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.
>

Ron, I both agree and disagree with what you say.

I have posted on this many times in the past, but I am happy to repeat
my position,
and go into some things in a bit more detail.

You are correct on the economics,
space solar power cannot compete on price with hydrocarbons,
not even close.

But your analysis of the issue of greenhouse gases and global warming
is too brief and misses some of the key points.

My response:

There are enough hydrocarbons of various kinds to supply the global
economy with cheap energy for a few centuries.

The problem with hydrocarbons, is that sustained and increasing carbon
dioxide emissions continues to cause accelerating climate change.
We do not know the consequences of the global climate change,
but it is not likely to be good.

Of clourse, if you do not believe in climate change, or do not care,
then you can justify simply continuing with hydrocarbons indefinitely.

I believe that elimination of CO2 emissions is a high priority.

There are a couple of ways to do this:

1) reduce and ultimately eliminate the usage of hydrocarbons, nuclear
power and
space solar power are the only technologies available which will permit
compelte elimination
of hydrcarbons. Other sources, e.h. hydro, wind, terrrestrial solar
etc are limited
and/or expensive.

2) Sequestration of CO2 - this involes installing CO2 scrubbers on all
power stations and vehicles,
trapping the CO2 and then dumping it into a sprawling pipeline network
and transporting it to huge underground
reservoirs where it will be stored and monitored for the rest of
eternity.

3) Conservation, but this alone is not enough, not even close.

Any and all of these measures will inevitably increase the cost of
energy on our planet, to the point where space solar power will become
competitive.

> 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.
>

This does not solve the problem of global warming,
and you also completely fail to address the environmental cost.
In a very real way, if we do this,
then the terrorists have won because they are forcing us to defile our
own environment.

> How economical would retrieval of methane hydrates be vis a vis
> building a solar power satellite? Methane can run a power plant. I

Hydrocarbons are much cheaper than space solar power, but they
excacerbate the
hazard of global warming.

> 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

Actually not, the law of the seabed has established quite clear
guidelines
on how ocean floor resources can be developed. What has happened is
that
the cost of developing the ocean floor is much more expensive than the
conventional resources which are still plentiful.

There is plenty of cheap coal, oil shale and other land based
hydrocarbons.
There will be no need to mine the ocean floor for a century or two.

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

True, but that is not the issue in my opinion.

> 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.
>

Not exactly, but close. You have rather glossed over it, we need to
consider the issues in more detail to really appreciate them.

Emission regulations themselves do not solve anything, if there is no
technical alternative the regulations will simply be ignored.
And the alternative technologies will increase the price of energy to
the
point where space solar power will become economically competitive.

There is no simple emission control technology for CO2,
you cannot simply put a catalytic convertor on your exhaust,
no such technology exists.
The sequestration system needed for trapping CO2 and transporting it to
huge underground storage areas will be horrendously expensive.

Take a look at the US DOE web site,
there are some fairly detailed analyses there concerning how to
sequestrate CO2.
The investment required will be on the same order as setting up a space
solar power system.

This is why President Bush refused to implement the CO2 emission control
treaty,
the cost of compliance will substantially increase global energy prices,
and at least in the short term that will have a major negative impact on
the economy.

And we still have a problem in that sequestration is a limited
resource.
It is limited by the cost of creating underground storage,
which will become more and more expensive and more and more difficult as
time goes on.
Ultimately CO2 sequestration will become much more expensive than space
solar power.

> 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.,

CO2 sequestration is a limited resource and quite expensive.
With electricity from SPS it
would be cheaper and more efficient to go to a hydrogen economy and drop
hydrocarbons
completely.

> 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

It would be cheaper to set up a hydrogen economy,
H2O does not need any sequestration.

H2 can be created easily with electricity.

We can also use electric cars and trains,
batteries and flywheel energy storage etc.

Heck, maybe even ballistic mass drivers for cargo delivery.

> 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.
>

Nah, they are in a complete state of denial.

Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!