How many SPSes for $87 billion ?

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

> Sorry, but SPS IMHO is inherently centralized and so fails the
security
> model, as much as centralized nukes or even centralized coal using
power
> plants do IMHO.

What are you writing about. 1 SPS = 1 rectenna farm. Multiply by
100x. You now have 100 seperate systems. That doesn't look to me to
be centralization. Use a magic weapon or tactic and take out one
SPS, and you still have 99 left.

> Secure generation methods are both local and diverse (so, solar,
> wind, hydro, biomass, etc.)

What's to stop a terrorist from using a magic weapon or tactic on a
solar farm and blowing up the panels, from attaching some C4 to the
wind towers, of blowing up a hydro dam just by parking a truck bomb
next to it? They all look centralized (using the same definition
that you apply to 100 SPS) to me.

Come on, have the intellectual integrity to admit you're arguing
from pure environmentalist emotion and not logic and just like any
other religion one can't debate the matter rationally.

As I wrote in my other post, SPS is hands down better for the
environment that any Earth-based renewable source. Environmentalists
look on this inconvenient fact like the Papacy looked upon
Copernicus' findings in "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium" - they
stuck with the Ptolemaic system, despite demonstrable evidence that
contradicted it, and purposely blinded themselves to reality and
rational argument.

Own up to these quasi-religious beliefs that defy logic or come over
to the Dark Side and join us. Spread the SPS meme thoughout the
environmentalist movement and shift that movement into actually
caring about the environment rather than a paganistic lifestyle.

>
> >>2. Economics
> >>
> >> I think we have a genuine disagreement here -- one which
reflects
> >> a disagreement in the energy field (classically centralized oil
and
> >
> > Yes, I will not even bother to debate this. This is primarily
an
> > emotional issue. I have noticed that "decentralized" advocates
> > tend to be wealthier people who can afford to build up their
> > personal infrasturcture to become self sufficient. For the
vast
> > majority of the world's population this is not an option, and is
> > becoming less and less feasible as the global population
continues
> > to expand.
>
> I think you raise an extremely important point here. In essence,
the
> reason that people choose between the environment and energy (or
jobs or
> resource or security etc.) is because of a poverty mindset.

You've either inadvertently misread, or are purposely constructing a
strawman argument here.

The point was clearly made that it is the people who are well off
and who can afford to fund their own electrical generation equipment
are usually the ones who are advocated a decentralized system. I've
never seen a bagboy from the local supermarket, or the cashier from
Wal-Mart, both of whom are just scraping by on their wages, express
a desire to spend $10,000+ for solar panels on their homes. The
poverty isn't a mindset, it is a reality.

Also, as JJ pointed out, there is work to be done in maintaining
your own power infrastructure. Who will shovel the snow off of the
solar panels? What a bother.

We think
> there is scarcity and we have no choice but to destroy our
environment
> to feed our children etc., destroying a long term source of
security and
> entertainment and health and prosperity etc. because we feel we
have no
> other option that in essence to eat our seed corn ensuring nothing
for
> next year.

You're setting up a false dichotomy here.

TangoMan