some of the companies for which I provide oversight (which is
why I sometimes disappear from this list for weeks on end),
otherwise my schedule is flexible. Right now I've got time to
contribute. Besides, we've got to be aware of all the macro trends,
so I get all sorts of economic data crossing my desk. It's not too
hard to find a similar web link to document the same thing.

My post was mostly stream of consciousness, and included extensive
quotes, so it didn't take too long to write, which is why many of
the points weren't tied in too well.

I should have spent more time building the case for SPS vs. coal
w.r.t. China, and the paucity of new nuclear and hydro power,
despite the Three Gorges Dam, that is coming on stream, and how that
coal burning is related to global warming, etc.

If it was an essay, it would have been tighter, and probably less
wordy .. ): Sorry.

TangoMan

Interesting post concerning geopolitical realities.

Still, I feel the two main points regarding Solar Power Satellites are:

1. Putting a nation's energy supply in orbit just puts the nation at
risk of space habitat originated cartels and embargoes instead of
earthly oil producer cartels and embargoes (perhaps not completely a bad
thing if you plan to be living on the habitats? :-) The lesson learned
should instead be -- produce your energy locally and use it more
efficiently so you need less for core services.

2. Economically speaking, energy efficiency is a much better economic
investment than energy production. This site has lots on this topic:
http://www.rmi.org
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid17.php

One study in the 1980s suggested that the cost of a year or two of
military expenditures spent on the Persian Gulf Deployment force spent
on home insulation would make the US energy independent right now. See
for example the 1980s book Brittle Power, available online at:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/art7095.php

And, as you point out the true cost of delivered oil when considering
military expenditures is several times higher (I've seen $80-100 per
barrel estimates vs. typically $25 market cost) -- let alone several
times that yet again for environmental impacts (e.g. cleaning up
polluted water supplies, mitigating acid rain, global warming). If there
was a level economic playing field, including having energy producers
paying the external costs of military expenditures and environmental
damage, most renewables (PV, wind, solar hot water, etc.) would be
pretty much immediately cheaper, and the cheapest still would be
insulation and energy efficiency improvements. That they are not is a
tesiment to Power -- political not energy.

So what can one conclude from this? The politics of war and oil and
infrastructure are about human political and social power, not energy.
We have enough energy sources locally if the politicians would get out
of subsidizing fossil fuels through military expenditure and tax credits
[and (current design) nuclear energy business through being the insurer
of last resort]. Repeat, the energy crisis is purely a political, not a
technical, problem. Off the shelf solutions solve it now. REPEAT -- off
the shelf solutions are available right now to build a sustainable
society. More research would be good to do things even cheaper or
better, but research is not needed to start now. People starve or suffer
right now for political reasons, not technical ones. True, better
technology for a given population mayin some cases make the political
choices easier -- but that is no excuse for bad politics regardless.

If you want to understand how US homes can be made energy self-reliant,
just look at a site like:
http://www.backwoodssolar.com/
with examples at:
http://www.backwoodssolar.com/interests/HomeExamples.htm
There are various changes in appliances etc. that need to be made, and
homes need to be resinsulated and perhaps redesigned. Consier this back
of the envelope thought experiment. If PV+Insulation was done across the
US and also mandated by building code changes, these costs would
presumably drop to (guessing here) on the order of $10,000 per home or
less installed. So, assuming 150 million US homes, this is on the order
of 1.5 trillion dollars, or a couple years of the US military budget to
shift the US energy landscape to one where every home in the US to
generated most of its own power and heat. Supplemental energy sources
may still be needed, but on the order of one tenth or less of current
needs. Consider the alternative -- the $1500 of home heating oil used in
a year should really cost four or so times that if military costs were
factored in ($6000 annually) plus other costs for natural gas and oil
generated electricity which similarly should be much more expensive. RMI
also has designs for a 100mpg hypercar and so on -- so transportation
can also be addressed.
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid386.php
http://www.hypercar.com/
Most of this changeover could probably be accomplished at no direct cost
to the US taxpayer over the next decade by simply passing and/or
repealing a few laws related to energy tax credits and building codes.
Ultimately, just a few words on paper reflecting a change in
perspective. Note these are the sorts of laws mandating energy efficient
appliances, cars, and homes which mainstream US politicians (more so
Republicans, but Democrats too) have been opposing for years -- because
of political power issues and vested interests.

It makes no economic or security sense to build SPS systems when we
would be just wasting the energy being beamed down by poorly insulated
homes, poorly insulated refrigerators, and inefficient motors and
industrial processes (the US typically has used twice or more the energy
per unit of industrial output than in Europe). Economically and
practically it makes sense to stop wasting energy before producing more
of it. And once less energy is used, many on Earth renewable solutions
are viable to produce minimal energy needs using local resources (sun,
wind, hydro, tidal, biomass, geothermal, etc.).

I feel we should eventually build space habitats that can replicate
using asteroidal ore and sunlight, and people should live in them as new
cities with new societies for much the same reason people move to a city
like NYC or San Francisco or Amsterdam or Hong Kong -- because it could
be fun and exciting and life affirming and likely have positive social
and technical results on-earth (and in part for other reasons implied in
your post). This is not to say they will all be utopias -- some may be
horrible places to live. I feel thinking about space habitats can (if
done in a spirit of compassion and inclusiveness) inspire young and old
alike, and thinking about habitats and designing them can help people
become better environmentalists and technologicians and humanitarians on
Earth as they consider solving all the problems of the Earth in
miniature, in a sort of Buckminster Fuller way.
http://www.bfi.org/
Like this NASA contest:
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/

But economically, habitats aren't going to be built for reasons of
beaming power down to earth using SPSs. It's a dead idea, economically.
And as much as I admire Gerry O'Neill's vision and accomplishments, he
got that part of the economics wrong, compared to someone who
specializes in energy and security issues like Amory Lovins at RMI. SSI
has been (partially) stuck in that mud of promoting SPS ever since. SSI
needs to move on from that outdated economic rationale. Repeat -- SSI
needs to move on from SPS and beamed power -- the SPS issue may be
technically sweet, but is economically and practically and socially
uninteresting compared to ready alternatives. SPSs in orbit to beam
power to new activities in or near space like spacecraft, beanstalks,
aircraft, etc. are a different story -- but are a future application
after energy efficiency on Earth frees up the capital for space habitats
and other ventures.

Frankly, I feel habitats will be built for theses sorts of reasons:
* as an act of charity by a philanthropist (not investment as
investments are meaningless once there is abundance for all),
* or as a collaborative effort by open source / free content hobbyists
(similar to GNU/Linux or model railroad enthusiasts),
* or through huge government investment as a public works project (or as
a justification for continuing a social security pyramid scheme
predicated on a growing population),
* and/or by some kid or rogue AI with spare time and a nanotech
replicator (in a few decades).
As technology continues to improve (networks, cheap computer
workstations, 3D printers, nanotech etc.) the costs for habitats get
lower and they become more feasible financially for various new groups
and new reasons.

Clearly $87 billion can be spent a lot better than using it to expose
hundreds of thousands of US citizens and Iraqis to depleted uranium and
related long term related health effects (including on future generations)
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/4/prweb63709.htm
http://www.ccnr.org/du_hague.html
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dhap99.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/0,7368,419839,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/270800.stm
such as still plague around 100,000 veterans of the first Gulf War
(another added external future cost beyond the financial interest paid
for by future generations) -- or all the other bad side effects detailed
at hundreds of web sites like:
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.commondreams.org/

But spend $87 billion on SPSs? "Negawatts" achieved though home
insulation and more efficient motors
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid323.php
http://www.globalideasbank.org/BI/BI-144.HTML
are a much better start if one wants to spend that money on energy
related issues. (Or just let me and others keep it in my pocket so I and
others can focus more on building habitats or doing other good things in
our spare time as hobbyists.)

--Paul Fernhout

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"

You've raised many interesting points and I hope that people more
knowledgable on SPS will jump in to correct some of your
misconceptions.

I'd just like to briefly address some of your points.

> 1. Putting a nation's energy supply in orbit just puts the nation
at
> risk of space habitat originated cartels and embargoes instead of
> earthly oil producer cartels and embargoes (perhaps not completely
a bad
> thing if you plan to be living on the habitats? :-) The lesson
learned
> should instead be -- produce your energy locally and use it more
> efficiently so you need less for core services.

Are you the victim of a TV set cartel? There are no domestic
manufacturers yet we seem to be able to purchase sets more cheaply
than in the past. SPS is an asset in the same manner. Oil, OTOH is a
consumable quantity that is subject to market forces on a daily
basis.
>
> 2. Economically speaking, energy efficiency is a much better
economic
> investment than energy production. This site has lots on this
topic:
> http://www.rmi.org
> http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid17.php

This argument originates back in the late 70s. It is true but the
largest gains are found at the most inefficient margins. The gains
diminish from there, until squeezing out energy efficiency becomes a
very formidible task. You'll get a lot of juice from an orange on
the first squeeze, almost none on the tenth, at which point you
should get another orange.

>
> One study in the 1980s suggested that the cost of a year or two of
> military expenditures spent on the Persian Gulf Deployment force
spent
> on home insulation would make the US energy independent right now.
See
> for example the 1980s book Brittle Power, available online at:
> http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/art7095.php

Here is my anecdotal rebuttal. Back in the late 70s, early 80s, I
was a partner in a home insulation business. When we started, things
were going gangbusters, but after a few years, our telephone
solicters increasingly ran into more and more people who had already
had their homes insulated. IOW, our retrofit market was finite and
the more successul we were the faster we eroded the marketplace. I
learned a very important lesson from that venture and it did help
finance grad school.

The claim of insulation leading to energy independence is clearly
overstated.

>
> Repeat, the energy crisis is purely a political, not a
> technical, problem. Off the shelf solutions solve it now. REPEAT --
off
> the shelf solutions are available right now to build a sustainable
> society.

You leave out economic considerations, convenience and the market
preferences of the consumers.

For that matter, we could all use wood burning stoves and forget
about oil heating our houses. It's only an environmental-air
pollution problem, not a technical one. Think of all those forests
that we can harvest - they're renewable - if only we could see
through the smog to be able to cut down the trees.

> It makes no economic or security sense to build SPS systems when
we
> would be just wasting the energy being beamed down by poorly
insulated
> homes, poorly insulated refrigerators, and inefficient motors and
> industrial processes (the US typically has used twice or more the
energy
> per unit of industrial output than in Europe).

For a PARTIAL explanation of this look to the addendum I attached to
my previous post that addressed the larger distances between US
metropolitan centers comapred to European centers. There are other
factors at work as well, but that shouldn't completely diminish your
point that there are inefficiencies in the US infrastructure.

Economically and
> practically it makes sense to stop wasting energy before producing
more
> of it.

I disagree. Philosophically you raise a point of view. Economically,
the markets decide, and the markets are choosing the route of cheap
consumables over asset intensive mitagation.

And once less energy is used, many on Earth renewable solutions
> are viable to produce minimal energy needs using local resources
(sun,
> wind, hydro, tidal, biomass, geothermal, etc.).

The sources you mention above are insufficient in scale or
robustness to offset the current infrastructure.

> But economically, habitats aren't going to be built for reasons of
> beaming power down to earth using SPSs. It's a dead idea,
economically.

I disagree. If not for SPS, I see no rationale for Habitat
construction.

> And as much as I admire Gerry O'Neill's vision and
accomplishments, he
> got that part of the economics wrong, compared to someone who
> specializes in energy and security issues like Amory Lovins at
RMI. SSI
> has been (partially) stuck in that mud of promoting SPS ever
since. SSI
> needs to move on from that outdated economic rationale. Repeat --
SSI
> needs to move on from SPS and beamed power -- the SPS issue may be
> technically sweet, but is economically and practically and
socially
> uninteresting compared to ready alternatives.

You can repeat your assertions as many times as you like, but absent
supportinig argument, which you neglect to provide, your assertions
are opinion, and IMHO, uninformed opinion.

You tout this vision of solar cell independence and premise this
vision of country estates all having the land available to deploy
the infrastructure. You neglect to factor in the energy costs
requried to manufacture the PV cells (which is extensive - where
will that energy come from? - oil? coal?) - with SPS all the energy
used is derived away from Earth's biosphere.

You also neglect to advance how dense cities can deploy sufficient
PV arrays to power tall buildings.

Further, how about industrial operations?

How about cloudy days? All those batteries, which have a finite
chemical lifecycle are going to wreak havoc with the environment.

> Frankly, I feel habitats will be built for theses sorts of reasons:
> * as an act of charity by a philanthropist (not investment as
> investments are meaningless once there is abundance for all),

You'd probably have a more likely outcome of winning the lotto 5
times in a row rather than counting on this outcome. First off you'd
have to have someone accumulate a fortune that is a multiple of what
Bill Gates has accumulated, and then be willing to bankrupt himself.

> * or as a collaborative effort by open source / free content
hobbyists
> (similar to GNU/Linux or model railroad enthusiasts),

OK, let's be generous, and assume that you have a million
enthusiasts who can offer their valuable skills. If each of these
people volunteered $100,000 of their time, you'd still be at only a
Hundred Billion dollars. How is the actual infrastructure going to
be paid for?

In short, I don't see this model being applicable.

> * or through huge government investment as a public works project
(or as
> a justification for continuing a social security pyramid scheme
> predicated on a growing population),

If the politicians can't make a case for an economic program like
SPS, then it strectches credulity to believe that they'll fund a
Habitat which has no economic rationale.

> * and/or by some kid or rogue AI with spare time and a nanotech
> replicator (in a few decades).

