It seems, at lest to me, that SPS is a dead idea. I just cannot see
it underselling coal, oil and gas as a power sorce. Recent studies
have shown that that can last 200 years-1000 years. And by then, we
may have devloped fusion power.
I believe you are, alas, correct I fear. Barring some sort of acceptence of
a Kyoto like agreement that ends up tipping the price per KW in or near in
favor of SPS. Other than that, it seems like a long way down the road for
terrestial power.
possibly near future. Perhaps these will find need of such a power source,
which then may be applied to planet side endeavors.
Val
Hi Babbler,
to last the world much longer (unless they really go for the dubious
tar-sands and methane clathrates), but coal certainly could last another
100-200 years with projected energy use increases. But a world burning
that much coal will not be a pretty place; we might be able to mitigate
the global warming somehow, but we'd have to live with a very different
world. Will fusion do the job? Actually, I believe if the same R&D money
that was invested in fusion were there for SSP development, we'd have a
cost-effective solution within 20 years, while practical fusion looks to
be at least another 50 years away.
Some links to my writing on this lately:
http://www.fpsboard.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Number
(debate with Steve Fetter on the economics, vs. terrestrial solar power)
http://deanissuesforum.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s16082714&f$16028024&m=7606003235
(summary of a book on our energy future, and tackling the CO2 problem)
Some conclusions:
(1) Human-generated CO2 and the associated global warming is a big
problem for the coming century, although there are some engineering
strategies that could (with other side-effects) mitigate it.
(2) We're going to be running out of fossil fuels anyway in the next few
centuries; without alternatives, global economic prosperity will be
endangered much sooner than that.
(3) Depending on how far efficiency improvements can get us, the
mid-century energy requirement from non-fossil sources is between 9 and
30 TW(thermal), or 3 - 10 TW (electric), year-round.
(4) No current renewable technology can provide that power level for
less than about $10 trillion in capital investment.
(5) The best plan seems to be an adaptive one: introduce a carbon tax
(as David Doty has suggested elsewhere here), and technology incentives
of all sorts for the renewable options, and then adjust both taxes and
incentives in response to changing assessments of CO2 damage and
non-fossil technological promise.
(6) Wind may be ready for large scale installation; however investments
are needed in energy storage and transmission technologies to make it
really practical. Biofuels are already in large-scale use: R&D
investments to improve their efficiencies, perhaps including genetically
engineered crops, should be supported. Solar is a little further away,
but R&D there should be strengthened because of the huge potential.
(7) Nuclear fission will be around - we need to decide whether to try to
make it a big part, or a small part, of our energy future (i.e. choosing
between once-through and breeder fuel cycles).
(8) Fusion likely won't help by mid-century. But the long-term payoff
may be large; we should continue to invest moderately in the technology.
(9) Space solar power, whether or not on the Moon, has enormous
theoretical potential. Technology incentives to prove its capabilities
seem warranted - investments in photovoltaic capabilities, light-weight
space construction, space launch, and wireless power transmission all
seem well justified by this and spinoff applications.
And from the FPS discussion, the challenges facing SSP:
4 technology research challenges for space power:
(1) The ratio of space to terrestrial solar module costs needs to be at
most a value of 3 (space three times more expensive) - otherwise
terrestrial power is always going to win out.
(2) The efficiency for wireless power transmission - a NASA goal was
40%, but higher efficiencies have been seen over short distances - can
they be achieved over tens of thousands of km?
(3) Mass per peak kW is too high: 1 kg/kW has been argued by others to
be achievable. Is it?
(4) Launch costs. $1000/kg, combined with the other technology targets,
may allow space power to be cost competitive. Can we get to orbit for
that, or less?
The energy transition problem is one that will cost 5-10 trillion
dollars or more over the next 50 years; a few billions spent on
investigating all the physically plausible alternatives seems like money
well spent.
Arthur
> I believe you are, alas, correct I fear. Barring some sort of acceptence of
> a Kyoto like agreement that ends up tipping the price per KW in or near in
> favor of SPS. Other than that, it seems like a long way down the road for
> terrestial power.
not "sustainable", borrowing a word from the Environmentalists and
applying it into an economic context.
> Of course, that may not be so with lunar colonies and space habitats in the
> possibly near future.
But without SPSs we have few economic justifications for orbital and
lunar colonies, except perhaps space tourism. Or, if we are lucky,
asteroid mining.
> Perhaps these will find need of such a power source,
> which then may be applied to planet side endeavors.
