SPS doubts

> Thor, I posted this link a few months ago for Paul, but I think you may find
> it interesting as well:
>
> http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/greencar.html
>
> In conclusion, the position of dumping SUVs is hypocritical at best, since
> no-one is doing it in any quantity sufficient to make an impact. At any
> rate, even if they did, the overall impact on the situation at large would
> be insignificant.

Conceptual problems with that article (which frankly is a well done
piece of work and is otherwise worth pondering):

1. Some Green objections regarding transportation have to do with the
overall system and system wide costs. So, advocating people drive
motorcylcles rather than cars as a strwman argument in the article
leaves out issues of safety (e.g. what does a multi-million dollar
lifetime care bill do in terms of resource use for all those motorcyle
injuries to the brain or spine which are much worse on average than car
"[T]here were nearly SIX TIMES MORE INJURIES per motorcycle mile ridden
than per car mile ridden". Granted if everyone drove morotcyles that
figure might gow down (less collisions with cars) or it might go up
(less experienced motorcycle operators). The real Green solution is for
people to have the option of driving less overall by workable mass
transit or having facilities for jobs or shopping or education or
recreation within walking distance. Unfortunately, the assumption of the
car has been built into the US infrastructure (especially suburbs),
another reason why most of US Real Estate is essentially obsolete (even
though most of its owners don't realize this yet [and if they do are
usually still trapped in it anyway]).

2. The analysis is based on one person per vehicle. An Accord with four
occupants looks Greener than the motorcyle (using the last figure for
overall score) since the cost of operation is divided by four.

3. The SUV still comes out twice as bad as the next alternative (1.4 vs.
3.8 final scores). So driving an SUV is still typically an antisocial
(or uniformed) choice in terms of putting uneeded external costs on
others, given that most SUV owners don't need the special features of an
SUV (high ground clearance) yet, even though drivers feel safer in a
truck pretending to be a car, they are statistically less safe because
of higher rollover risk, blocking the view of other drivers, driving
more aggressively because they feel safer, etc.

4. These figures compare Honda products. Honda is often an excellent
manufacturer, and like many Japanese manufacturers often considers
strongly factors such as energy efficiency more than the less
sophisticated US car manufacturers. It is not surprising the Honda SUV
emissions are not that bad relative to the Honda sedan. But an anlysis
US cars might likely tell a different story. It wouldn't even suprise me
to imagine that if everyone drove Honda SUVs the US might still be
better off than people driving typical US designed sedan cars in terms
of fuel efficiency. I'm not sure of this extreme point, but certainly
comparable US automotive products are generally worse, to the point
where US car brands are no being called "anti-brands" -- purchased only
if there seem to be no other options [financing, in stock, local
dealers, etc.]. This is a really sad situation for US manufacturers (and
workers and consumers) to be in.

Why belabor this issue in a discussion of the economics of SSPS? To show
that energy demand is not independent of local choices made on Earth,
and that if those choices are made differently, the whole economics
surrounding arguments for SSPS may change rapidly (and more rapidly than
the twenty to thirty year SSPS time frame).

> Therefore, it would seem to be much better for the cause
> focusing debate and other energies on solutions that have more than a
> snowball's chance in the hot nether regions of being implemented at all, and
> that when implemented would have an effect more appropriate to the general
> problem. Wouldn't you agree?

Local PV etc. and energy efficiency is happening -- even as we speak
(it's just that the USA is getting somewhat left behind).
http://solstice.crest.org/repp_pubs/articles/issuebr14/00Cintro.htm

Babbler36, IMHO you're right to have doubts. What the SPS advocates
leave out of their analysis is that their solution typically expects an
expanded electrical grid, and based on historical grid maintenance costs
that puts the cost of home electricity for purely grid delivery cost
reasons as never falling below about $0.05/kWh delivered. (That cost
might even go up if the grid has to be expanded if everyone moves to
electri heat.) When local renewables (with local energy storage) fall
below that amount in overall cost (including decomissioning and
maintenance) local renewables will dominate the market fairly quickly.
In some areas, local wind power is already at that cost. Already,
conservation such as by having more insulation or better windows is
often cost effective as a form of producing local "negawatts" (conserved
power). When (not if IMHO) this changeover happens overall (especially
with easy to install low maintence PV + energy storage) is still a
guessing game, especially giving how much of the price advantage of
fossil fuels and even the grid comes from ignoring external costs like
grid security and pollution.

Having said that, if SPSs could be produced by an already existing space
infrastructure (so its cost did not include recovering funding for all
space settlemnt R&D and operations), SPS power might find some use in
beaming power directly to specific energuy intensive industries like
space launch facilities or specific manufacturing or recycling plants or
even hydrogen or carbon sequestration (for synthetic liquid fuels)
production facilities.

I feel Space Cities, Habs, etc. (whatever the name :-) will happen, but
essentially out of the enthusiasm or benevolance or foresight of many
people as a hobby and/or charitable and/or government activity. Private
ventures might then play a role within that context.

Still, as TangoMan points out in a long discussion we had on this list,
a really great temporary energy storage solution for PV or wind energy
is still not here yet, and as he also points out, the grid as is is not
designed to scale well for variable baseline production if everyone
moves to local PV and wind electrical generation etc. using the grid as
a backup. [Note: I say "Really Great" is as opposed to IMHO _workable_
but pricier energy storage solutions using batteries and battery
recycling every seven years or so, coupled with 10% or so of power
pruced using a cogeneration system that burns liquid fuels like propane
or biodiesel.] This lack of need for energy storage is as TangoMan
points out one of the biggest selling points of SPS enerrgy -- as long
as you can trust the producer and the transmission system (a big if in
my opinion), you don't need local storage. Still, as in our previous
long discussion, I think long term these storage issues will be worked
out to the advantage of local energy solutions using more advanced
technology, especially when coupled with reducing energy needs through
energy efficiency or even lifestyle choices. So essentially, SPS is also
banking on no really great (and cheap) short term energy storage
solutions coming along, say based on nanotechnology etc. Both theses
assumptions -- no cheap PV, no clean PV (another of TangoMan's points is
older PV production styles produced more toxic waste) and no cheap and
clean energy storage solutions seem to be questionable predictions,
given that I can point to very active research in these areas, including
reputable companies already making (potentially hyped, admittedly)
claims for such breakthroughs. For example:
http://wire0.ises.org/wire/CurrentAffairs/RENews.nsf/0/75b1f50569d67091c12566b700603204?OpenDocument
"[From 1998!] The new solar components factory building [Solar-Fabrik
GmbH in Gwermany http://www.solarfabrik.de/ ] is expected to be
completed by December of this year. PV modules will be produced using
renewable energy generated by panels and a rape oil power plant, thus
avoiding harmful carbon dioxide emissions."

Anyway, that's a summary of the SPS vs. local renewables & energy
efficiency discussion from my side, and I'm not really into rehashing it
again right now [see the archives for the last two months for the back
and forth] plus TangoMan is on vacation so it wouldn't be fair. :-)

--Paul Fernhout