Might as well say god will make one appear in orbit as salvation for
those deserving souls.

TangoMan

Thanks for the detailed reply.

>> 1. Putting a nation's energy supply in orbit just puts the nation
>> at risk of space habitat originated cartels and embargoes instead
>> of earthly oil producer cartels and embargoes
> Are you the victim of a TV set cartel? There are no domestic
> manufacturers yet we seem to be able to purchase sets more cheaply
> than in the past. SPS is an asset in the same manner. Oil, OTOH is a
> consumable quantity that is subject to market forces on a daily
> basis.

TV sets last for many years, and also are a luxury more than a neccesity
for the consumer. Much of energy use is not a luxury given the current
US lifestyle -- without it, people freeze, ambulances can't get people
to hospitals, food is not delivered, water isn;t pumped, etc. Thus a TV
set embargo is not an appropriate analogy. A better analogy would be a
country like Singapore getting most of its drinking water from another
country. Is not such a situation a security concern?

Who is going to run say 100 SPSs in orbit? Perhaps the Habitat Power
Authority? And then you have a single point of failure if this Authority
goes rogue relative to the nation using the power.

There are other security issues as well -- a few missiles or saboteurs
and the entire SPS system can be taken out in one day. Right now the US
is in a panic over intelligence relating to terrorists planning
something like cargo airplane attacks on conventional nuclear plants
(and historically, as far back as the 1970s, one reason people opposed
building centralized nukes was the risk of terrorist attacks on them --
too bad Power interests overruled these grassroots concerns back then).

Centralization of an important activity like energy production to create
single points of failure makes a brittle energy supply system and that
is simply bad security policy. We currently have such a brittle system
-- see the book Brittle Power (the point of the title)
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/art7095.php
and have had such a brittle power for decades (e.g. the few oil and gas
pipelines in the US are very vulnerable according to that book) -- but
that does not change the fact that centralization of power production
from a security standpoint has been, and still is, a bad idea from a
national or personal security standpoint. It also doesn't change the
fact that centralizing anything in a big way also is in a sense
undemocratic and a threat to personal liberties because defending that
single point of failure (big nukes, SPSs, oil pipe lines, etc.) against
the bogeyman of the moment then justifies any sort of curtailment of
civil liberties (e.g. a "defense energy assurance act" which allows
preventive arrests for people who discuss or might discuss energy
vulnerability issues in public, etc.). So, an SPS future, absent a
radical shift in politics (such as benevolent world government or
non-government like in John Lennon's song "Imagine") would be a
political disaster used to justify fascism (not that fascism could
protect SPSs, any more than the US occupation in Iraq can stop attacks
there on pipelines and power grids, just that it would be argued by
Power propaganda that more fascism is a good idea for such times).

>> 2. Economically speaking, energy efficiency is a much better
>> economic investment than energy production.

> Here is my anecdotal rebuttal. Back in the late 70s, early 80s, I was
> a partner in a home insulation business. When we started, things
> were going gangbusters, but after a few years, our telephone
> solicters increasingly ran into more and more people who had already
> had their homes insulated. IOW, our retrofit market was finite and
> the more successul we were the faster we eroded the marketplace. I
> learned a very important lesson from that venture and it did help
> finance grad school.
>
> The claim of insulation leading to energy independence is clearly
> overstated.

First off, laws and tax credits have gone backwards in many cases since
that time (with the start of the Reagan years). Also, many such
insulation jobs (not saying anything personal) were poorly done by fly
by night outfits. So were many attempts at passive solar architecture
(too many windows, not enough vapor barriers, etc.) -- according to the
Passive Solar Architect who designed much of the house we live in.
Technology has also improved over the last twenty years. So, Passive
Solar is maybe a new business opportunity again someday?
http://jl-company.com/Research/PassiveSolar.html

I don't feel the issue is overstated (although numbers may shift over
time). For a well insulated (R60+) home, with proper passive solar
design the air conditioning and heating needs are much lower, and in the
case of heating can be typically supplied almost entirely by body heat
and electricity used in the home for appliance, computers, etc. Pretty
much eight months of the year our home needs no supplemental heating and
cooling. In the last winter (-20F typically, we live in the Adirondack
Park) we did use supplemental heating for about four months -- but our
home is a retrofit in a very cold area, and has some large north side
glass windows for a view (which are not especially well insulated), and
has some other energy leak issues that need updating. In any case, we
use elctric heat and our eletric bills are still about the same as our
neighbors who needs to keep a wood stove going. The addition of
exterior automatic thermal shutters for night time use would probably
reduce much of that bill. I would like to install an air-to-air heat
exchanger to reduce our window opening for occasional ventilation and
running indoor air filters (we have dogs producing hair and dander). So,
still things to do -- but note that with government incentives to do
these things, in the interests of security, they might get done faster.
Also note that air-to-air heat exchanges are simpler than air
conditioners yet cost 4X or more as much, don't come in convenient
window mount types typically, and thermal shutter prices seem way more
expensive than they need be. So, these are consequence of the rarity of
such efficiency improvements in the US.

For cities, simple things like painting roofs white can reduce energy
consumption. So can laws promoting more work from home to avoid
commuting costs etc.

> You leave out economic considerations, convenience and the market
> preferences of the consumers.

I'll agree with this -- however, it's interesting that people are
willing to support invading other countries rather than considering
saving money long term by energy efficiency. Yes, this is a cultural
problem -- the product of essentially a cult of imperialism stretching
back centuries. Making others suffer in a big way to avoid making
relatively minor policy changes related to energy efficiency is
uncivilized. Se below comments on bicycling. The US populaton seems far
more ready to contemplate armegeddon than either voluntary simplicity or
efficiency.

> For that matter, we could all use wood burning stoves and forget
> about oil heating our houses. It's only an environmental-air
> pollution problem, not a technical one. Think of all those forests
> that we can harvest - they're renewable - if only we could see
> through the smog to be able to cut down the trees.

No, because there probably is not enough available timber on a
sustainable basis given that most of the heat value in inefficient wood
stoves will be going up the chimney or out leaky doors and windows etc.
If you are talking efficient conversion of biomass to hydrogen coupled
with well built energy efficient homes, then maybe there is the
beginning of something there.

Note that my argument isn't that one energy source is enough (although
PV&Wind probably is). It is that by using energy more efficiently (thus
cutting consumption by half or even 9/10 while saving money) the energy
needs of the USA can be reduced to a point where renewables can easily
supply it.

Remember, between mining pits, safety zones around conveniontal big
nukes, utility right of ways lines, something like 1% of the US land
surface area is already devoted to energy production -- a surface area
ample for PV power production to meet all the US's energy needs if the
energy is used efficiently (including dealing with transportation issues
much more efficiently -- the hardest part). But even if I am widely off,
the US currently can supply something like 1/3 of its own energy from
fossil fuels from within its borders -- so energy efficiency and
renewable plus fossil fuels provides an immediate alternative to foreign
conquest and occupation for natural resource handling profits like in
Iraq. But of course, wars like Vietnam and Iraq are more about Power
(big P) than power (little P).

> For a PARTIAL explanation of this look to the addendum I attached to
> my previous post that addressed the larger distances between US
> metropolitan centers comapred to European centers. There are other
> factors at work as well, but that shouldn't completely diminish your
> point that there are inefficiencies in the US infrastructure.
>

I will agree that the US has built itself into a corner regarding
energy efficiency related to the automobile lifestyle and sprawl
(including by the ripping out light rail transit systems in the 1930s
done by tire and oil companies) despite warnings -- this will take quite
a while to resolve optimally.

The US is so backward it is not even safe to ride a
bicycle in most cases because of the risk of accidents by automobile
users. A recent clear channel radio broadcast actually promoted
automobile users running cyclists of the road and throwing things at them
-- just shows how far in the opposite direction the US has gone.
Contrast this with a country like the Netherlands with bicycle lanes
(and sidewalks) just about everywhere.

From the above link:
"Cyclists across the nation have reacted with furor to reports, widely
disseminated on the Internet, that a Raleigh, NC radio station (G105)
owned by Clear Channel Communications recently advocated violence
against cyclists, including suggestions of how to run cyclists off the
road. On two morning shows last week, the disc jockeys encouraged
listeners to call in with stories of how they had harassed cyclists,
whom they felt should not be on the road.One host joked of pelting
cyclists with empty Yoo-Hoo bottles. Calls came in from listeners who
agreed with him, and said that they would take similar action. A
show intern discussed a man in her neighborhood who shoots a pellet gun
at cyclists as they ride by his house, attempting to hit their tires to
make them crash. According to a listener quoted in the October 1
Raleigh News Observer, "One caller said her dad had purposely hit a
biker on the road on the way to church one Sunday and kept on going.
That got laughs. Bob (one of the hosts) thought that was funny."

So, this is the emotional and legal and infrastructure pit the US people
have dug for themselves and which they need to crawl out of. Yes,
perhaps irradiating other countries with DU etc. does seem easier than
dealing with such a moral quagmire at home. But the US energy policy is
still morally wrong and lazy -- and the US population will inevitably
suffer for this unless there continues to be a change in perspective
(which is happening, it slowly). The issue is simply that the general US
population pays the costs, while a Power elite gets the benefits of this
lazy and morally bankrupt energy and conquest policy.

> Economically and practically it makes sense to
> stop wasting energy before producing more of it.
>
> I disagree. Philosophically you raise a point of view. Economically,
> the markets decide, and the markets are choosing the route of cheap
> consumables over asset intensive mitagation.

Conventional response, but incomplete. The markets are not pricing the
external costs like military subsidies, health consequences (like
breathing radioactives from coal plant exhaust), environmental
degradation etc. which make the current means of energy production many
times more costly than what the market sees. Also, the market has heavy
intervention by a tax code promoting energy and resource waste (by
lobbying from vested interests). Thus, from a moral or sustainable point
of view, the market is producing insane activities. Any decent economist
will essentially admit that markets only optimize based on market
visible costs. Of course your answer could be to privatize the
envirornment etc. and have lawsuits etc. but in practice that
essentially means only the wealthy will have guaranteed clean air and
water and access to less-spoiled nature. A better answer might be to try
to change some of the underlying tax codes and legal codes so the market
sees these external costs and there is a level playing field for renewables.

The bottom line is that if there is a nuclear war etc. over oil
resources, or just continued biosphere pollution until systemic
ecosystem failure of human life support, the market is over. The market
could care less if it expires -- since it is not an evolved sentient
organism. Yet, every step to such of a disaster makes economic sense to
the market... So, this means the market control system must be flawed
from a human survival perspective. Either it needs to be replaced (e.g.
by Star Trek nanotech replicators + PV which eliminate much of the
market for essentials) or it needs to be adjusted by laws related to
justice and survival.

>> And once less energy is used, many on Earth renewable solutions
>> are viable to produce minimal energy needs using local resources
>> (sun, wind, hydro, tidal, biomass, geothermal, etc.).
>
> The sources you mention above are insufficient in scale or robustness
> to offset the current infrastructure.

I am talking about an improved infrastructure.

Even if I wasn't, based on the scale of current land use, we could
probably do it all now with renewable, especially using hydrogen or
other artificially produced liquid fuels (e.g your human waster example)
as an energy storage and transfer media.

A related article on Hydrogen:
http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/rew/2001_04/routes_to_a_hydrogen_economy.html

Something else I wrote on this topic of energy use:
http://www.bootstrap.org/dkr/discussion/0008.html

> I disagree. If not for SPS, I see no rationale for Habitat
> construction.

So you're in this just for the money? :-)
I doubt that. Perhaps you mean, "If not for SPS, I see no [economic]
rationale for Habitat construction."

So then why was, say, the city of Boston built? Why do people build
second homes on the water? I think it is valid to say people will build
habitats as places to live -- as new cities -- in the long term just
because they want to. We may just have to disagree on this, but if SPSs
make no economic sense (and I believe they don't) then you are (if I am
right) saying we will never have habitats. That is a sad thought.

> You can repeat your assertions as many times as you like, but absent
> supportinig argument, which you neglect to provide, your assertions
> are opinion, and IMHO, uninformed opinion.

Try out some of the links, especially Brittle power, RMI, etc.
Much of my knowledge on this topic comes from Amory Lovins' work and
that of related people. See for example:
http://www.futurenet.org/19technology/cashman.htm
"Todays state-of-the-art wind turbines are producing electricity for 4
cents a kilowatt hour before any subsidies. (For comparison, the average
wholesale electricity price in California eighteen months ago was three
cents; a year ago 10 cents; six months ago 31 cents.) Wind power is
immune to erratic fuel prices and is fully competitive today with
electricity from fossil fuels.... Years ago, Buckminster Fuller saw
fossil fuels as the starter motor for the industrial-technological
society. He said it is time to move from the starter motor to the main
engines, which are solar, wind, and ocean energies. By moving to the
hydrogen economy, we will return to making our living within the steady
income energies of nature. If we can shift from the starter motor to the
main engines in time to prevent global warming, we may yet acquire the
wisdom to direct the rest of our technologies towards a more positive
effect on the living world."

> You tout this vision of solar cell independence and premise this
> vision of country estates all having the land available to deploy the
> infrastructure. You neglect to factor in the energy costs requried
> to manufacture the PV cells (which is extensive - where will that
> energy come from? - oil? coal?) - with SPS all the energy used is
> derived away from Earth's biosphere.

First off, there is very little difference between suggesting on earth
PV (or mirror farms focused on boilers) which produces power to make
more generating capacity, and in space PV (or boilers) which is used to
make more energy capacity -- excepted granted there are some orbital
advantages (no sand storms, 100% sunlight all the time) though they are
also offset by some disadvantages (receivers taking a significant land
area, solar storms, current difficulty of remote space operations).

