I just finished a book on the issues: the nuclear fission chapter
was written by pro-nuclear people, but the numbers were unbiased
(and they attempted a positive spin, but the numbers are the numbers).

"Innovative Strategies for CO2 Stabilization", editied by Robert
G. Watts, published 2002 Cambridge University Press.

There's also a pretty thorough recent analysis of the nuclear option
from an MIT physics dept. study group:

http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/n/nuclearpower

(both of these were cited in the "response to Fetter" article I mentioned
a couple of days back).

The US DOE Energy Information Administration has some of this
stuff, but it's very hard to extract from their tables exactly
what is what (and there are claims that
some of those numbers are cooked).

Arthur

Thanks, this is a very comprehensive report and focused in the "near"
term (say, next 50 years); occasionally, I'll read it in detail.

My own claims about "nukes powering Humanity for centuries" come from a
short report estimating the theoretical durability of nuclear fuels
reserves, at
http://www.nea.fr/html/pub/newsletter/2002/20-2-Nuclear_fuel_resources.pdf

> 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.

Conceptual problems with that article (which frankly is a well done
piece of work and is otherwise worth pondering):

1. Some Green objections regarding transportation have to do with the
overall system and system wide costs. So, advocating people drive
motorcylcles rather than cars as a strwman argument in the article
leaves out issues of safety (e.g. what does a multi-million dollar
lifetime care bill do in terms of resource use for all those motorcyle
injuries to the brain or spine which are much worse on average than car
"[T]here were nearly SIX TIMES MORE INJURIES per motorcycle mile ridden
than per car mile ridden". Granted if everyone drove morotcyles that
figure might gow down (less collisions with cars) or it might go up
(less experienced motorcycle operators). The real Green solution is for
people to have the option of driving less overall by workable mass
transit or having facilities for jobs or shopping or education or
recreation within walking distance. Unfortunately, the assumption of the
car has been built into the US infrastructure (especially suburbs),
another reason why most of US Real Estate is essentially obsolete (even
though most of its owners don't realize this yet [and if they do are
usually still trapped in it anyway]).

2. The analysis is based on one person per vehicle. An Accord with four
occupants looks Greener than the motorcyle (using the last figure for
overall score) since the cost of operation is divided by four.

3. The SUV still comes out twice as bad as the next alternative (1.4 vs.
3.8 final scores). So driving an SUV is still typically an antisocial
(or uniformed) choice in terms of putting uneeded external costs on
others, given that most SUV owners don't need the special features of an
SUV (high ground clearance) yet, even though drivers feel safer in a
truck pretending to be a car, they are statistically less safe because
of higher rollover risk, blocking the view of other drivers, driving
more aggressively because they feel safer, etc.

4. These figures compare Honda products. Honda is often an excellent
manufacturer, and like many Japanese manufacturers often considers
strongly factors such as energy efficiency more than the less
sophisticated US car manufacturers. It is not surprising the Honda SUV
emissions are not that bad relative to the Honda sedan. But an anlysis
US cars might likely tell a different story. It wouldn't even suprise me
to imagine that if everyone drove Honda SUVs the US might still be
better off than people driving typical US designed sedan cars in terms
of fuel efficiency. I'm not sure of this extreme point, but certainly
comparable US automotive products are generally worse, to the point
where US car brands are no being called "anti-brands" -- purchased only
if there seem to be no other options [financing, in stock, local
dealers, etc.]. This is a really sad situation for US manufacturers (and
workers and consumers) to be in.

Why belabor this issue in a discussion of the economics of SSPS? To show
that energy demand is not independent of local choices made on Earth,
and that if those choices are made differently, the whole economics
surrounding arguments for SSPS may change rapidly (and more rapidly than
the twenty to thirty year SSPS time frame).

> 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?

Local PV etc. and energy efficiency is happening -- even as we speak
(it's just that the USA is getting somewhat left behind).
http://solstice.crest.org/repp_pubs/articles/issuebr14/00Cintro.htm

Babbler36, IMHO you're right to have doubts. What the SPS advocates
leave out of their analysis is that their solution typically expects an
expanded electrical grid, and based on historical grid maintenance costs
that puts the cost of home electricity for purely grid delivery cost
reasons as never falling below about $0.05/kWh delivered. (That cost
might even go up if the grid has to be expanded if everyone moves to
electri heat.) When local renewables (with local energy storage) fall
below that amount in overall cost (including decomissioning and
maintenance) local renewables will dominate the market fairly quickly.
In some areas, local wind power is already at that cost. Already,
conservation such as by having more insulation or better windows is
often cost effective as a form of producing local "negawatts" (conserved
power). When (not if IMHO) this changeover happens overall (especially
with easy to install low maintence PV + energy storage) is still a
guessing game, especially giving how much of the price advantage of
fossil fuels and even the grid comes from ignoring external costs like
grid security and pollution.

