Designing SPS to accommodate tidal forces (was Nuke vs. SPS)

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "hitssquad" wrote:
> > A dirty secret of SPS is that its cost varies minimally with launch cost. Assume launch cost is $100/kg, and show us on paper a plan for building SPS in GEO at an overnight cost of less than a quadrillion dollars per gigawatt.
> Where are you getting your numbers from?

The ISS has a capacity of 100 kilowatts and cost $100 billion, despite its only being in LEO, not transmitting its power, and not being large enough to be affected by tidal forces.

> > > c) the alternatives are are not priced according to their full cost
> > Is that falsifiable, and do you have a plan for changing that even if it were true?
> Pollution has a cost

CO2 isn't a pollutant (as its increasing abundance in the atmosphere provides net benefits to humanity). Nuclear doesn't produce CO2, regardless.

> A carbon tax [...] is used by almost 2 dozen countries

It isn't used by China or India, it isn't high enough to make a market case for SPS, and it doesn't affect nuclear.

> > Earth-orbit-SPS [suffers from] the tidal-force problem
> Only if the structure is one solid piece, if it is in sections that can move away from each other and then closer during rotation

What does that mean?