Granted, this is the best case, but see for example:
http://www.awea.org/faq/bal.html
"The energy generated by wind turbines pays for the materials used to
make them in a matter of months, according to three separate European
studies. The question, thought by industry analysts to have been
effectively answered during the 1970s, has been raised anew recently by
some critics of proposed new wind power plants, who have questioned
whether the energy produced by a wind turbine justifies its
construction. The question possibly arises from now-dated findings on
the net energy pay-back of solar photovoltaic cells, according to Jos
Beurskens, manager of renewable energy for the Dutch national energy
research center ECN. Early solar cells had a negative energy balance,
Beurskens said, but more recent products perform far better and pay back
the energy consumed in their manufacture within ten years. As the
performance of photovoltaics improves, so too will their energy balance.
In contrast to photovoltaics, Beurskens said, wind turbines typically
pay for themselves in a matter of months. "

So, even PVs, which last thirty years, so have at least a 3 for one
energy payback. And this will only improve with more production and
better designs. And as the article says, wind turbines pay back all the
energy in the first year. The article includes a chart:
Type of Power Plant / Payback (Months)
Nuclear 0.7
Coal 0.7
Wind @ 7 m/s 2.5 - 7.5
Wind @ 5.5 m/s 3.8 - 11.4
Wind @ 4 m/s 6.3 - 22.7
Photovoltaic:
Monocrystalline @ 1,000 W/m2 87
Monocrystalline @ 2,200 W/m2 44
Multicrystalline @ 1,000 W/m2 85
Multicrystalline @ 2,200 W/m2 43
Amorphous @ 1,000 W/m2 56
Amorphous @ 2,200 W/m2 28

Note that there are other issues to consider as well for payback --
human labor, external costs, scalability, siting, security, waste, etc.

> You also neglect to advance how dense cities can deploy sufficient PV
> arrays to power tall buildings.

Buildings can be redesigned to use less energy (say moving heat around
instead of cooling one side while heating the other using electric
coolers and heater). Semitransparent windows can be layered with PV.
Obviously, cities can have nearby solar and wind and tidal or hydro or
geothermal etc. energy plants as well. They key hear is "nearby". They
can also be part of a grid, but still have local fallback resources for
core operations.

> Further, how about industrial operations?

Electricity and Hydrogen are mainstays of much industrial production,,
and renewables can make these. Recycling carbon and metals can handle
much materials needs.

> How about cloudy days? All those batteries, which have a finite
> chemical lifecycle are going to wreak havoc with the environment.

A mix of PV and wind tends to balance out well -- when it is cloudy for
the PV it is often windy. Hydrogen storage can deal with storage and
transport. As can producing liquid or gas carbon fuels using surplus
electric power. Lead batteries can be pretty much 100% recycled.

>> Frankly, I feel habitats will be built for theses sorts of reasons:
>> * as an act of charity by a philanthropist (not investment as
>> investments are meaningless once there is abundance for all),
>
> You'd probably have a more likely outcome of winning the lotto 5
> times in a row rather than counting on this outcome. First off you'd
> have to have someone accumulate a fortune that is a multiple of what
> Bill Gates has accumulated, and then be willing to bankrupt himself.

FINDS is already supported at a low level by such a philanthropist.

>> * or as a collaborative effort by open source / free content
>> hobbyists (similar to GNU/Linux or model railroad enthusiasts),

> OK, let's be generous, and assume that you have a million enthusiasts
> who can offer their valuable skills. If each of these people
> volunteered $100,000 of their time, you'd still be at only a Hundred
> Billion dollars. How is the actual infrastructure going to be paid
> for?
>
> In short, I don't see this model being applicable.

One hundred billion dollars worth of engineering might be able to design
a ten ton seed which when sent to the moon or the asteroids could
produce habitats. The cost of constructing and launching one such seed
might be less than a billion dollars -- at which point the threshold is
low enough the countries or billionaires might step in.

So consider the situation I propose: Imagine if I had a billion dollars
to spend on Space Habitats (not that I do) and was willing to spend half
on seed construction using an engineering firm and half on launch costs
-- as soon as I am handed a hard disk with all the plans and software to
run the system. The challenge is to produce that hard disk using free
design and simulation labor. I can pretty much gaurantee as a gut
feeling if we had such a hard disk someone would step forward with the
billion.

>> * or through huge government investment as a public works project
>> (or as a justification for continuing a social security pyramid scheme
>> predicated on a growing population),
>
> If the politicians can't make a case for an economic program like
> SPS, then it strectches credulity to believe that they'll fund a
> Habitat which has no economic rationale.

The US military and Japan's roads to nowhere are examples already of
such make work projects. As is historically in the 1930s the US civilian
conservation corps etc. whose roads and buildings are still in use
today. There was also a writers project in the 1930s leading to oral
histories etc. See for example:
http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/porkbarrel_express.htm
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/nations/0,8782,98449,00.html
These Japanese projects in the $100s of billions of dollars have no
economic rationales and are funded as pork. Why not space habitats?

>> * and/or by some kid or rogue AI with spare time and a nanotech
>> replicator (in a few decades).
> Might as well say god will make one appear in orbit as salvation for
> those deserving souls.

Realistically, if you look at Moore's law,
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
and Vinge's Singularity,
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html
this one may be the most likely. :-)

> TangoMan

Thanks again for the comments. I may not have time soon to reply much
further right now, but I appreciate the dialogue. Again, I think if you
look into the details, you'll see energy efficiency and renewables are a
surer and safer bet that SPSs for energy security. But long term,
habitats are worthwhile for their own sake -- and because they will
spill innovation back to Earth, just like Boston spills innovations back
on the rest of the US.

--Paul Fernhout

This is being discussed on slashdot right now:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid/11/10/1217259

On efficiency - all you're doing is prolonging the inevitable,
and making flexible solutions harder to introduce (the more efficient
something is, the harder it is to change). Lack of efficiency is
our buffer against sharp swings in energy availability (short-term
efficiencies helped California survive their crisis) but it's no
long-term solution to anything. Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute
have been pushing this and a variety of related 'memes' for decades;
in some ways they've helped, but it really doesn't solve the main
future energy problem.

I just read through some relevant parts of the
"2003 State of the Future" report, from the ACUNU
"Millenium Project": http://www.acunu.org/millennium/issues.html

they mention space solar power all over the place, as
one of the significant future energy options that have
to be considered (along with fusion, and terrestrial solar and wind).
Particularly in the analysis article by Paul Werbos, included,
where 4 "numbers" related to challenges for energy supply are listed:

(1) Car fuel: we need to continue to find larger and larger
affordable quantities of fuel for cars, trucks, busses, etc., even as
conventional oil supplies become more and more of a problem. This is
once again an urgent short-term issue for the world, as we contemplate
the relations between the Middle East and the industrialized world over
the next two decades, and as we consider the needs of developing nations.
The key number we have to watch is the supply of the specific forms of
energy that we can use in cars.

(2) Primary Energy: we do also need to watch the total energy number. We
don't have to worry about having enough total energy right now, but we do
have good reasons to worry about the price of electricity, the long-term
trends, and our ability to hold down costs while also respecting the
two constraints below.

(3) Environmental Sustainability. The most important single number
we need to worry about is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet as
we chart the near-term pathway to a sustainable future, NOx emissions
and stratospheric ozone also matter a lot. We may debate the importance
of these numbers and how it varies over time, but certainly these are
major global concerns.

(4) Global Nuclear Security. Scenarios have
been considered for meeting all the energy needs of a growing world
economy, across all sectors (not just todays electricity use), based on
conventional local nuclear power plants. In the Middle East, for
example, economics would almost certainly require a massive use of
local construction companies such as Bin Laden enterprises or certain
famous Russian and Chinese all-purpose export companies. But it is
questionable whether the world is currently able to manage even the
much smaller flow of nuclear materials and technology across Eurasia
today; there is a compelling national security reason to do our best to
avoid a growth in the problem by orders of magnitude.

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"
> Thanks for the detailed reply.
>
> >> 1. Putting a nation's energy supply in orbit just puts the
nation
> >> at risk of space habitat originated cartels and embargoes
instead
> >> of earthly oil producer cartels and embargoes
> > Are you the victim of a TV set cartel? There are no domestic
> > manufacturers yet we seem to be able to purchase sets more
cheaply
> > than in the past. SPS is an asset in the same manner. Oil, OTOH
is a
> > consumable quantity that is subject to market forces on a daily
> > basis.
>

>

Thus a TV
> set embargo is not an appropriate analogy. A better analogy would
be a
> country like Singapore getting most of its drinking water from
another
> country. Is not such a situation a security concern?

The reason I don't buy into beamed energy being equivalent to flows
of oil or water is because the SPS is an asset and the
actual "transport" of the commodity (energy) is not as easily
interrupted as with oil and water. Break out of that paradigm.

If you're looking for a water analogy, think a saltwater
desalinization plant on the Singapore shore. Is owning a
desalinization plant a security concern? This example is now in the
same frame of reference with respect to SPS and counters the oil
tankers and water pipeline commodity flows that are prone to
security lapses.

>
> Who is going to run say 100 SPSs in orbit?

Why one single entity? Who runs all of the electric generating
plants around the world? Surely not one entity.

From a financing point of view, I'm assuming that SPS is sold to a
utility thus freeing up the capital of the SPS construction outfit
so that they can deploy to more projects.

Perhaps they have a maintenance and refurbishment contract but the
command and control rests with the utility perhaps with oversight
from a national authority, just like is the present case with
utilities.

Bechtel may build the nuclear plant but they don't own it nor do
they run it.

Perhaps the Habitat Power
> Authority? And then you have a single point of failure if this
Authority
> goes rogue relative to the nation using the power.

I'm also not in favor of centralization to this degree. As to the
issue of going rogue, well that's sounds like good fiction to me but
highly unlikely as a serious prospect considering the sums of
capital involved. You don't see General Motors, Boeing, ExxonMobil,
Seimans, Nestle, etc going "rogue" and threatening nations. OK,
maybe Microsoft :)))

> There are other security issues as well -- a few missiles or
saboteurs
> and the entire SPS system can be taken out in one day.

In Geosynchronous prbit? It's not like a saboteur can sneak up
through the underbrush and remain undetected. You'll see anyone
appraoching a SPS thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of miles
before they are a threat. Also, in dealing with orbits, it's not
like they can suddenly veer into the SPS from another orbit with
their space version of a truck bomb.

As for missiles, we're not talking shoulder launched anti-aircraft
missiles here, but launch vehicles like Delta, Atlas, Arrianne,
Zenit, etc that can reach GEO. Further, with launch detecting
satellites any nation that launches an attack can be swiftly
identified and dealt with before the offending missile can travel
the 36,000 miles to GEO and the SPS.

Distance to GEO is a HUGE security benefit. Sneaking up in the
underbrush with your shoulder launched missile and firing it at a
nuclear/coal/gas fired plant is a much more likely scenario.

> Centralization of an important activity like energy production to
create
> single points of failure makes a brittle energy supply system and
that
> is simply bad security policy.

I don't disagree with this principle.

Pretty
> much eight months of the year our home needs no supplemental
heating and
> cooling.

That's terrific and you're to be applauded. I have a good geothermal
heatpump for my home which use the moderating temperature of the
Earth to heat my home. I love it. Goes great with radiant heating.

I should say that I employ this system for the personal reasons of
feeling independent, doing something for the environment, etc not
for economic return. If I didn't have idiosyncratic reasons, I
wouldn't have invested in the systems. I like the technology. Saving
the environment really played no role in my decision to finacne this
system.

I gather from your writing that you are a booster of energy
independence for the home, and you probably ascribe to the feelings
of personal freedom, respectul environmental stewardship, etc but
surely you must recognize that your passion is not shared by the
vast majority of your nation, or the world, although in aggregate
you have a respectably sized community.

> For cities, simple things like painting roofs white can reduce
energy
> consumption. So can laws promoting more work from home to avoid
> commuting costs etc.

While such iniatives may make sense on their own, what bothers me
about the "environmental movement" and the solar/wind/tide etc
energy advocates is the social engineering aspects the groups
advocate to bring people into line with their beliefs vis a
vis "Gaia" or the "environment" and their whole underlying
philosophy. Basically, the Green politics that seems to go hand in
hand with solar, wind etc.

I'm not saying that this is what your position is, but it rang
faintly familiar so I just took the opportunity to expound on the
broader movement. No offense intended.

>
> > You leave out economic considerations, convenience and the
market
> > preferences of the consumers.
>
> I'll agree with this -- however, it's interesting that people are
> willing to support invading other countries rather than considering
> saving money long term by energy efficiency.

I'll bet you that there are many people who don't support the
Iraq "initiative" who also don't practice energy conservation. They
drive their big SUVs and live in spacious homes, and have horrendous
commutes, and leave their lights on all the time, and have lots of
north facing windows, etc and they don't connect the geopolitics
with their oil and energy use when they are protesting against
American involvement in Iraq. But have another "oil crisis" and see
how their opinions change. I find that it is always easier to change
a person's political opinion than to get them to make a substantive
change in their standard of living or opening their pocketbook. So
if something is to change as the result of another oil shock, I'll
bet it'll be the protests that wither away rather than a surge in
popularity of soalr cells.

Yes, this is a cultural
> problem -- the product of essentially a cult of imperialism
stretching
> back centuries. Making others suffer in a big way to avoid making
> relatively minor policy changes related to energy efficiency is
> uncivilized.