That will certainly be true for space colonies. But maybe an eventual
Lunatic civilization will prefer to mine thorium and uranium and use
nukes :-). No, I don't think that it is likely to happen - just being a
devil's advocate for a while.
And, oh, there is always a twisted hope that SPSs will eventually be
developed - but for military purposes. It would be *the* energy source
for a space-based death ray.
> Val
Lucio
--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
> Hi Babbler,
>
> I've been writing a bit about exactly this. Oil and gas aren't
going
> to last the world much longer (unless they really go for the
dubious
> tar-sands
been in production for decades; Alberta's Tar Sands produce 780000
bbl/day of crude oil. More than half of the world's oil supply is
in the Alberta Tar Sands, 1.3 trillion bbl.
(we now return you to the space discussion)
Ed
The Tar sands and all other carbon based power sources
will last at least another 100 years. It will take
something like really severe Global Warming to make
carbon unpopular and then what will be the likelyhood
of a switch to Nuclear power?
--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
> Hi Babbler,
>
> I've been writing a bit about exactly this. Oil
and gas aren't
going
> to last the world much longer (unless they really go
for the
dubious
> tar-sands
Just curious, why would you call the Tar Sands
dubious? They have
been in production for decades; Alberta's Tar Sands
produce 780000
bbl/day of crude oil. More than half of the world's
oil supply is
in the Alberta Tar Sands, 1.3 trillion bbl.
(we now return you to the space discussion)
Ed
Mass produced standardized, falt safe idiot proof nukes. THe designs are out there. best regards pete
will last at least another 100 years. It will take
something like really severe Global Warming to make
carbon unpopular and then what will be the likelyhood
of a switch to Nuclear power?
- Thor
Yup - I read about these - very small and cheap
compared to traditional large nuclear plants.
This coupled with the recent innovation of high
efficiency LED to replace lighting fixtures should
extend cost effective power sources for another decade
or two.
- Thor
Mass produced standardized, falt safe idiot proof
nukes.
THe designs are out there.
best regards
pete
The Tar sands and all other carbon based power sources
will last at least another 100 years. It will take
something like really severe Global Warming to make
carbon unpopular and then what will be the likelyhood
of a switch to Nuclear power?
- Thor
A brief reply:
>
> > I believe you are, alas, correct I fear. Barring some sort of acceptence
>of
> > a Kyoto like agreement that ends up tipping the price per KW in or near
>in
> > favor of SPS. Other than that, it seems like a long way down the road
>for
> > terrestial power.
>
>Artificial price twists never work in the long range, I think. They are
>not "sustainable", borrowing a word from the Environmentalists and
>applying it into an economic context.
>
I agree 100% - economics never submit to such manipulations for very long -
at least not functionally!
> > Of course, that may not be so with lunar colonies and space habitats in
>the
> > possibly near future.
>
>But without SPSs we have few economic justifications for orbital and
>lunar colonies, except perhaps space tourism. Or, if we are lucky,
>asteroid mining.
>
On this I disagree. The Chinese are a very ambitious people, and seldom
commit to things that they do not intend to follow through (unlike the wishy
washy Americans). They have stated that the moon is their goal. This has all
the potential to Spark a new space race with the U.S. And despite being
wishy washy, the Americans can muster a hell of lot of oomph when it comes
to a race. Perhaps this will propel us towards other goals...
> > Perhaps these will find need of such a power source,
> > which then may be applied to planet side endeavors.
>
>That will certainly be true for space colonies. But maybe an eventual
>Lunatic civilization will prefer to mine thorium and uranium and use
>nukes :-). No, I don't think that it is likely to happen - just being a
>devil's advocate for a while.
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the moon depleted of the heavier
elements such as those necessary for fission? I have no idea, but it seemed
that it be that way. Not that we can't ship that stuff there (imagine the
enviro outcry on THAT).
>And, oh, there is always a twisted hope that SPSs will eventually be
>developed - but for military purposes. It would be *the* energy source
>for a space-based death ray.
Hey, now there is a good plot for a Flash Gordon movie!
>
> > Val
>(...)
>
>Lucio
>
Val
I remember spending time with some ARAMCO guys in Saudi Arabia, and of
course the subject came up regarding the years remaining in oil reserves.
Now, this could be incorrect, but I believe they said something in the order
of several hundred years left in oil reserves. Tar sands and coal were never
mentioned.
Val
Got to get them around the enviros. Eventhough their pet peeve (global
warming) and a host of other enviro problems they harp on are all due to
non-nuclear power...
