How Energy From Space Relates To Fighting Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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