Now you're getting into the philosophical and ethical issues that
underlie the character of Western civilization. This is a form of
what I was complaining against earlier in the post.

I don't think that you'll have much luck informing the majority of
your nation that they are guilty of oppresion and that they should
change their ways.

You may have luck in getting people to accept the guilt of Western
civilization but I think the guilt will be hollow for those very
people, except the true beleivers, won't be willing to lower their
standard of living to assuage the harm they've done and for which
they feel their guilt.

I shudder at the thought of a world that didn't have Western
Civilization in its history. I'm not one of the ones who feel guilty
about our role in history.

> > For that matter, we could all use wood burning stoves and forget
> > about oil heating our houses. It's only an environmental-air
> > pollution problem, not a technical one. Think of all those
forests
> > that we can harvest - they're renewable - if only we could see
> > through the smog to be able to cut down the trees.
>
> No, because there probably is not enough available timber on a
> sustainable basis given that most of the heat value in inefficient
wood
> stoves will be going up the chimney or out leaky doors and windows
etc.

My comment above was a play on the form of argument - "environmental-
air pollution problem, not a technical one." There are lots of
things are aren't technically limited but are still unfeasible for a
variety of other, equally valid, reasons.

> If you are talking efficient conversion of biomass to hydrogen
coupled
> with well built energy efficient homes, then maybe there is the
> beginning of something there.

But I don't buy into the whole "Mother Earth" philosophy that
underpins much of this movement. SPS is a solution that is LESS
DISRUPTIVE to the ways of the world.

>
> Note that my argument isn't that one energy source is enough
(although
> PV&Wind probably is). It is that by using energy more efficiently
(thus
> cutting consumption by half or even 9/10 while saving money) the
energy
> needs of the USA can be reduced to a point where renewables can
easily
> supply it.

This reminds me of the local activists who are "conservation" driven
and are opposed to the raising of a local dam that supports the
watershed, so we all have to conserve water and during the rainy
season so much water spills over the dam and is lost to our use.
These conservationists are politically active and are imposing this
outcome because they are successful at painting themselves in a
morally positive way and being Earth friendly.

What is the point of enduring the sacrifice and expense needed to
live within the means of renewables when there is less disruption
and more dynamism that follows from deploying SPS.

The philosophy of living in harmony with Gaia is not inherently more
correct or moral than using power to make the lot of man better and
doing so as inexpensively as possible.

Note, that I'm not saying that wasting energy is a good thing.
Energy should be conserved but not to the point that major lifestyle
changes are mandated in order to save a few watts. If people are
happy to pay more for wasting energy then they are making that
decision with the pocketbooks and moral imperatives are annoying.

A better answer might be to try
> to change some of the underlying tax codes and legal codes so the
market
> sees these external costs and there is a level playing field for
renewables.

I agree, for I think that this will show the benefits of SPS as an
alternative to existing processes.

Renewables do have a place but they are limited in their scope of
operation, their scalability, and their geographic coverage to be
truely viable replacements.

This isn't taking away from their benefits in the areas in which
they are deployed for they are "Earth Friendly" in many respects,
and that should appease the Gaiaists and Non-Gaisists alike.

> Even if I wasn't, based on the scale of current land use, we could
> probably do it all now with renewable, especially using hydrogen

http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/rew/2001_04/routes_to_a_hydrogen_economy.
html

From your link above I pull this quote:

BEGIN QUOTE
Beijing, formal plans to co-operate on the production and delivery
of hydrogen, though the initial focus may be on generation from
coal. In the Middle East emirate of Dubai, where the decline of Gulf
oil reserves is first expected to become apparent, the government is
working with BMW on a feasibility study regarding the potential for
producing hydrogen from its share of the world's sunbelt.

Islands, where the combination of indigenous renewable resources,
fossil fuel import dependence and exposure to climate change is
arguably greatest, are the vanguard of the hydrogen transition -
fittingly so, Jules Verne might have added. The government of
Iceland, whose electricity is almost entirely derived from
geothermal and hydro power, aims to become the world's first
hydrogen economy, through a multimillion dollar partnership to
convert its buses, cars and boats to the fuel over the next 30
years - exporting the rest to Europe. Following Iceland's lead, the
Pacific island of Vanuatu has outlined its vision for a 100%
hydrogen economy by 2010, based on renewable energy, including
geothermal, solar, wind and hydro sources. Hawaii, rich in both
solar and geothermal resources, recently established a public-
private partnership to promote hydrogen in the island's energy
economy - possibly exporting the excess to California.

END QUOTE

You'll note that the Chinese are looking to extract the hydrogen
from coal and Iceland makes no mention of where they'll be getting
their hydrogen.

Hydrogen-Oxygen fuel cells are great as means of STORING ENERGY but
not as a means of producing energy. The hydrogen and oxygen have to
first be produced and that takes energy!

I'm all for the technology of Hydrogen-Oxygen fuel cells. Absolutely.

Rather than getting the hydrogen from reforming natural gas and then
having to deal with the issue of carbon sequestration, I'd rather
have a constellation of SPS beaming power down to electrolysis
plants to split the water. A hydrogen economy is going to require
massive amounts of cheap power to split the water. When that happens
then the hydrogen economy is also good for the environment. Further,
desalinization plants can help Southern California and other deserts
support their ever growing populations without causing as much
environmental havoc as the current Colorado river schemes.

Wind/solar/tide energy isn't sufficient in scale or robustness to
generate the multiples of the TerraWatss that we currently use that
will be needed to split enough water into its costituent parts so
that we can have a clean hydrogen fuel infrastructure.

> > I disagree. If not for SPS, I see no rationale for Habitat
> > construction.
>
> So you're in this just for the money? :-)

In short, yes.

> I doubt that. Perhaps you mean, "If not for SPS, I see no
[economic]
> rationale for Habitat construction."

OK, I can stand behind this statement just as well.

> So then why was, say, the city of Boston built?

It wasn't. It grew over time because it served as a focal point for
commerce in the region.

Why do people build
> second homes on the water? I think it is valid to say people will
build
> habitats as places to live -- as new cities -- in the long term
just
> because they want to.

Let's take this reasoning further. People who can afford it may like
to live in a High Rise facing Central Park in NYC. Beautiful view,
great night life, etc.

Surely, you're not suggesting that the whole city of NY must be
built, to get to the point of having a Central Park and then a High
Rise, in order for the FIRST settler to come in and buy a condo for
a second home. The whole reason for building up the scale and
infrastructure of NYC only in order to entice sales of condos in
high rises.

We may just have to disagree on this, but if SPSs
> make no economic sense (and I believe they don't) then you are (if
I am
> right) saying we will never have habitats. That is a sad thought.

If I buy into your premise on SPS, and absent any other economic
rationale for requiring orbital infrastructure, then yes, Habitats
will never come to be.

Wind power is
> immune to erratic fuel prices and is fully competitive today with
> electricity from fossil fuels....

Yes it is. It is also true that you can't just put a wind farm
anywhere and get the same output. Also, if a wind farm is located in
less than an ideal location, its output will be sporadic. Wind power
is a niche supplier, but in that niche it can be competitive.

> First off, there is very little difference between suggesting on
earth
> PV (or mirror farms focused on boilers) which produces power to
make
> more generating capacity, and in space PV (or boilers) which is
used to
> make more energy capacity -- excepted granted there are some
orbital
> advantages (no sand storms, 100% sunlight all the time) though
they are
> also offset by some disadvantages (receivers taking a significant
land
> area, solar storms, current difficulty of remote space operations).
>

I'm not 100% certain I understood the point you were trying to make,
so I'll offer my rebuttal to my interpretation of the above.

To make a PV cell on Earth, the silicon and other crystalline
material have to be mined. Mining is an evil activity to
environmentalists - raping the Earth.

Then the materials have to be transported from the mine site to the
refining site and then on to the crytal growing site. That
transportation takes energy. That too is bad for Gaia.

Then there are the toxic wastes produced from the chemical processes
used in the more advanced crystalline composites. Where do those
wastes go? How much energy is used to ameleorate the toxicity of the
waste?

It takes a lot of energy to melt the silicon and pull the crystal
out of the melt. Where is that energy coming from?

The diameter of the crucible from which the melt is pulled is
limited due to thermal constraints, thus scalability of the
operation doesn't benefit tremendously from volume, and the waste
heat and space used are bad for the envirnoment.

All of these factors and more are not a problem for Earth if they
occur in orbit, using lunar or asteroidal material. Earth can return
to pristine condition.

> So, even PVs, which last thirty years, so have at least a 3 for
> one energy payback.

And you'd have an INFINITE, or close to it if you factor in the
initial energy required to launch the beginnings of the orbital
infrastructure into orbit, energy payback by developing your SPS
from orbital resources.

Hmm, :1 or 3:1. I'd go for the :1 energy payback hands down.

You haven't written enough on this subject for me to fully
understand the nuance of your argument, so I offer the below
comments, not in reference to this dialogue, but as a point of view
with respect to many environmentalists I debated with.

It is a continuing source of bewilderment for me why the
environmental movement doesn't embrace the SPS concept for it would
remove all the electrical and biosphere damaging manufacturing costs
of electrical generation away from the Earth.

Perhaps the idea of energy coming from space feels like cheating and
their underlying philosophy of mankind living in harmony and balance
with nature trumps saving damage to the Earth's environment. It is
this hypocrisy that bothers me in the extreme, and it makes the
environmental movement look more like pagan religousity rather than
a movement concerned with the betterment of the environment in which
we live.

As with all religious movements it has a worldview, philosophy and
goals that it espouses. Bettering the environment is not the prime
goal, rather that is reserved for mankind living in harmony, however
that may be defined, with Gaia.

Just as it is a fruitless task to argue relgion with someone, I've
found that the environmentalists I've encountered just can't let go
of their dogmas to see the benefit of removing energy generation
from the surface of the Earth into orbit.

For any quasi-environmentalists reading this, come over to the Dark-
Side and join the SPS movement :) and really do some good for the
environment. You don't have to buy into the other environmental
philosophy in order to actually do good for the environment.

TangoMan

Speaking of energy I'd be interested to know what are the lists opinions on
Zaslavsky's energy towers: http://www2.ari.net/zwirnm/arubot.htm

Let's leave apart the security concerns for a moment, as I think we all
agree that SPS offer by far the best security possible from a terrorist or
even a military strike, if nothing else for the sheer complexity of reaching
them with anything short of a state of the art million $ device... they may
be at risk from environmental phenomena, but then so is anything else.

What I was curious is what you think in terms of feasibility of this
project... is it technically sound? Would be cost effective?

As a completely unrelated aside, I stand by the concept of the
self-replicating seeds. It is by far the most efficient and most importantly
*cheap* way to colonize space. Unlike all the previous colonization in human
history the move to space is a move into an hostile environment, an
environment in which humans can't survive without huge infrastructures
already in place. This is not a issue for machines, we can send the machines
to create the basic environment and infrastructure needed to allow for human
colonization to follow. I think this is really the only realistic option,
and current trend in space exploration is already moving in this direction.
All space missions existing and planned are already unmanned, with the
single exception of the ISS, and even that is little more than a laboratory
to study the feasibility of putting humans in space for long time. ISS is
doing little more than proving how much logistic support is needed for
manned operations in space, and that is precisely why unmanned operations
are the way forward. Unmanned doesn't mean exclusively relying on AI mind
you, remote supervision and continuous reprogramming is certainly going to
play the lion part at least at the beginning, especially if the moon will be
the first step, as it seems logical.

I guess what I'm trying to say is why try to push for a megabillions project
when we could achieve much more with a comparatively tiny investment? If the
goal is space habitats and SPS IMHO the way forward is R&D in
self-replicating seed technology that can be started by relative small
private funding, much easier to obtain than huge government spending in a
direction that is not only opposite to the politics of current US
administration but perhaps more importantly is directly opposite the
personal interests of many people in any US administration...

My 2.p anyway... :)

Cheers,

Claudio

> Speaking of energy I'd be interested to know what are the lists
opinions on
> Zaslavsky's energy towers: http://www2.ari.net/zwirnm/arubot.htm

Thanks for the link. I recall seeing this proposal a few years ago
and thought it was interesting.

> What I was curious is what you think in terms of feasibility of
this
> project... is it technically sound? Would be cost effective?

I'm not really qualified to examine the technical matters, but to my
layman's eye, I don't see any real showstoppers.

I would not jump from theory to full scale immediately. I'd be more
comfortable with scaling prototypes where the process can be
investigated in more detail, the engineering and construction can
also be examined and modeled for larger iterations.

I think it may be pemature for commercial application.

> As a completely unrelated aside, I stand by the concept of the
> self-replicating seeds. It is by far the most efficient and most
importantly
> *cheap* way to colonize space.

That assumes that they work as truely self-replicating and the
assumptions that lead you to proclaim them to be cheap do in fact
hold true. Absent these details, and the fact that they don't yet
exist, I'm not comfortable in sharing your belief in their
potential. I don't though, deny their potential to achieve your
conditions. If it will be as you say, then great. What you propose
is only a small branch on a large probability tree of the future
with respect to orbital industrialization.

Unlike all the previous colonization in human
> history the move to space is a move into an hostile environment, an
> environment in which humans can't survive without huge
infrastructures
> already in place. This is not a issue for machines, we can send
the machines
> to create the basic environment and infrastructure needed to allow
for human
> colonization to follow.

I agree. Note though, that the machines don't have to be self-
replicating.