Joe and Joanne would be a good precedent for getiing the same acceptance for
nuclear rockets, which are surely needed for anything beyond the Earth-Moon
system.
Val
>--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
>>Hi Babbler,
>>
>> I've been writing a bit about exactly this. Oil and gas aren't
>>
>going
>
>>to last the world much longer (unless they really go for the
>>
>dubious
>
>>tar-sands
>>
>Just curious, why would you call the Tar Sands dubious? They have
>been in production for decades; Alberta's Tar Sands produce 780000
>bbl/day of crude oil. More than half of the world's oil supply is
>in the Alberta Tar Sands, 1.3 trillion bbl.
>
Well, I'm no expert, but I've been told (A) they require natural gas to
convert to oil, which is itself in limited supply; without that the
processing is energy inefficient, and (B) while the reserves are
enormous in principle, practical extraction seems likely to be less than
10%, even with sufficient natural gas. That's still a lot of course. The
only reason they're actually in production now is government subsidy -
which is also behind ethanol and wind installations so far of cousre,
but could they really be a stand-alone energy resource?
> On this I disagree. The Chinese are a very ambitious people, and seldom
> commit to things that they do not intend to follow through (unlike the wishy
> washy Americans). They have stated that the moon is their goal. This has all
> the potential to Spark a new space race with the U.S. And despite being
> wishy washy, the Americans can muster a hell of lot of oomph when it comes
> to a race. Perhaps this will propel us towards other goals...
politics and nationalism - and nationalism can be as powerful as any
other faith. But I was saying that without SPSs there would be few
*economic* justifications for space colonization - and that would not
preclude a space colonization powered by nationalism/politics. Let cross
our fingers so that a "Crusade to Space" comes to reality.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the moon depleted of the heavier
> elements such as those necessary for fission? I have no idea, but it
seemed
> that it be that way. Not that we can't ship that stuff there (imagine
the
> enviro outcry on THAT).
True, the Moon is less dense than the Earth (and therefore its bulk was
formed by less dense elements), but on the other hand it is heavily
impacted by asteroids and, unlike Earth's, its crust is not "recycled"
from times to times - so my expectation is that you can find *any* kind
of ore at crater bottoms and rays of crater ejecta. But I have to stress
that at this point it is just a hypothesis of mine and we will have to
wait some serious lunar prospection (including underground sampling) to
come to an answer.
> Hey, now there is a good plot for a Flash Gordon movie!
I don't think so - this is too hard science fiction for Flash Gordon. :-)
Here is another site to add to the carbon fuels are
running out motive for SPS.
I like Mr. Deffeyes reasoning of what you can and
cannot know about oil reserves.
One question that occurs to me - is a society at risk
if all it takes to overcome a crisis is dumping SUV's
in favor of more energy efficient cars?
Cheers, Thor
Got to get them around the enviros. Eventhough their
pet peeve (global
warming) and a host of other enviro problems they harp
on are all due to
non-nuclear power...
However, perhaps getting something like this into the
mind set of average
Joe and Joanne would be a good precedent for getiing
the same acceptance for
nuclear rockets, which are surely needed for anything
beyond the Earth-Moon
system.
Val
>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:10:20 -0800 (PST)
>
>Yup - I read about these - very small and cheap
>compared to traditional large nuclear plants.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1504564.stm
>
>This coupled with the recent innovation of high
>efficiency LED to replace lighting fixtures should
>extend cost effective power sources for another
decade
>or two.
>- Thor
>
>Mass produced standardized, falt safe idiot proof
>nukes.
>
>THe designs are out there.
>best regards
>pete
>
>The Tar sands and all other carbon based power
sources
>It may be true, but then it will be space colonization boosted by
>politics and nationalism - and nationalism can be as powerful as any
>other faith. But I was saying that without SPSs there would be few
>*economic* justifications for space colonization - and that would not
>preclude a space colonization powered by nationalism/politics. Let cross
>our fingers so that a "Crusade to Space" comes to reality.
>
pure economic motive is the same as waiting til Earth's essential resources
(as far as humanity is concerned) are mostly depleted. This of course would
be preceded by decades of wars as those resources become scarce, and with
the current weaponary (much less future) available, the toll may be
catastrophic. I have serious doubts about policy makers abilities to see
ahead and effect change in the timely manner needed to avoid this seeming
inevitability. Hopefully, the spirit of the race, fueled by whatever, can
catalyze the move to space based economic incentives.
