Volunteerism vs. Rewards for Space Settlement (Was R

fred
I am glad that we agreed on something
i still believe that we need new technology to
generate power locally and that it would be less
costly and less polluting that the centralize
technology.
Not only windmills were clean power sources but in
many countries, such as Israel, solar panels for
heating and other needs are part of the landscape
since every home have one.
As far as nanotechnology, while still in its infancy,
it can really change our entire thinking and
manufacturing activities, as well as health and
medical, more than the pc earlier and the web later
changed our way of working and communicating.
New designed materilas with nanotech will allow us to
obttain designed materials for our needs, reducing
weight, being more resistent, aand more functional for
specific needs.
And finally the promise of molecular assembly, sould
be an invaluable tool in our future space initiatives
since they will be capable of ransforming the raw
materials found in a particular body and transform it
in a needed component and product.

Automatic unmanned equipment to produce fuel in an
asteroid or the Moon is an easy example.

> yours is a good point if we insist on existing
> technology
> I never mentioned solar power only
> there is wind power, used for centuries in the
> nettherlands and other countries including the US,
and
> the potential utilization of temperature difference
as
> an alternative technology to be developed.
> The whole idea here is the following:
> 1-We need decentralize power generating systems
> at the source

Why? Decentralized power is inefficient. Ten
thousand plants that generate
kilowatts are far more expensive than ten plants that
generate megawatts,
generally speaking. For example, a wind generator on
the roof of every home
is less efficient than a wind farm in an optimal
location.

> 2-power from renewable and non polluting sources

This is agreed,

> 3-if possible free after paying for the installation

For photovoltaics, this is possible, but the cost per
watt for photovoltaics
is still quite high. Other types, such as solar
furnaces, wind power, etc.
require maintenance.

> we don't have it yet but the goals are clear

No they're not, if they were clear we wouldn't be
arguing about them.

> and well
> defined certainly more feasible than enormous and
> unfeasible economically and ecologically monsters in
> GEO or in the Moon transmitting energy to Earth
based
> structures causing further radation and ecologycal
> disasters

You have to weigh one set of ecological damage against
another. Which does
more ecological damage, a ten megawatt coal fired
power plant, or ten
megawatts worth of orbital solar power?

> but what I defined can be a possibility

It's certainly possible. Just because it's possible
doesn't mean it's the
best or only solution.

> they are developing energy generating painting
> nanotech possibilities are just around the corner
> many other alternatives are under development
> we must solve here on earth our earth generated
> problems with creativity and ingenuity and not
hoping
> that non tested solutions may come from space
> fantasies or utopian technological systems,

It's odd that you would say this, after proposing an
untested utopian
technological system, that is, nanotechnology.