SPS versus other energy sources

Colin,

Let's see how well your data-shovel works :)

I would look forward to your response to the tag-team rebuttals
Charles and I mounted to your assertions. Charles presented a wealth
of information and I would characterize my approach to have been
more big picture.

From reviewing earlier posts I'm quite confident that Charles and I
both support the position that there are many hidden costs using
oil, coal, gas and nuclear, i.e. military to support oil nations and
routes, global warming, general pollution remediation, environmental
degradation from mining, pipelines, etc and many other issues. The
arguments are well presented in previous posts.

These costs are real but presently private sector decisionmakers
take don't account of them. They don't have to because the rule-
makers (the governments) have decided not to link the costs to the
sector. Rather we all pay the cost and the benefits accrue to the
producers.

If your advocacy of solar/wind stems from environmental concerns, I
see absolutely no way for you NOT to acknowledge the hidden costs of
oil, gas, coal, nuclear and remain logically consistent.

If you have concern about the envirnmental damage caused by oil &
gas, then surely you must have concern for the mining, refining,
processing, energy use, transportation needed to implement your
solution. Even the plastic solar sheets will result from a toxic
manufacturing process.

Except for the initial infrastructure in orbit and the manufacture
of the launch vehicles, almost all of the environmental damage on
behalf of SPS takes place off of the earth. Even the launch process
itself, consisting of Liquid H2 fuel and Liquid O2 oxidizer, results
in water vapor.

So on the environmental scorecard, we've got you beat hands down.
Also:

SPS has you beat on 24 hour a day delivery of power.
SPS has you beat on concentration of sunlight factors.
SPS has you beat on storage of electricity issues.

The only issue of substance left for the SPS community to tackle is
affordability. Make no mistake, that is a huge issue, and no one is
ducking it.

If the global decisionmakers actually did take into account the
hidden costs of dirty fuels, then I think that the case for SPS
would be almost certain of being made into reality.

> Much as I would prefer otherwise, I don't believe anybody can say
that
> SPS has well understood technical, professional or, especially,
> financial parameters. It has not been done yet. The unknowns
every
> step of the way are still huge.

I'lll leave this for others more knowledgeable than me to argue. My
understanding is that the technical issues of microwave power
transmission are well understood. See Charles' post earlier this
week regarding same. Further, it is my understanding that the
engineering challenges of constructing the SPS platform are also
well understood. The management challenge of marshalling all of the
necessary resources from non-existant orbital/lunar/NEO facilities
is still a major issue of study.

I can speak comfortably about the financial issues, though. Right
now, they suck. The standard model of private sector development
can't make a go of SPS. My unsupported contention is that if the
hidden costs of the dirty fuels were attributable to their users,
then the SPS would be within range of happening and I would be very
eager to professionally involve myself in the financial community
making the go/no-go decision on the SPS.

Writing philosophically, if you want to argue wind/solar
affordability on the same basis as SPS, then your postion would have
to fund all of the roads, mines, refineries, ships, worker housing,
farms for the worker's food, etc. You see, that's what the SPS
venture has to finance in order to bring SPS into being, but once
that infrastructure is there, imagine the other uses that it can be
put to. But will those other uses have to pay for it? No, it was all
paid for by SPS.

It is not entirely inconceivable that such infrastructure might be
established prior to SPS construction (I wouldn't place a bet on it
though, but it's not out of the realm of probability) and if that
did happen, then SPS wouldn't have to finance it, just like
solar/wind don't have to finance the society within which they are
constructed. Then, even without the hidden costs of dirty fuels
being attributable, the SPS will be within range of competition.

Plus, there is still the obstacle of
> reliable, inexpensive Earth to orbit transportation. All the
ground
> based solutions avoid that obstacle.

For the moment. But you can't presume to have technology benefit
your position but deny the same benefits to the SPS advocates.

At this point I'll leave it for others to continue with the
specifics of the SPS case.

Lastly, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes arguing for solar/wind
against SPS. :) I'm also curious if you'd be willing to concede that
SPS beats solar/wind on all issues other than affordability. Come
over to the Dark Side, Luke. Be one of us! Advocate the true
environmental energy and help us find a way to make it affordable.

Seriously though, I'm surprised that the wealth of data presented to
you thus far hasn't made you see the light :) How can you still be
a booster for solar/wind when all the facts work against you?

Speaking generally now, I sure hope that debate does sway people on
these lists. I'd hate to think that no matter how convincing a case
is made for a proposition, opinion aren't changed. What a waste that
would be.

So let's unleash the debate and see where we end up.