> I guess what I'm trying to say is why try to push for a
megabillions project
> when we could achieve much more with a comparatively tiny
investment? If the
> goal is space habitats and SPS IMHO the way forward is R&D in
> self-replicating seed technology that can be started by relative
small
> private funding, much easier to obtain than huge government
spending in a
> direction that is not only opposite to the politics of current US
> administration but perhaps more importantly is directly opposite
the
> personal interests of many people in any US administration...
>
> My 2.p anyway... :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Claudio

The problem is that we have the tech to build SPS and Habitats now,
while self-replicating machines are still impossible, thus they are
the Dues ex Machina in our dialogue.

The beauty of this list and of democracy is that we can all advocate
for our favored positions. I wonder if anyone has incorporated a non-
profit research corporation to solicit donations to be used for self-
replicating research.

As for an institutional goal, for SSI and similar organizations, I
think that they should stick to their knitting and let others devote
resources to researching self-replicating machines and then we can
use them when they are fully developed. We don't need to invent
everything, we just need to figure out how to build and pay for our
desired orbital infrastructure using the tools on hand.

TangoMan

> > Speaking of energy I'd be interested to know what are the lists
> opinions on
> > Zaslavsky's energy towers: http://www2.ari.net/zwirnm/arubot.htm
>
> Thanks for the link. I recall seeing this proposal a few years ago
> and thought it was interesting.

Same here, I was wondering if anything new was happening about it... sounds
like it has a lot of potential but I agree it's probably far from being
commercially mature or we would have heard more about it...

*big snip

>
> The problem is that we have the tech to build SPS and Habitats now,
> while self-replicating machines are still impossible, thus they are
> the Dues ex Machina in our dialogue.

They aren't that far at all actually... a 1980 feasibility study from NASA
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
was putting them within reach of entirely existing (at the time)
conventional technology, so by now they're in fact more technically feasible
than SPS and habitats, once again the issue is not technology, but
economical interests and politics. But the big advantage from our pov of
those systems is that they require a fraction of the initial investment...
all that program needed was approximately four Apollo missions worth of
start up! Breadcrumbs compared to building SPS from here, and it would
become able to build an SPS in a couple of decades at a tiny fraction of the
cost of sending up and assembly the thing from earth... :)
If Carter had given the go ahead for that program back when it was proposed,
today we would have 1,024 plants in place on the moon with a combined
productivity of 102,400 tons/year by the most conservative estimates in that
report, and most importantly since the system would still be growing
exponentially that would continue to double every two years.
SPSs would be that much more close!

> The beauty of this list and of democracy is that we can all advocate
> for our favored positions. I wonder if anyone has incorporated a non-
> profit research corporation to solicit donations to be used for self-
> replicating research.

I would be very interested to know that too... sounds like the kind of job
I'd apply for tomorrow... ;)

> As for an institutional goal, for SSI and similar organizations, I
> think that they should stick to their knitting and let others devote
> resources to researching self-replicating machines and then we can
> use them when they are fully developed. We don't need to invent
> everything, we just need to figure out how to build and pay for our
> desired orbital infrastructure using the tools on hand.

Agree completely, my point was that self replicating systems IMHO are
exactly that: the best way to build and pay for our desired orbital
infrastructure using the tools on hand! :)

Cheers,

Claudio

> > The problem is that we have the tech to build SPS and Habitats
now,
> > while self-replicating machines are still impossible, thus they
are
> > the Dues ex Machina in our dialogue.
>
> They aren't that far at all actually... a 1980 feasibility study
from NASA
> http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

OK, I must have had a brain spasm. Good link. When I was
reading "self-replicating" I was thinking on a nano particle scale.

Yes, self-replicating is within our means if the machines are built
without concern to complexity and mass.

I personally wouldn't go so far in the design parameters. Autonomous
and tele-operated systems should be able to accomplish many early
goals. See:

How far away is this from what you find appropriate?

TangoMan

You have many good points and I enjoyed reading your reply (especially
philosophy points).

Let me again summarize the key (non philosophical) issues here:

1. Vulnerability of SPS

You think an SPS is not vulnerable to terrorism or embargo in our
current geopolitical system. I disagree.

Here are several obvious attacks on SPS off the top of my head:
A. Taking over encrypted communications channels to use robots at the
SPS to disable it. Coudl be done in a matter of minutes.
B. Using a computer virus to change where the SPS is pointing or fire
thrusters to deorbit it (and terrorize people with where it will crash).
C. Trusted engineers being secret sleeper terrorists.
D. Destruction of rectennas on the ground through conventional means.
E. Given the wide prevalence of space transports assumed by large use of
SPS, hijacking one of these vehicles either onboard or remotely and
crashing it into an SPS.
F. Exploding a fragmentation weapon in geosyncronous orbit (or other SPS
orbit) at a distance away and lettign the shrapnel over time destroy the
SPS. Note that this may happen anyway, as NASA and other studies show
that there is already so much space junk that there is a high risk of a
cascade failure of all orbiting satellites etc. ans the shreddign of one
leads to the shreddign of others etc. in a total destruction of all
space infrastrucutre in various orbits.
G. Ground based lasers destroying the SPS.
H. EMP destruction of SPS from nearby nuclear blasts.
I. Direct rocket attacks -- the only defense assumes a quick and
complete militarization of space and I think that is a bad thing, for
among other reasons that once space is militarized conflicts between
Powers or one power going rogue could use this military potential to
destroy all SPSs.
J. Any organization can go on strike. Any set of organizations can form
a cartel. For example, Singapore dependent on one desalinization plant
is still vulnerabel to strikes or ever increasing financial or other
pressures from the owners or controllers of the facility. Anyone gaining
control of a significant fraction of SPS administration will have a
terrible amount of Power over the world. Why engineer in such societal
problems when there are alternatives which are more supportive of a
distribution of Power (and power) among diverse people?
K. Timed explosives smuggled onto a cargo flight to an SPS.
L. If there are habitats used to build SPSs, the habitats striking the
SPSs or simply towing them away or temporarily disabling them. Remember,
destruction does not have to be done for rational reasons. People can
and do go suicidal and take others with them.

In short, I think suggesting SPSs are secure because they seem far away
is a problematical as thinking the USA is immune from terrorism because
there are big oceans surrounding it.

2. Economics

I think we have a genuine disagreement here -- one which reflects a
disagreement in the energy field (classically centralized oil and big
nukes vs. distributed renewables & efficiency & lifestyle) and which
won't be resolved anytime soon here. Personally I think you too are
doing a bit of hand waving saying these alternatives won't work without
presenting current numbers regarding energy use. :-) Suffice it to say,
I have called into question that SPSs are economically cheaper or
environmentally better or more secure than renewables and energy
efficiency and remain unsatisfied with the communities response --
especially because the solutions I advocate can be done with small
investments and succeed right away, where as SPS requires a huge
investment and still has tecnical and logistical uncertainties. In
general, the principle here is not directly environmental -- it is just
(to my mind) common sense incremental investment strategy. You or others
may not agree, but I think there is enough uncertainty here to doom SPS
on economic grounds anytime soon (especially given rapid improvements in
PV, wind, etc.). That means SSI and the related community (e.g.
Criswell) might be more productive focusing on other approaches to
development of humanity in space and prosperity on Earth (such as self
replicaitng seeds, coordinting free researches into Buck Fuller type
life support issues, etc.). And of course SSI does do some of these
other things, so I think that is a good thing. Still, judging from the
last conference and the web site comments regardign the planned
conference -- SSI still seems philosophically fixated on SPS as *the*
route to habitats.

All the best.

--Paul Fernhout

P.S. In the excerpt you clipped it mentioned Iceland gets its power from
Hydro and Geothermal -- so that would be the energy used to create
Hydrogen as a transfer and storage medium.

>Here are several obvious attacks on SPS off the top of my head:

Hello Paul,

wouldnt you think that some sorts of attacks you mentioned and some
others you didnt mention do apply to nuclear power stations as well?

What would you prefer, loosing a SPS in space or going off a nuclear
power station on earth?

While I agree with your points beeing realistic possibilities a SPS
would diversify choices and spread risk a bit more.

It is a addition to the choices we had and in case a nuclear power
station hit on earth a kind of means to cope with the catastrophic
consequences of it.

I fully do agree with you that the US could do more to save energy and
this could help to reduce dependency of outside resources not only for
the US but also for other western countries.

But that will not get humankind out into space while a SPS is a
valuable piece of space infra structure we do need not only to deliver
energy to earth but to colonize space also.

An SPS serves two objects energy supplement on earth and space
colonization.
So you cant just liken its cost with the cost of earth based energy
production.

On the other hand, It would be a good idea to restrict the power
supply from SPSs to a given percentage because it is good not to
become too dependent on it.

Frank

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"
> You have many good points and I enjoyed reading your reply
(especially
> philosophy points).
>
> Let me again summarize the key (non philosophical) issues here:
>
> 1. Vulnerability of SPS
>
> You think an SPS is not vulnerable to terrorism or embargo in our
> current geopolitical system. I disagree.
>
> Here are several obvious attacks on SPS off the top of my head:
> A. Taking over encrypted communications channels to use robots at
the
> SPS to disable it. Coudl be done in a matter of minutes.

Nonsense. SPS is no more vulnerable than terrestrial communications
systems.

> B. Using a computer virus to change where the SPS is pointing or
fire
> thrusters to deorbit it (and terrorize people with where it will
crash).

Nonsense. Aerospace computer networks systems are very secure, this
is not the public internet.

> C. Trusted engineers being secret sleeper terrorists.

Again, SPS is no more vulnerable than terrestrial energy systems in
this respct.

> D. Destruction of rectennas on the ground through conventional
means.

Again, SPS is no more vulnerable than terrestrial energy systems in
this respct. What "conventional means" did you have in mind ?
Rectenna covers an area of hundreds of square kilometres. It
would take an enormous explosive device to completely disable it.

Partial desgradation can be dealt with by routine maintenance.

> E. Given the wide prevalence of space transports assumed by large
use of
> SPS, hijacking one of these vehicles either onboard or remotely
and
> crashing it into an SPS.

Again, no more likely than a terrorist flying an aircraft into a
nuclear reactor.

> F. Exploding a fragmentation weapon in geosyncronous orbit (or
other SPS
> orbit) at a distance away and lettign the shrapnel over time
destroy the
> SPS.

a) At GEO this is not feasible. The size of the GEO orbit is
many orders of magnitude greater than LEO/MEO orbits. The density
of fragments would not exceed then atural background.

b) It would be impossible for anybody to plan and carry out such an
attack without being detected well in advance.

> Note that this may happen anyway, as NASA and other studies show
> that there is already so much space junk that there is a high risk
of a
> cascade failure of all orbiting satellites etc. ans the shreddign
of one
> leads to the shreddign of others etc. in a total destruction of
all
> space infrastrucutre in various orbits.

No, that is only a problem in LEO/MEO type orbits where the density
of the fragments is quite high. It is not a problem in GEO, and
will not be for centuries.

> G. Ground based lasers destroying the SPS.

OK, at last an argument which is fairly specific to SPS. How
exactly would the SPS be destroyed ? How much energy is needed ?
Who would have the resources to build a big enough laser ?
This would clearly be beyond the resources of any terrorist group.
Any country who attempted this would suffer the same fate as
Afghanistan and Iraq....instant overwhelming invasion by the USA.
Yeah, some nutcase might try this, and it would make a great
thriller novel plot.

Western intelligence would detect any project where a nation
attempted to build such a huge super-laser, and that country might
well find themselves subject to a pre-emptive strike. Remember what
happened to Gerald Bull and his supergun in Iraq.

> H. EMP destruction of SPS from nearby nuclear blasts.

Terrestrial power networks are also vulnerable to EMP. My friend,
if terrorists groups get ahold of nukes, we will have a lot more to
worry about than our electricity supply....also, the answer to G
above applies once again.

> I. Direct rocket attacks -- the only defense assumes a quick and
> complete militarization of space and I think that is a bad thing,
for
> among other reasons that once space is militarized conflicts
between
> Powers or one power going rogue could use this military potential
to
> destroy all SPSs.

Same answer at G. If somebody fires an ICBM at an SPS how is that
different than firing an ICBM at a power station on Earth ? It
would result in a swift and overwhelming military response. Hitting
a terrestrial target with an ICBM is a lot easier than hitting a GEO
target. Plus it takes about 5 hours for an Earth launched rocket
to reach GEO, plenty of warning.

> J. Any organization can go on strike. Any set of organizations can
form

You said it yourself. This is not specific to SPS. So let us move
on to Item K.

> K. Timed explosives smuggled onto a cargo flight to an SPS.

Not specific to SPS. Conventional screenings methods for
explosives will be used, just as in the aviaition industry today.

> L. If there are habitats used to build SPSs, the habitats striking
the
> SPSs or simply towing them away or temporarily disabling them.
Remember,
> destruction does not have to be done for rational reasons. People
can
> and do go suicidal and take others with them.
>

Nonsense. Group insanity on this scale does not happen. It would
require a lot of people to all go insane at the same time and agree
that they should all do the same insane thing(s). That is like
saying the entire crew of an ocean liner goes insane and decides to
ram an oil tanker. ROTFL.

> In short, I think suggesting SPSs are secure because they seem far
away
> is a problematical as thinking the USA is immune from terrorism
because
> there are big oceans surrounding it.
>

Nobody said SPS is immune from terrorism, just that they are alot
more secure than all the alternatives. And the USA did enjoy
freedom for terrorism for a lot longer than Europe. Bombs were
going off in Germany, Italy and Northern Ireland since the 1960's.
It is only in the 1990's that is started to seriously spread into
the USA.