>True, the Moon is less dense than the Earth (and therefore its bulk was
>formed by less dense elements), but on the other hand it is heavily
>impacted by asteroids and, unlike Earth's, its crust is not "recycled"
>from times to times - so my expectation is that you can find *any* kind
>of ore at crater bottoms and rays of crater ejecta. But I have to stress
>that at this point it is just a hypothesis of mine and we will have to
>wait some serious lunar prospection (including underground sampling) to
>come to an answer.
>
On reflection, that seems to be plausible. Having a passion for collecting
meteorites, I can say that some (though fewer in percentage) have a very
high content of metals, mostly iron. I not aware of the probable contents of
heavier elements, but that shouldn't be hard to figure out - I'll post it
when I find it. At any rate, metals necessary for construction purposes are
certain to be in rich supply at the bottoms of more than a few moon craters!
>(...)
> > Hey, now there is a good plot for a Flash Gordon movie!
>(...)
>
>I don't think so - this is too hard science fiction for Flash Gordon. :-)
>
Hey - you said Death Ray! That sounded a lot like something that the evil
Ming would have :-)
Val
Thor, I posted this link a few months ago for Paul, but I think you may find
it interesting as well:
In conclusion, the position of dumping SUVs is hypocritical at best, since
no-one is doing it in any quantity sufficient to make an impact. At any
rate, even if they did, the overall impact on the situation at large would
be insignificant. Therefore, it would seem to be much better for the cause
focusing debate and other energies on solutions that have more than a
snowball's chance in the hot nether regions of being implemented at all, and
that when implemented would have an effect more appropriate to the general
problem. Wouldn't you agree?
There's not enough minable uranium ore around to supply all world energy
needs (on a once-through fuel cycle) for more than 50-100 years.
Reprocessing, mining sea-water, or tearing up the landscape for granite
to extract very-low-grade uranium from would get more, but they won't be
pretty.
The Saudis do have hundreds of years of their own oil. But other
extractors have at most a few decades left; when they're through, the
Saudis will have to increase production ten-fold to meet world needs,
and then will have only a few decades left of their own oil.
pointed to the Hubbert's Peak stuff which is probably a little on the
alarmist side, but the truth can't be too far from it, as far as oil is
concerned.
Arthur
Hi Valens,
Actually I intended to make a different point than
proposing to dump SUV's because they are incorrect for
one reason or another. Out of repect for SUV owners
it would be impolite to wish them anything other than
prosperity.
Some half of all of the US oil imports go to make
gasoline which is readily consumed by people driving
SUV's and a myriad of other vehicles. To some degree
these are discretionary choices and if people are
feeling pinched financially due to increasingly scarce
oil, I would expect them to seek to lower their costs.
Since the fuel for a large vehicle costs more than
the vehicle is worth over a lifetime of driving, it
follows that it would be a sensible choice to change
ones vehicle.
This intersects the SPS debate at a number of points.
Most significantly the US is prosperous and secure
enough that getting support here for SPS is proving
difficult. There are vast numbers of people who do
not think there is any problem with either the climate
nor a reliance on fossil fuels. Until the wolf is
seemingly at the door, I'm not sure this will change
much so I think of meeker ways to make SPS a reality.
The second is that there is a great deal of
doublethink out there as mentioned in the discussion
of Environmentalist watermellons. If you cry wolf
enough and for long enough someone will make a catchy
song out of it and totally reverse the meaning of the
intended warning. Joining SPS with any movement that
seeks to distort reality is ultimately going to cause
more problems than benefit. We would be well advised
to avoid sensationalism.
My third and last point is that if it is true that the
US society is largely indifferent and distracted by
the shrillness of the watermellons then a crisis of
some magnitude is inevitable. If SPS is shaped as a
solution for such a crisis then I would expect a
higher chance of success.
Cheers, Thor
Thor, I posted this link a few months ago for Paul,
but I think you may
find
it interesting as well:
http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/greencar.html
In conclusion, the position of dumping SUVs is
hypocritical at best,
since
no-one is doing it in any quantity sufficient to make
an impact. At any
rate, even if they did, the overall impact on the
situation at large
would
be insignificant. Therefore, it would seem to be much
better for the
cause
focusing debate and other energies on solutions that
have more than a
snowball's chance in the hot nether regions of being
implemented at
all, and
that when implemented would have an effect more
appropriate to the
general
problem. Wouldn't you agree?
>Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:36:57 -0800 (PST)
>
>Here is another site to add to the carbon fuels are
>running out motive for SPS.
>
>http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
>
>I like Mr. Deffeyes reasoning of what you can and
>cannot know about oil reserves.