Having said that, if SPSs could be produced by an already existing space
infrastructure (so its cost did not include recovering funding for all
space settlemnt R&D and operations), SPS power might find some use in
beaming power directly to specific energuy intensive industries like
space launch facilities or specific manufacturing or recycling plants or
even hydrogen or carbon sequestration (for synthetic liquid fuels)
production facilities.

I feel Space Cities, Habs, etc. (whatever the name :-) will happen, but
essentially out of the enthusiasm or benevolance or foresight of many
people as a hobby and/or charitable and/or government activity. Private
ventures might then play a role within that context.

Still, as TangoMan points out in a long discussion we had on this list,
a really great temporary energy storage solution for PV or wind energy
is still not here yet, and as he also points out, the grid as is is not
designed to scale well for variable baseline production if everyone
moves to local PV and wind electrical generation etc. using the grid as
a backup. [Note: I say "Really Great" is as opposed to IMHO _workable_
but pricier energy storage solutions using batteries and battery
recycling every seven years or so, coupled with 10% or so of power
pruced using a cogeneration system that burns liquid fuels like propane
or biodiesel.] This lack of need for energy storage is as TangoMan
points out one of the biggest selling points of SPS enerrgy -- as long
as you can trust the producer and the transmission system (a big if in
my opinion), you don't need local storage. Still, as in our previous
long discussion, I think long term these storage issues will be worked
out to the advantage of local energy solutions using more advanced
technology, especially when coupled with reducing energy needs through
energy efficiency or even lifestyle choices. So essentially, SPS is also
banking on no really great (and cheap) short term energy storage
solutions coming along, say based on nanotechnology etc. Both theses
assumptions -- no cheap PV, no clean PV (another of TangoMan's points is
older PV production styles produced more toxic waste) and no cheap and
clean energy storage solutions seem to be questionable predictions,
given that I can point to very active research in these areas, including
reputable companies already making (potentially hyped, admittedly)
claims for such breakthroughs. For example:
http://wire0.ises.org/wire/CurrentAffairs/RENews.nsf/0/75b1f50569d67091c12566b700603204?OpenDocument
"[From 1998!] The new solar components factory building [Solar-Fabrik
GmbH in Gwermany http://www.solarfabrik.de/ ] is expected to be
completed by December of this year. PV modules will be produced using
renewable energy generated by panels and a rape oil power plant, thus
avoiding harmful carbon dioxide emissions."

Anyway, that's a summary of the SPS vs. local renewables & energy
efficiency discussion from my side, and I'm not really into rehashing it
again right now [see the archives for the last two months for the back
and forth] plus TangoMan is on vacation so it wouldn't be fair. :-)

--Paul Fernhout

Thank you very much, Arthur! Now I have some reading to do...

Val

Hi Thor... Just a brief reply to your post:

>Hi Valens,
>
>My pardon for not detailing my argument better.
>
>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.

I should think that you are wasting your breath here, Thor... If they can
afford the higher cost, more gas, and higher insurance, than they probably
don't need wishes for further 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.

In principle, I agree. As I stated in a much earlier post to Paul and
Tangoman, I myself have switched to a fuel efficient (moderately) sedan
instead of an SUV, despite a history of enjoyment with 4WD vehicles. It just
didn't make any sense to me from a financial perspective. Part of getting
older and wiser, I guess (I hope!). However, it is plainly evident that most
Americans do not follow my or yours line of reasoning. A pity, I think, but
a waste of time and energy pursuing it further to be sure. To suggest a
better approach, one might become involved with or support the adoption of
more fuel efficient aircraft - a huge savings on fuel.

>
>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.

Again, I agree. However, perhaps pushing and getting implemented some
strategies that will allow easier adaption to that wolf's presence when he
shows up would be prudent. Since it seems that you and I agree that there is
a strong likelihood of wolves before reason, it would seem logical to accept
that and take steps to be sure he doesn't eat us before we can react.

>
>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.

Not sure on this - people only seem to respond with energy to
sensationalism. And SPS will require a very energetic response. Perhaps
better with some sensationalism now, however contrived, than very real and
truly dangerous sensationalism when the wolf arrives.

>
>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.

Agreed!

Val

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
> >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?

It's not that they need natural gas, but you need to collect the sand
and heat them, first to seperate the bitumin from the sand, and then
to turn it into synthetic crude oil (heating to over 500 C). This is
a net energy production process, and you could use the output of the
tar sand processing to provide energy for more production as well as
usable synthetic crude.
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/Chapter10.pdf has a summary of the
production process for tar sands as well as other type of alternative
oil sources (oil shale, etc.)

