Pretty O'Neill cylinders, but...

Ian Woollard wrote:
>
> The estimates that have been done seem to show that it costs 2 or more
> times more than conventional hydrocarbon or nuclear power generation.
>

Conventionally-generated energy is becoming costly. If those are old
estimates, it would be nice to get some new ones. Then we could see
whether the trend is convergent or divergent.

> However, the overall environmental and political impacts of this form
> of power generation are far lower; and factoring these factors means
> that SPS is more cost effective than conventional approaches.
>

The environmental impacts will be lower, true; but I have the feeling
that the political impacts will be significant. And I don't think
accounting systems currently in use factor future effects against
present income to determine the true cost of making and distributing
something, so it will be a while before SPS will be seriously
considered except by us dreamers.

> "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but
> in practice there is."

Great quote! Is that Paul Graham's, too?

Steve