> 2. Economics
>
> I think we have a genuine disagreement here -- one which reflects
a
> disagreement in the energy field (classically centralized oil and
big

Yes, I will not even bother to debate this. This is primarily an
emotional issue. I have noticed that "decentralized" advocates
tend to be wealthier people who can afford to build up their
personal infrasturcture to become self sufficient. For the vast
majority of the world's population this is not an option, and is
becoming less and less feasible as the global population continues
to expand.

>
> P.S. In the excerpt you clipped it mentioned Iceland gets its
power from
> Hydro and Geothermal -- so that would be the energy used to create
> Hydrogen as a transfer and storage medium.

What is your point ? Iceland is an anomaly. Geothermal power can
only supply a couple of percetnage points of the world's demand.

Best regards,

Charles F. Radley

> You think an SPS is not vulnerable to terrorism or embargo in our
> current geopolitical system. I disagree.

Of course SPS is vulnerable, but not as vulnerable as all that.

> Here are several obvious attacks on SPS off the top of my head:
> A. Taking over encrypted communications channels to use robots at the
> SPS to disable it. Coudl be done in a matter of minutes.

Then the remote control of the powersats must be given the same security measures as today's satellites. Suppose al-Qaeda or Saddam could have taken over or otherwise interfered with US military satellites for surveillance and communication, don't you think they would have?

> B. Using a computer virus to change where the SPS is pointing or fire
> thrusters to deorbit it (and terrorize people with where it will crash).

Same as above. In addition, a powersat in Clarke orbit will not be deorbited easily. Most likely it will have thrusters of a very limited size, just enough for station-keeping. Adding the delta-v to deorbit it, and to do so in a short time, will be beyond the capability of the hardware.

> C. Trusted engineers being secret sleeper terrorists.

Can't argue against that, except that this is also a potential threat to today's power plants and military units.

> D. Destruction of rectennas on the ground through conventional means.

This may be a possible scenario. But keep in mind that a rectenna will be very large, and designed so that the loss of some elements will not shut down the entire rectenna. Presumably a terrorist could climb one of the pylons supporting the mesh and do some local damage, or put explosives on some of the pylons. But I should think that blowing up the power lines from the rectenna to the consumers will be much more damaging than attacking the rectenna itself, and power lines are already vulnerable.

> E. Given the wide prevalence of space transports assumed by large use of
> SPS, hijacking one of these vehicles either onboard or remotely and
> crashing it into an SPS.

Shades of Bloody Tuesday, yes.

> F. Exploding a fragmentation weapon in geosyncronous orbit (or other SPS
> orbit) at a distance away and lettign the shrapnel over time destroy the
> SPS. Note that this may happen anyway, as NASA and other studies show
> that there is already so much space junk that there is a high risk of a
> cascade failure of all orbiting satellites etc. ans the shreddign of one
> leads to the shreddign of others etc. in a total destruction of all
> space infrastrucutre in various orbits.

Not in the Clarke orbit itself, since debris in such an orbit would travel at much the same velocity as the powersats themselves. But inserting an explosive device into an orbit intersecting the Clarke orbit and blowing it, that would be damaging. But it would have to be done by someone targetting *all* the powersats, and *all* other satellites in the orbits intersected by the debris, not just the powersats of a specific enemy.

> G. Ground based lasers destroying the SPS.

A laser much less potent than that would be a terrible weapon already.

> H. EMP destruction of SPS from nearby nuclear blasts.

Same sort of blasts could be used against cities or military bases. Much more easily.

> I. Direct rocket attacks -- the only defense assumes a quick and
> complete militarization of space and I think that is a bad thing, for
> among other reasons that once space is militarized conflicts between
> Powers or one power going rogue could use this military potential to
> destroy all SPSs.

A direct rocket attack against a powersat would be more difficult than one against, say, one of the Colorado River dams. And the attacker would be quite vulnerable to the retaliation in either case.

> J. Any organization can go on strike. Any set of organizations can form
> a cartel. For example, Singapore dependent on one desalinization plant
> is still vulnerabel to strikes or ever increasing financial or other
> pressures from the owners or controllers of the facility. Anyone gaining
> control of a significant fraction of SPS administration will have a
> terrible amount of Power over the world. Why engineer in such societal
> problems when there are alternatives which are more supportive of a
> distribution of Power (and power) among diverse people?

It would be unlikely to have one organization overseeing all powersats. And anti-cartel legislation already works in many other fields.

> K. Timed explosives smuggled onto a cargo flight to an SPS.

Can't argue against that one. Shades of Lockerbie. Though a powersat will be large, on the order of miles. Blowing a ten meter hole in a powersat will do little to degrade it, unless a vital component is hit.

> L. If there are habitats used to build SPSs, the habitats striking the
> SPSs or simply towing them away or temporarily disabling them. Remember,
> destruction does not have to be done for rational reasons. People can
> and do go suicidal and take others with them.

Unlikely that an entire habitat should go suicidal. But in a military conflict between the habitats and a flatlander nation, the habitats would have a huge advantage. Cutting off SPS power, destroying or hijacking other satellites, throwing rocks at ground targets. Though such a war would be quite damaging to the habitats as well, even if no weapon other than an embargo could be used against them, at least until there were a society of many million people there.

Jon Lennart Beck.

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"
> You have many good points and I enjoyed reading your reply
(especially
> philosophy points).
>
> Let me again summarize the key (non philosophical) issues here:
>
> 1. Vulnerability of SPS
>
> You think an SPS is not vulnerable to terrorism or embargo in our
> current geopolitical system. I disagree.
>
> Here are several obvious attacks on SPS off the top of my head:

As Charles, Frank and Raven have pointed out you're digging deep
into the bag of hypotheticals. While each of your examples is
possible I don't think them to be too likely.

How much credence would you give to a rebuttal of wind power that
was premised on the likelihood of the rotor shearing off from the
stresses of different wind loads and becoming a devastating
instrument of death as it careened into a playground full of
children on a Sunday afternoon? (Note how I've constructed a loaded
scenario)

It's not out of the realm of possibility for this to occur, but I
don't think it too likely, thus I'd hope you'd assign the proper
probability to it and grant it a fairly low expected value.

In principle there is much to be gained from decentralization of
power sourcing (as is probably evident to many in the industrialized
West after recent outages in the US, Canada, Italy, England, Sweden,
multiple SPS could also act in such a decentralized fashion.

The extreme decentralization of millions of individual actors is
taking a good thing too far. It completely erases the good that can
come from centralization. Imagine - "Darn, I've got a 2 Kw solar
system for my house, and I've just installed a new TV that overloads
my capacity. Well, I guess I'll just have to install $8,000 more of
baseload power systems in order to watch my $300 TV set without
having to turn off the filtration system in my kids aquarium while
the TV set is on. Forget about using the popcorn maker at the same
time. Wow, this living by the environmentalist credo stuff sure
sucks. I sure miss the good ole days when I could just plug into the
wall socket and get the power I needed without having all these
hassles and having to look after the infrastructure myself. Those
damn Greens did this to us!"

The trick is to find the optimum balance between centralization and
decentralization. I think many utilities have realized the dynamic
of the Hegalian dialectic and that they've swung too far towards
centralization.

If I'm a policy maker I won't be swayed by the philosophical
underpinnings of the "live in balance with nature" "take no more
than nature can provide" arguments - rather I'll be of the opinion
that in our increasing industrialization we're going to be requiring
ever more power, even taking conservation into account (which we
rightly should), and I'd better find a source that can provide
reliable BASE LOAD power in significant quantities. SPS as a concept
fits that bill and beats terrestrial solar and wind power hands
down. The economics of SPS is a legitimate area of criticism, and
this is where the hidden costs of coal, oil, gas, and nuclear are
skewing the analysis.

I have a much harder time rebutting your economic criticism of SPS
because we're not really using $90/barrel oil, or $90/short ton coal
price which may be the true costs of these fuels (my estimate) and
which I believe that SPS could compete against.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/eppats/table14.html

Further, if you look into your renewable position and the "3 to 1"
energy payback, compared to the "infinite to 1" energy payback of
SPS, you'll note the tautological flavor of using the subsibized
costs of oil and coal in your calculation. Now figure the cost of
manufacturing a PV cell using the power generated strictly from a PV
array without any subsidy applied. Your 3 to 1 energy payback stays
the same but now you're using more expensive energy sources to
create the PV and now it isn't as economic as the alternatives.

I'm not sure if you're an environmentalist, you haven't written
enough, so I'll proceed on the assumption that you are.

Tell me why the SPS concept, which exclusively mines and fabricates
with orbital resources and doesn't pollute the Earth's biosphere one
iota, is an issue that is never responded to by that crowd?
Shouldn't environmentalists be pushing this idea like crazy? SPS is
hands down, better for the environment than any other power source,
be it solar, wind or geothermal, that impacts on the Earth's
biosphere.

The problem with SPS that I readily concede to is the necessity of
SPS having to provide all of the infrastrucure required for its own
deployment. That is a huge burden that its alternatives do not have
to contend with.

TangoMan

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"
> >> 2. Economically speaking, energy efficiency is a much better
> >> economic investment than energy production.
>
> > Here is my anecdotal rebuttal. Back in the late 70s, early 80s, I
was
> > a partner in a home insulation business. When we started, things
> > were going gangbusters, but after a few years, our telephone
> > solicters increasingly ran into more and more people who had
already
> > had their homes insulated. IOW, our retrofit market was finite and
> > the more successul we were the faster we eroded the marketplace. I
> > learned a very important lesson from that venture and it did help
> > finance grad school.
> >
> > The claim of insulation leading to energy independence is clearly
> > overstated.
>
> First off, laws and tax credits have gone backwards in many cases
since
> that time (with the start of the Reagan years). Also, many such
> insulation jobs (not saying anything personal) were poorly done by
fly
> by night outfits. So were many attempts at passive solar
architecture
> (too many windows, not enough vapor barriers, etc.) -- according to
the
> Passive Solar Architect who designed much of the house we live in.
> Technology has also improved over the last twenty years. So, Passive
> Solar is maybe a new business opportunity again someday?
> http://jl-company.com/Research/PassiveSolar.html
>
> I don't feel the issue is overstated (although numbers may shift
over
> time). For a well insulated (R60+) home, with proper passive solar
> design the air conditioning and heating needs are much lower, and
in the
> case of heating can be typically supplied almost entirely by body
heat
> and electricity used in the home for appliance, computers, etc.
Pretty
> much eight months of the year our home needs no supplemental
heating and
> cooling. In the last winter (-20F typically, we live in the
Adirondack
> Park) we did use supplemental heating for about four months -- but
our
> home is a retrofit in a very cold area, and has some large north
side
> glass windows for a view (which are not especially well insulated),
and
> has some other energy leak issues that need updating. In any case,
we
> use elctric heat and our eletric bills are still about the same as
our
> neighbors who needs to keep a wood stove going. The addition of
> exterior automatic thermal shutters for night time use would
probably
> reduce much of that bill. I would like to install an air-to-air heat
> exchanger to reduce our window opening for occasional ventilation
and
> running indoor air filters (we have dogs producing hair and
dander). So,
> still things to do -- but note that with government incentives to do
> these things, in the interests of security, they might get done
faster.
> Also note that air-to-air heat exchanges are simpler than air
> conditioners yet cost 4X or more as much, don't come in convenient
> window mount types typically, and thermal shutter prices seem way
more
> expensive than they need be. So, these are consequence of the
rarity of
> such efficiency improvements in the US.
>
> For cities, simple things like painting roofs white can reduce
energy
> consumption. So can laws promoting more work from home to avoid
> commuting costs etc.
>
> > You leave out economic considerations, convenience and the market
> > preferences of the consumers.
>
> I'll agree with this -- however, it's interesting that people are
> willing to support invading other countries rather than considering
> saving money long term by energy efficiency. Yes, this is a cultural
> problem -- the product of essentially a cult of imperialism
stretching
> back centuries. Making others suffer in a big way to avoid making
> relatively minor policy changes related to energy efficiency is
> uncivilized. Se below comments on bicycling. The US populaton seems
far
> more ready to contemplate armegeddon than either voluntary
simplicity or
> efficiency.
>
> > For that matter, we could all use wood burning stoves and forget
> > about oil heating our houses. It's only an environmental-air
> > pollution problem, not a technical one. Think of all those
forests
> > that we can harvest - they're renewable - if only we could see
> > through the smog to be able to cut down the trees.
>
> No, because there probably is not enough available timber on a
> sustainable basis given that most of the heat value in inefficient
wood
> stoves will be going up the chimney or out leaky doors and windows
etc.
> If you are talking efficient conversion of biomass to hydrogen
coupled
> with well built energy efficient homes, then maybe there is the
> beginning of something there.

R-60 House??? Let me ... guess ... Its Pink, right?

Forgive me if it sounds like I 'v taken this personally, but I also
have a country house in the Mohawk Valley. I have put allot of work
into making it as energy efficient as I can. It still takes more
than the dogs breath, refrigerator radiator and cpu fan to heat the
house. It has r36 in the rafters r19 in the walls storm windows and
doors and insulation in the basement. If I were to do anything else
the energy used during a retrofit would exceed my savings. Nearly
all houses in the USA today are insulated to the point that we now
have to worry about radon gas and mold spores as side effects of our
energy efficiency.

I looked at the Backwoods Solar site. They recommended using propane
for the stove, refrigerator, water heater and dryer. Because, the
solar panels on the roof wont produce enough energy.

Furthermore, who is going to shovel my solar panels in the winter
time.