But the problem is economics -- to make this work as a business you
probably need oil prices in the $40-50 dollar per barrel, whereas
prices in the last decade have averaged in the $20-25/ barrel range,
with some higher and lower spikes. (See
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm for historical oil prices.)

http://www.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/Chapter10.pdf

> 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.
>
> Is it just me, or am I missing part of the picture?

Go back to this message and follow the whole discussion that ensues.

I'd like to see a report that oil and gas reserves are that large
considering the news that Shell Oil has recently downgraded their
oil reserves by 20%.

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?
type=hotStocksNews&storyID=4103451

TangoMan

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"

> 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)

Thanks for the links on this Arthur. Some of these arguments are
complex so I'm going to read them in detail.

For instance I need to study the basis on which Fetter's claim of 3x
cost factor is made.

Looks good. Thanks for carrying on the good fight :)

TangoMan

--- In ssi_list@... "Valens Agnitio"

> 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).

It's there but not in great quantities. That's the KREEP that is
referred to in selenology studies. It's concentrated.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5174.pdf

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/moon2002/pdf/3039.pdf

http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/printerready/science/geologys.html

"KREEP: More than 4.5 billion years ago, the surface of the Moon was
a liquid magma ocean. Scientists think that one component of lunar
rocks, KREEP (K-potassium, Rare Earth Elements, and P-phosphorous),
represents the last chemical remnant of that magma ocean. KREEP is
actually a composite of what scientists term "incompatible
elements": those which cannot fit into a crystal structure and thus
were left behind, floating to the surface of the magma. For
researchers, KREEP is a convenient tracer, useful for reporting the
story of the volcanic history of the lunar crust and chronicling the
frequency of impacts by comets and other celestial bodies."

TangoMan

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

> Local PV etc. and energy efficiency is happening -- even as we
> speak (it's just that the USA is getting somewhat left behind).
>
http://solstice.crest.org/repp_pubs/articles/issuebr14/00Cintro.htm

Hah!!! I almost split my gut when I saw this link used as a means of
adding support to your statement.

I try to be fair when I come across information and to judge it by
its merit but I do also look into the credibility of the
organization if the information doesn't lend itself to judgement on
facts alone.

Are you sure you want to have CREST on your side. They are after all
the ones who envision power lines from the moon as a means of
transmitting space solar power.

http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/995469913_2.html#solaronthemoon

" transmitting this energy back would be technically impossible. In
addition, with the rotation of the moon and the earth as they are,
the transmission cables would quickly become terribly tangled."

"...there is no way the energy would be still coursing through the
transmission cables after the 384,400 kilometers it would have to
travel from the moon to the earth."

I've actually written to them requesting that the correct this
information and presented them with references. Arthur has done the
same, yet the idiotarians that they are, they continue to present
this FAQ.

With friends like those . . . I'm glad that they're on your side!

TangoMan

Thank you for the links - you have no idea how much time you saved me trying
to find detailed chemical analyisis of meteorites. That project turned out
to be more difficult than I thought, even being a meterorite collector
myself!

Val

TangoMan-

Welcome back from vacation!

One of the problems with the issue of political energy analysis is it
covers so many fields and specific technologies it is hard for someone
to be expert in them all. So many consolidators of such information may
embrace some junk science if they are not physicists or engineers. We're
probably all guilty of that here to some percentage (about what, and how
big or small the significance we might and do debate).

Clearly, talking about power cables from the moon is silly from a
conventional physics standpoint. (Just to be contrary, maybe Earth and
Moon power conducting skyhooks with a vast number of spokes like
superconductors maintained actively against gravitational tidal forces
on station in orbit between earth and moon with beamed power at the
joints would qualify as physically possible physical cabling? Not that
it might make much economic sense compsred to beAming the power. :-)

However, if a web page is essentially a synthesis of the literature with
one bad idea in it, it doesn't mean the rest is all trash. I don't think
you can condemn an entire organization on a single glaring error. Having
said that, misunderstanding the physics of cables or microwaves in space
is disturbing, and you can from there legitimately raise the question of
whether their grasp of physics as an institution is weak and whether
that effects everything they do and to what extent.

Frankly, I don't think I had especially heard of Solstice or Repp before
the discussion with you (names I remember are from a dozen years ago) --
they mainly come up as convenient google links that generally outline
many of the positives about renewables. Even on the page you cite to
blast them, much of the other information seems generally correct from a
casual glance (e.g the rough estimates of PV system purchase costs,
links to other (reputable) organizations, etc.). Still, from what I read
in other sources it still seems like the page I cite is in general a
generally fairly accurate representation about what is going on related
to local PV and other local renewables (as opposed to space based
renewables :-) in countries besides the USA.

--Paul Fernhout