>
>One question that occurs to me - is a society at risk
>if all it takes to overcome a crisis is dumping SUV's
>in favor of more energy efficient cars?
>
>Cheers, Thor
>
>Got to get them around the enviros. Eventhough their
>pet peeve (global
>warming) and a host of other enviro problems they
harp
>on are all due to
>non-nuclear power...
>
>However, perhaps getting something like this into the
>mind set of average
>Joe and Joanne would be a good precedent for getiing
>the same acceptance for
>nuclear rockets, which are surely needed for anything
>beyond the Earth-Moon
>system.
>
>Val
>
> >Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:10:20 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >Yup - I read about these - very small and cheap
> >compared to traditional large nuclear plants.
> >
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1504564.stm
> >
> >This coupled with the recent innovation of high
> >efficiency LED to replace lighting fixtures should
> >extend cost effective power sources for another
>decade
> >or two.
> >- Thor
> >
> >Mass produced standardized, falt safe idiot proof
> >nukes.
> >
> >THe designs are out there.
> >best regards
> >pete
> >
> >The Tar sands and all other carbon based power
>sources
> >will last at least another 100 years. It will take
> >something like really severe Global Warming to make
> >carbon unpopular and then what will be the
likelyhood
> Reprocessing, mining sea-water, or tearing up the landscape for granite
> to extract very-low-grade uranium from would get more, but they won't be
> pretty.
*much* more - millenia, at current energy consumption levels, or
centuries, if we work with a ten-fold increase. I don't know if those
techniques will be "pretty", but provided that they can be used in an
economically viable way, that will be enough.
The Saudis do have hundreds of years of their own oil. But other
extractors have at most a few decades left; when they're through, the
Saudis will have to increase production ten-fold to meet world needs,
and then will have only a few decades left of their own oil.
pointed to the Hubbert's Peak stuff which is probably a little on the
alarmist side, but the truth can't be too far from it, as far as oil is
concerned.
Arthur
Using thorium requires chemical reprocessing of spent fuel or otherwise
radioactive materials. But yes, any of these increases the available
energy a factor of 100 to 1000 or more. Will it be politically and
environmentally and economically acceptable? Hard to know right now.
It's not clear-cut anyway.
--- In ssi_list@... Lucio de Souza Coelho
> > I believe you are, alas, correct I fear. Barring some sort of
acceptence of
> > a Kyoto like agreement that ends up tipping the price per KW in
or near in
> > favor of SPS. Other than that, it seems like a long way down the
road for
> > terrestial power.
>
> Artificial price twists never work in the long range, I think. They
are
> not "sustainable", borrowing a word from the Environmentalists and
> applying it into an economic context.
>
> > Of course, that may not be so with lunar colonies and space
habitats in the
> > possibly near future.
>
>But without SPSs we have few economic justifications for orbital
>and
>lunar colonies, except perhaps space tourism. Or, if we are lucky,
>asteroid mining.
the biggest problems with space settlements (or what we call them) it
that there only one economic reason people give for it: SPS. If SPS
falls, so do the space habitats. Its put your eggs in one basket.
>> Perhaps these will find need of such a power source,
>> which then may be applied to planet side endeavors.
>
> That will certainly be true for space colonies. But maybe an
eventual
> Lunatic civilization will prefer to mine thorium and uranium and
use
> nukes :-). No, I don't think that it is likely to happen - just
being a
> devil's advocate for a while.
I think there no chance for a lunar civilization to devlop. The moon
is too barren to support anything beyond a single base or town.
Lunarians will always depend on Terrans, Martians and space settlers.
> And, oh, there is always a twisted hope that SPSs will eventually
>be
> developed - but for military purposes. It would be *the* energy
>source
> for a space-based death ray.
The greatest terraformation tool ever: just point at pole, click and
BURN. Talk about shock and awe! LOL :)
> I think there no chance for a lunar civilization to devlop. The moon
> is too barren to support anything beyond a single base or town.
> Lunarians will always depend on Terrans, Martians and space settlers.
populated, economically and politically powerfull, but are comparatively
almost devoid of natural resources. (Think of Japan or France. Or how a
minuscule country like England basically conquered the world in the 19th
Century.) On the other hand, there are countries abounding with natural
resources but that are poor and weak, and sparsely populated. (Plenty of
examples in the Third World.) So, if there is a correlation between
presence of natural resources and "civilization expression", I would say
that it is kind of weak.
How do we get numbers like this? I would like to research it more, and can't
find good, unbiased, sites that have them.