The environmental benefits of SPS is greater than the environmental
damage that would be done if we were to all replace every building
that did not exceed the energy efficiency of my country house. Not
to mention an r60 house that does not exist.

Most of our electricity comes from burning coal. Environmentalists
act as if SPS is competing with windmills or "efficiency". SPS would
compete with Coal and Oil.

Thanks for the reply.

> wouldnt you think that some sorts of attacks you mentioned and some
> others you didnt mention do apply to nuclear power stations as well?

Yes, however, that is a good reason not to build build conventional
nuclear plants. Also, the fact that our current energy infrastructure
has a vulnerability does not mean we should design in such
vulnerabilities from centralization into a new proposal.

> But that will not get humankind out into space while a SPS is a
> valuable piece of space infra structure we do need not only to deliver
> energy to earth but to colonize space also.

I think there are other ways to get space habitats -- the best of which
I think is the seed idea designed by hobbyists and launched by
philanthropists. :-) But a government "make work" project or "aerospace
firm corporate welfare" is probably OK with me too (as long as the
results are made freely available). :-)

> On the other hand, It would be a good idea to restrict the power
> supply from SPSs to a given percentage because it is good not to
> become too dependent on it.

One issue here is that if the estimates pan out, and power from space is
again "too cheap to meter" like nuclear power was supposed to be, then
all other forms of energy production will be uneconomical. Of course, I
guess people could build up local fuel reserves (hydrogen or synthetic
liquid fuels) using cheap power to weather temporary embargos etc.
(though this is just a temporary solution to systemic failure).

Still, even if only 1/3 of power comes from space, it would be an
economic crisis to see it just shut off suddenly. Witness each oil
crisis from emebargos or price raises on just part of the oil supply.

I would prefer an energy system that is intrinsically secure (since this
thread is indirectly about spending money on energy security vs.
terrorizing Iraqis into submission because our oil is somehow under
their land :-) as opposed to an energy system that is intrinsicly
insecure and requires vast carefully managed networks and their related
(ultimately probably fascist) societies to secure inherently insecure
technical approaches against sabotage. Intrinsically secure energy
systems both reduce the need for generating power using insulation or
efficiency and they generate the power locally from renewable sources
whenever possible, making any extra external power needed occasionally
pretty much optional.

--Paul Fernhout

Thanks for the detailed reply. Quite interesting reading.

--Paul Fernhout

>>1. Vulnerability of SPS
> [Lots of good rebuttals snipped]

To summarize your rebuttal to my suggestions of ways SPS could be
damaged, essentially your replies are either a) the current energy
system has the same vulnerability or b) my suggestion has a problem.

Since I haven't thought much on the topic of SPS destruction (those
possibilities listed being off the top of my head), let me first say
there may be many other security vulnerabilities I didn't list (like the
old Romulan trick of propagating an inverse wave up the power supply
beam to cause an overload in the power beam's originating generator
which I saw on ST:TNG. :-)

But, let me concede any point you wish to make about what is technically
feasible or too practically difficult attack on an SPS. We are still
left with all the attacks one could mount on our conventional heavily
centralized system, which you just disregard since they are current
problems. To me, that is unacceptable. If an SPS can be shut down by a
clever hacker (say one whose parent works for the SPS authority and so
has access to technical information they should not) then the system is
fundamentally insecure. The whole point is to make a system more secure
than what we have now -- not just duplicate the security problems in
another system. Amaory Lovins says in his book something like "a troup
of boy scouts could shut down the US's energy supply because it is so
centralized" and I believe him. I would expect the same of an SPS system.

Fundamentally, the most money is made from controlling a monopoly, which
generally implies centralization of some form and related consumer
dependency, which is why the US poorly regulated capitalist economy is
ultimately so vulnerable to external disruption (as the book Brittle
Power documents). Still, one would expect that when the government
spends the People's money on energy policy, the People's servant should
factor in national security (as opposed to the leaderships political or
personal economic security through crony capitalism as happens now) --
and thus the US govt. support developing intrinsically secure energy
production systems (and also energy efficiency negawatt approaches like
home insulation).

Sorry, but SPS IMHO is inherently centralized and so fails the security
model, as much as centralized nukes or even centralized coal using power
plants do IMHO.

If you are (as implied in this thread) trying to have a better way to
spend $87 billion to create energy security, then you don't want to
propose a system which has the same vulnerabilities our current system
has (and which the book Brittle Power outlined twenty years ago). As I
said in a reply to Frank, the ideal is a system which is intrinsically
secure. That means both reducing power needs and then generating the
power in a way which is as uninterruptable as possible. Secure
generation methods are both local and diverse (so, solar, wind, hydro,
biomass, etc.)

>>2. Economics
>>
>> I think we have a genuine disagreement here -- one which reflects
>> a disagreement in the energy field (classically centralized oil and
>
> Yes, I will not even bother to debate this. This is primarily an
> emotional issue. I have noticed that "decentralized" advocates
> tend to be wealthier people who can afford to build up their
> personal infrasturcture to become self sufficient. For the vast
> majority of the world's population this is not an option, and is
> becoming less and less feasible as the global population continues
> to expand.

I think you raise an extremely important point here. In essence, the
reason that people choose between the environment and energy (or jobs or
resource or security etc.) is because of a poverty mindset. We think
there is scarcity and we have no choice but to destroy our environment
to feed our children etc., destroying a long term source of security and
entertainment and health and prosperity etc. because we feel we have no
other option that in essence to eat our seed corn ensuring nothing for
next year. For example, the Adirondacks gets acid rain because the US is
too poor to pay for stack scrubbers for coal plants. We can debate the
cause of this poverty mindset, and whether scarcity really has to be the
order of the day, but that perception is really the root cause of many
of these disagreements. (And it also relates scarcity cost benefit
analysis and related external costs -- since who pays the costs and who
gets the benefits are necessarily the same people). Presumably,
innovation can help end scarcity, in part by makign tradeoffs less
neccessary or less harmful. And Julian Simon argued in _The Ultimate
Resource_ the more people, the more innovation. In any case, you raise a
really good point to ponder -- who is wealthy, who is poor, what are
people's needs, how can they be met, how do local groups come together
to solve local problems, who people are protecting in terms of how they
define "self", who pays costs, who get beneftis, whether to invest in
personal solutions or group solutions, etc.

> What is your point [on Iceland] ?

Just something related specifically to victoriatangoman's post (he asked
where Iceland was going to get the power to make their Hydrogen).

--Paul Fernhout

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"

> Sorry, but SPS IMHO is inherently centralized and so fails the
security
> model, as much as centralized nukes or even centralized coal using
power
> plants do IMHO.

What are you writing about. 1 SPS = 1 rectenna farm. Multiply by
100x. You now have 100 seperate systems. That doesn't look to me to
be centralization. Use a magic weapon or tactic and take out one
SPS, and you still have 99 left.

> Secure generation methods are both local and diverse (so, solar,
> wind, hydro, biomass, etc.)

What's to stop a terrorist from using a magic weapon or tactic on a
solar farm and blowing up the panels, from attaching some C4 to the
wind towers, of blowing up a hydro dam just by parking a truck bomb
next to it? They all look centralized (using the same definition
that you apply to 100 SPS) to me.

Come on, have the intellectual integrity to admit you're arguing
from pure environmentalist emotion and not logic and just like any
other religion one can't debate the matter rationally.

As I wrote in my other post, SPS is hands down better for the
environment that any Earth-based renewable source. Environmentalists
look on this inconvenient fact like the Papacy looked upon
Copernicus' findings in "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium" - they
stuck with the Ptolemaic system, despite demonstrable evidence that
contradicted it, and purposely blinded themselves to reality and
rational argument.

Own up to these quasi-religious beliefs that defy logic or come over
to the Dark Side and join us. Spread the SPS meme thoughout the
environmentalist movement and shift that movement into actually
caring about the environment rather than a paganistic lifestyle.

>
> >>2. Economics
> >>
> >> I think we have a genuine disagreement here -- one which
reflects
> >> a disagreement in the energy field (classically centralized oil
and
> >
> > Yes, I will not even bother to debate this. This is primarily
an
> > emotional issue. I have noticed that "decentralized" advocates
> > tend to be wealthier people who can afford to build up their
> > personal infrasturcture to become self sufficient. For the
vast
> > majority of the world's population this is not an option, and is
> > becoming less and less feasible as the global population
continues
> > to expand.
>
> I think you raise an extremely important point here. In essence,
the
> reason that people choose between the environment and energy (or
jobs or
> resource or security etc.) is because of a poverty mindset.

You've either inadvertently misread, or are purposely constructing a
strawman argument here.

The point was clearly made that it is the people who are well off
and who can afford to fund their own electrical generation equipment
are usually the ones who are advocated a decentralized system. I've
never seen a bagboy from the local supermarket, or the cashier from
Wal-Mart, both of whom are just scraping by on their wages, express
a desire to spend $10,000+ for solar panels on their homes. The
poverty isn't a mindset, it is a reality.

Also, as JJ pointed out, there is work to be done in maintaining
your own power infrastructure. Who will shovel the snow off of the
solar panels? What a bother.

We think
> there is scarcity and we have no choice but to destroy our
environment
> to feed our children etc., destroying a long term source of
security and
> entertainment and health and prosperity etc. because we feel we
have no
> other option that in essence to eat our seed corn ensuring nothing
for
> next year.

You're setting up a false dichotomy here.

TangoMan

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> > wouldnt you think that some sorts of attacks you mentioned and
some
> > others you didnt mention do apply to nuclear power stations as
well?
>
> Yes, however, that is a good reason not to build build
conventional
> nuclear plants. Also, the fact that our current energy
infrastructure
> has a vulnerability does not mean we should design in such
> vulnerabilities from centralization into a new proposal.

True, we shouldn't design vulnerabilities into a new proposal, but
you haven't yet established the premises on which you base you
argument, namely, that SPS is a form of centralization, therefore
your critique isn't applicable until you have done so.

> > But that will not get humankind out into space while a SPS is a
> > valuable piece of space infra structure we do need not only to
deliver
> > energy to earth but to colonize space also.
>
> I think there are other ways to get space habitats -- the best of
which
> I think is the seed idea designed by hobbyists and launched by
> philanthropists. :-) But a government "make work" project
or "aerospace
> firm corporate welfare" is probably OK with me too (as long as the
> results are made freely available). :-)

I'm sitting here, reading your commentary, and imagining the logical
contortions you're forcing yourself into, just as the Geocentric
astronomers of old did when confronted with the Heliocentric model
of the planet's motions. They concocted all sorts of rationales to
explain the crazy motions of the celestial objects that resulted
from a Geocentric model, rather than applying Occam's Razor and
finding that the Heliocentric model better explained the motions for
that would up-end their religious beliefs.

Your philosophical need to push mom & pop solar/wind systems
necessitates you negate the advantages of SPS. Having erroneously
removed SPS from the space development scenario, you're now faced
with having to justify Habitat construction by means other than
economic rationality. You'd rather stand on an argument of
philanthropy or welfare rather than allow for the possibility of SPS
being a driving force in the establishment of Habitats. See what
religions do to rational thought.

>
> > On the other hand, It would be a good idea to restrict the power
> > supply from SPSs to a given percentage because it is good not to
> > become too dependent on it.
>
> One issue here is that if the estimates pan out, and power from
space is
> again "too cheap to meter" like nuclear power was supposed to be,
then
> all other forms of energy production will be uneconomical. Of
course, I
> guess people could build up local fuel reserves (hydrogen or
synthetic
> liquid fuels) using cheap power to weather temporary embargos etc.
> (though this is just a temporary solution to systemic failure).

You're assigning too high a probability to one possible outcome,
especially absent any data to support such a probability
distribution. Then you're assigning too high a cost to the temporary
loss of power that would result from a disruption of power beaming.
Even catastrophic failures like have occured recently in the West
don't justify the massive re-ordering you're advocating based on
their probability of occurance and the costs incurred during said
failures.

On the basis of this unsubstantiated probabilistic analysis you're
advocating a policy prescription that entails massive
decentralization of power generation, something that MOST
individuals aren't attracted to, either because of expense or
convenience, (and the data do show that with the present ready
availability of such systems, unlike you and I, most people aren't
installing them) all because of your philosophical bent. Where I
come from this is called building an argument on a house of cards.

I'm sorry that my critiques are getting harsher, but you contintue
to base your position on religous/philosophical grounds, like the
geocentrist astronomers of old and ignore the evidence that SPS is
the most environmentally friendly, most secure, most scalable, and
with power beaming instituted allowing microwaves from one SPS to be
beamed to a relay satellite and then down to the rectenna, the most
reliable.

SPS can supply baseload power whereas terrestrial solar cannot
because of cloudy days and nightfall, wind power lacks consistency
and suffers from the NIMBY syndrome (look to the problems
experienced by cell-phone towers for a window to the future that
awaits mass implementation of wind - also look to the protests in
Nantucket), hydro power is geographically limited, most obvious
rivers are already damned, and free river advocates will block
further damming, and lastly, geothermal is the most geographically
limited due to the unique geological conditions that its siting
requries. Further, each of the above, requires the land to be single
purpose, whereas the SPS rectenna land can be dual use, and would be
more than adequate for grazing or even some forms of agriculture
underneath the wire mesh.

You can't beat that, other than on economics. SPS costs more than
its competitors because it has to pay for all of its own
infrastructure. Let that be the basis of your rebuttal, and you'll
have boxed me into a corner.

> Still, even if only 1/3 of power comes from space, it would be an
> economic crisis to see it just shut off suddenly. Witness each oil
> crisis from emebargos or price raises on just part of the oil
supply.
>
> I would prefer an energy system that is intrinsically secure
(since this
> thread is indirectly about spending money on energy security vs.
> terrorizing Iraqis into submission because our oil is somehow
under
> their land :-) as opposed to an energy system that is intrinsicly
> insecure and requires vast carefully managed networks and their
related
> (ultimately probably fascist) societies to secure inherently
insecure
> technical approaches against sabotage. Intrinsically secure energy
> systems both reduce the need for generating power using insulation
or
> efficiency and they generate the power locally from renewable
sources
> whenever possible, making any extra external power needed
occasionally
> pretty much optional.
>
> --Paul Fernhout

Again, I don't buy your argument that SPS is intrinsically insecure
and that distributed solar, which people aren't rushing to
implement, is more secure.

I wonder which is a more fascist system, one that serves the
majority of the people and provides them with what they want in
terms of power supply yet still allows the environmentalists to
pollute the Earth by mining and fabricating solar cells and allowing
the noise pollution of wind power and the danger of rotors becoming
missiles, or forcing everyone to adopt and maintain independent
means of electricity production and suffering the expense of
acquiring the equipment, then sacrificing their time to maintain it,
and suffering the consequences of rainy, cloudy, windless days and
relying on posionous batteries for their nighttime power demands.

It sounds, to me, like the environmental/religious Savanorolas are
more fascist.

TangoMan

> 2. Economically speaking, energy efficiency is a much better economic
> investment than energy production. This site has lots on this topic:
> http://www.rmi.org
> http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid17.php
>

Economically speaking it is ALWAYS better to produce more than to
conserve. In a ecnomonically rational choice, if the costs are
identical producing more will make everyone better off. In fact it can
be shown that even if the cost of production is greater than
conservation, by the macro multiplier effect it is still economically
better to produce more.

BTW the above quoted statement shows the illogical arguments of many
environmentalists. It shows the following fallacies:

Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority) - listing web sites like the
information on them are relevent and factual.

Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance) but stating 'economically
speaking' an economic model is implied without mentioning which model
is implied, or how that model relates to this discussion.

Hasty Generalization - forming a general rule by examining specific
cases. The web sites only site the successes of conservation. Knowing
that approximately 90% of all endeavours fail, the lack of failed
cases and post mortuem results only tells me that the sites are biased
towards one conclusion.

Ad Crumena - a belief that money is a criteria. The "economically
speaking" sentence implies that money is a criteria to this debate.
There is no reason to believe that something uneconmical can't be
done. The Hoover Dam is still being paid for. It was not economically
sound when it was built, and barely economic to run now. It was built
by the government of the US as a make work project to employ people
during the depression. It is run now because the spin off agricultural
industry is profitable. Many long term (>1y) payback are considered
uneconmic by todays short sighted corporations.

and finally:
Bifurcation - presenting a situation as having only two alternatives,
when in fact other alternatives exist. In this case, no proof has been
given to show either conservation of production are economic. Perhaps
the best course of action is do both. Or do nothing. Perhaps the best
course of action is to do something else altogether.

> 2. Economically speaking, energy efficiency is a much better economic
> investment than energy production. This site has lots on this topic:
> http://www.rmi.org
> http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid17.php
>

Economically speaking it is ALWAYS better to produce more than to
conserve. In a ecnomonically rational choice, if the costs are
identical producing more will make everyone better off. In fact it can
be shown that even if the cost of production is greater than
conservation, by the macro multiplier effect it is still economically
better to produce more.

BTW the above quoted statement shows the illogical arguments of many
environmentalists. It shows the following fallacies:

Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority) - listing web sites like the
information on them are relevent and factual.

Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance) but stating 'economically
speaking' an economic model is implied without mentioning which model
is implied, or how that model relates to this discussion.

Hasty Generalization - forming a general rule by examining specific
cases. The web sites only site the successes of conservation. Knowing
that approximately 90% of all endeavours fail, the lack of failed
cases and post mortuem results only tells me that the sites are biased
towards one conclusion.

Ad Crumena - a belief that money is a criteria. The "economically
speaking" sentence implies that money is a criteria to this debate.
There is no reason to believe that something uneconmical can't be
done. The Hoover Dam is still being paid for. It was not economically
sound when it was built, and barely economic to run now. It was built
by the government of the US as a make work project to employ people
during the depression. It is run now because the spin off agricultural
industry is profitable. Many long term (>1y) payback are considered
uneconmic by todays short sighted corporations.

and finally:
Bifurcation - presenting a situation as having only two alternatives,
when in fact other alternatives exist. In this case, no proof has been
given to show either conservation of production are economic. Perhaps
the best course of action is do both. Or do nothing. Perhaps the best
course of action is to do something else altogether.

>>2. Economically speaking, energy efficiency is a much better economic
>>investment than energy production. This site has lots on this topic:
>> http://www.rmi.org
>> http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid17.php

> Economically speaking it is ALWAYS better to produce more than to
> conserve. In a ecnomonically rational choice, if the costs are
> identical producing more will make everyone better off. In fact it can
> be shown that even if the cost of production is greater than
> conservation, by the macro multiplier effect it is still economically
> better to produce more.
>
> BTW the above quoted statement shows the illogical arguments of many
> environmentalists. It shows the following fallacies:
> [snip comments on types of argument issues]

Bill-

You have some good general points on language and argument, especially
about loose use of language in referring to what model of economics is
implied. I appreciate you taking the time to outline them, which also
inspired me to look at this page:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
I say, with all sincerity, please feel free to do that with anything I
post (assuming your characterizations are generally correct). I
certainly learned something from your comments.

I do feel in the overall thread of a month or so long debate that there
was a little more to the entire debate than what you outline by focusing
on this one statement out of context many months later (e.g. I did talk
about production from earth based renewables, especially rooftop PV),
but that does not make your specific logical criticisms of that
statement necessarily invalid (though I think the context might affect
some of them).

Also "environmentalist" is a pretty broad brush (what sort do you mean,
tree hugger, Kashi eater, vegetarian, Biodiesel hybrid with plug in
recharging owner wannabe, fluorescent light bulb user, PV panel
purchaser, or forest steward, etc.?) and seems implicitly "Attacking the
Person" or "Prejudicial Language" to me given the posting membership of
this forum and how you used it. :-)

Having said all that, economically speaking (in terms of GDP), it is
ALWAYS better if people have a car accident on the way home from work.
(Well, I'm sure one could invent a contrived scenario when it wasn't, so
I should probably say "almost always").

And I don't quite mean that as flippant joke -- the GDP goes up every
time a car accident happens -- all the economic activity caused by
hospital visits, new car production, and so on. In the movie the "Fifth
Element" there is a cute little scene related to that in Zorg's office.
That seems to be the thing you are implying in your comment about
"multiplier" effects.

But society is (generally) still worse off for every car accident. And
so is the car's driver, who endures pain and suffering and stress and
maybe a lot worse even if they are fully insured. In a similar fashion,
society is worse off in many ways for every barrel of oil consumed or
ton of coal burned in terms of CO2 production and other pollution
(relative to less polluting alternatives like renewables or energy
efficiency) as well as related political corruption and wealth
centralization. Those external costs are often not paid by the energy
producer or even the end user; they are paid for by our current society
and future societies.

There are people who work on alternative measures than GDP to look at
the true health and productivity of a civilization and its life support
systems. For one example, see:
http://www.rprogress.org/newprojects/gpi/index.shtml
There you can see a graph where the GDP curve goes up while the GPI
(Genuine Progress Indicator) goes down. For a discussion of some others
and why they are important, see:
http://www.consultmcgregor.com/PDFs/GDP%20and%20GPI.pdf
But in short, GDP does not cover things like (from that paper):
1. health
2. infant mortality
3. morbidity
4. suicide rates
5. crime
6. poverty
7. environmental health/decay and destruction of the natural environment
8. infrastructure such as highways and bridges
9. family breakdown
10. loss of leisure time
11. cost of commuting to work
12. lack of civility in communities
13. lack of concern for future generations
14. income gap (women/men; poor/wealthy)

One biggest issue I have with your comment may be that when I wrote
"energy efficiency" as in "doing more with less" you read "conservation"
as in just "doing less with less". As an aside, as great a person as I
think he is, if President Jimmy Carter had just talked about increasing
energy efficiency through advanced technology instead of wearing a
sweater and talking about turning down thermostats during his famous (or
infamous) energy conservation speech, the USA might have been a lot
better off today. :-) Energy efficiency (e.g. properly done home
superinsulation) has much greater techno-geek appeal, as well as often
being profitable. Now I myself may have been guilty about loose
terminology somewhere in that long discussion (though not in the quote
you used) and in general people often use "conservation" to include
energy efficiency (since efficiency does conserve energy), so it is an
easy confusion to make. And to be clear, personally I am also generally
pro conservation, as in voluntary simplicity and doing less with less
when reasonable,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=voluntary+simplicity
because it frees up time and resources for other things and reduces
external costs as an ethical actor in society. But nonetheless, in the
quote above, I was talking "energy efficiency", not "energy conservation".

Anyway, I'd suggest you should reevaluate your economics comment on
multiplier effects etc. in terms of "efficiency" and see if it still
makes sense. Are you saying it is a bad thing economically when
computers get ten times faster using the same amount of silicon or when
factories can turn out twice as many cars using the same amount of
labor? Even using classical academic economics related to GDP, I think
your argument against efficiency may not hold, since presumably the
money can be spent elsewhere. So, you may be engaging in a "Straw Man"
(or is is "False Analogy"?) fallacy there as well. See also, for example:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID!55405
"During the dark days following the Arab embargo, when most oil
economists were convinced that energy use and economic growth had to
grow in harness, Mr Lovins insisted that demand-side measures could save
the day. In a famous article published in Foreign Affairs in 1976, he
argued that America could pursue a "soft path" that would remove the
link between energy guzzling and GDP growth. He was widely mocked by the
energy industry and mainstream economists at the time, but history has
shown him to have been right (see chart 2). ... The most important, and
most controversial, of America's demand-side measures is the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) law. As a result of this measure, the
average fuel efficiency of new American-made cars rose by over
two-fifths from 1978 to 1987. From 1977 to 1985, America's GDP rose by
27%, but its oil use dropped 17% by volume. The volume of America's net
oil imports fell by nearly 50% during that time. Mr Lovins argues that
the dramatic drop in oil intensity of the American economy "broke OPEC's
pricing power for a decade". The cartel fell into disarray in the late
1980s, and the world enjoyed relatively low and stable oil prices for
much of the 1990s. Demand-side measures like CAFE did help check the
cartel's power for some time. However, the automobile industry hates the
law and for the past few years has managed to thwart efforts by some in
Congress to raise the standards and to close a loophole that exempts
trucks and sport-utility vehicles (SUVs). As a result, America has
started to return to its gas-guzzling ways of the past. The average fuel
efficiency of American vehicles has been near a 20-year low for the past
two years."

By the way, Amory Lovins is now often asked by big utilities to help
them think through their policies. As mentioned above, he has been right
before and kept up his work anyway for over thirty years despite being
ridiculed by people later proved wrong, also mentioned here:
And I challenge you to point out anything significant on the RMI site
that is factually in error. I also challenge you to show that 90% of
energy efficiency retrofits have failed in the last few years.(*)
Which logical fallacy is it to spread FUD claiming "Ad Verecundiam" etc.
about someone who has in the past genuinely helped the USA with his
unorthodox (but correct) reasoning and continues to do so? :-)

(*) I'll admit early attempts to superinsulate homes a few decades ago
sometimes had problems, but those issues are much better understood now
and current approaches work much better; see for example:
http://www.hhinst.com/Artcanadaconf.html
http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/popup/hhtoronto/here.htm

As an aside, I feel conventional academic economics is obsolete; see for
inspiration:
"The Abolition of Work -- by Blob Black"
http://www.deoxy.org/endwork.htm
or James P. Hogan's novels, like:
"Voyage from Yesteryear"
http://jamesphogan.com/books/voyage/baen99/titlepage.shtml
or what one person pointed on this list (Valens? Tango?) pointed me to:
"post-autistic economics network"
http://www.paecon.net/
so maybe I get a little sloppy there in my language trying to rush
through the obsolete part. :-)

My own model (in flux, but mostly as it stands now) is more that there
are the equivalent of physical patterns (including people and tools and
energy flows and trees) out there [level one?], and there are decision
makers emerging from that level (including human individual
consciousnesses and thermostats) which affect how resources are
transformed or moved [level two?], and out of the decision makers
interacting emerges various systems of assumptions (leading to things
like fiat currencies or economic textbooks or internet standards like
HTML, or related meaningful communications -- meaningful within those
systems, that is) [level three?]. Conventional economics is just one set
of emergent assumptions on level three. There are many other models
possible and desirable. A lot of conventional economics is essentially
about rationing. Decision makers may well decide to ration things, and
there are all sorts of ways to do that, from using generalized ration
tokens like fiat dollars or gold coins to having decision makers
rationing each specific commodity by some negotiated guidelines and
involving ration tokens or not. Eventually, in a world with nanotech
replicators and cheap PV (SSPS or ground based), decision makers (or
networks of decision makers) may decide that some things like food,
shelter, clothing, entertainment, health care, personal transport, and
so on are so easily produced as to be not worth rationing, like we
generally don't ration oxygen today -- green plants just keep producing
more of it from water and CO2 with very little intervention. At that
point, there will likely be plenty of people with free time and ready
access to enough unrationed materials and energy to build space
settlements. A online sci-fi story related to the development of such a
world:
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

All the best.

--Paul Fernhout