Smoke and Mirrors

[Harold Squared]

What is supposedly going to happen to the infrastructure of our current efforts? Will the e.g. solar and wind generation machines just evaporate? Or will they continue to exist, thus leaving something tangible to show for our effort?

It is vastly preferable to put solar power installations in space versus the planetary surface, i.e. where the sunlight is pretty much unobstructed and is available around the clock. Daily and seasonal variations can be avoided, clouds and precipitation are absent, etc.

 

While you could put up windmills(known to kill birds, incidentally) and terrestrial solar(requires periodic washing), these are vulnerable to the very same atmospheric disturbances forecast by AGW to become more frequent and severe.

 

There is also the NIMBY factor. There are documented cases of local residents objecting to such installations. "Not In My Back Yard" seems to be the curse we can avoid by going to space, nobody's back yard.

 

An incidental benefit of developing a robust spacefaring capability would be the capability of redirecting objects on a collision course with the planet in a timely manner.

 

Just some thoughts on the matter, regarding your objections, culled from personal experiences and various sources.

 

Thank you for your inquiry and participation.

Harold, its far too late to start backtracking now; especially with this word salad.

I do not understand what relevance your comment has to the topic. Would you care to elaborate or prefer to STFU? Edited June 10, 2015 by Harold Squared

[dimreepr]

I do not understand what relevance your comment has to the topic. Would you care to elaborate or prefer to STFU?

 

 

Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am.... -John Donne.

 

Think about it, seriously.

[overtone]

 

 

If I am missing something I trust you will point it out -

For starters, you are missing the fairly obvious consideration that asteroid mining and similar long term, high tech, large scale ventures will be possible only for civilizations with those resources available and to spare - if China, say, has to feed, clothe, and shelter a couple of hundred million internal refugees on 20% less agricultural productivity in the next thirty years, it won't be of much help in the project. They're going to need resources in a hurry, and the asteroids are a long way off.

 

John Lewis occasionally compares the colonization and exploitation of space to that of the New World. Along that line, the first three colonizations of North America were drastically affected by climate change - the third one more or less wiped out, probably, although some hold that the northeastern Red culture at least was somewhat influenced. And that was the slow, limited, natural, climate variation - nothing like what AGW threatens now.

 

If you're planning to drain the swamp, include some consideration for the alligators. Especially in threads about 'alligators, up to ass in'.

[Harold Squared]

 

 

Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am.... -John Donne.

 

Think about it, seriously.

Think about addressing the topic as you seem unwilling to STFU.

[dimreepr]

Think about addressing the topic as you seem unwilling to STFU.

 

 

I was always too lazy to be a real scientist (and probably too stupid), what’s your excuse?

Edited June 10, 2015 by dimreepr

[Harold Squared]

For starters, you are missing the fairly obvious consideration that asteroid mining and similar long term, high tech, large scale ventures will be possible only for civilizations with those resources available and to spare - if China, say, has to feed, clothe, and shelter a couple of hundred million internal refugees on 20% less agricultural productivity in the next thirty years, it won't be of much help in the project. They're going to need resources in a hurry, and the asteroids are a long way off.

 

John Lewis occasionally compares the colonization and exploitation of space to that of the New World. Along that line, the first three colonizations of North America were drastically affected by climate change - the third one more or less wiped out, probably, although some hold that the northeastern Red culture at least was somewhat influenced. And that was the slow, limited, natural, climate variation - nothing like what AGW threatens now.

 

If you're planning to drain the swamp, include some consideration for the alligators. Especially in threads about 'alligators, up to ass in'.

There are examples of very ambitious and highly technological projects being accomplished in relatively short time frames, I need not remind you of the Manhattan Project, Apollo moonshot, etc., but your point has some merit, particularly with regard to China, getting to be a bigger player in the space arena by the day.

 

A dire prophecy, that. Perhaps you could tell me the odds of such a catastrophe and the anticipated time frame? Thanks in advance.

 

After mulling Swanson's post a bit I must acknowledge that terrestrial means of ameliorating CO2 levels have their place, if they are nuclear. Either fission or fusion reactors can be fully submerged as naval applications have demonstrated. Safe from the titanic storms sure to engulf the planet in misery and despair, they would have many of the advantages of space power in terms of reliability. No CO2 emitted, everybody happy.

 

 

I was always too lazy to be a real scientist (and probably too stupid), whats your excuse?

Then perhaps you should get some gumption and some knowledge before posting again. I will be content to talk with you then. Edited June 10, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

 

 

There are examples of very ambitious and highly technological projects being accomplished in relatively short time frames, I need not remind you of the Manhattan Project, Apollo moonshot, etc.

And there are examples of very ambitious and highly technological projects taking hundreds of years to accomplish - cathedrals, pyramids, large irrigation projects, the colonizations of North America. etc.

 

The successful ones have a couple factors in common: they required the redirection of substantial available resources by government, and a stable working platform. AGW threatens both.

[dimreepr]

Then perhaps you should get some gumption and some knowledge before posting again. I will be content to talk with you then.

 

 

LOL, funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you; except I was thinking you should get some understanding rather than knowledge; you clearly don’t understand the difference.

[Phi for All]

Would you care to elaborate or prefer to STFU?

 

!

Moderator Note

Replies are required to be civil. This is not an option.

 

Further, this is a discussion forum. You don't have the right to decide who can participate, only who you choose to respond to.

 

And please choose NOT to respond to this modnote. Report it if you disagree with it, but don't discuss it off-topic here.

[Harold Squared]

And there are examples of very ambitious and highly technological projects taking hundreds of years to accomplish - cathedrals, pyramids, large irrigation projects, the colonizations of North America. etc.

 

The successful ones have a couple factors in common: they required the redirection of substantial available resources by government, and a stable working platform. AGW threatens both.

With all due respect, my examples are more recent than yours and reflect more closely the technology available to us today.

 

With regard to allocation of resources by government, a substantial amount of resistance by governments to limitations on gas emissions exists, e.g. China and India.

 

There is a model for international cooperative enterprises in space in the form of the International Space Station.

 

To address another of your objections, G. Harry Stine in the eponymous book pointed out that once in orbit, we are "Halfway to Anywhere", and that the "Near Earth Asteroids" are called such for a reason.

 

!

Moderator Note

Replies are required to be civil. This is not an option.

 

Further, this is a discussion forum. You don't have the right to decide who can participate, only who you choose to respond to.

 

And please choose NOT to respond to this modnote. Report it if you disagree with it, but don't discuss it off-topic here.

Sorry, I still do not understand what relevance quoting Donne or the other posts made in response by this member have to the stated topic. Is it not true that off topic responses are discouraged? I have been admonished for such. Didn't even put up any childish cartoons or similar.

And notice that I proposed two options to the member, the choice is entirely his to make.

 

Obligations in the offline community require me to bid you gentleman farewell for now, thank you for your interest in my little proposal.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

With all due respect, my examples are more recent than yours and reflect more closely the technology available to us today.

And mine more closely resemble the scale of the enterprise you envision, and its likely cost, and its payoff profile.

 

The key aspect is this:

 

 

The successful ones have a couple factors in common: they required the redirection of substantial available resources by government, and a stable working platform. AGW threatens both.

Asteroid mining is a fine enterprise for those who can afford to launch it.

Edited June 10, 2015 by overtone

[Harold Squared]

 

!

Moderator Note

Replies are required to be civil. This is not an option.

 

Further, this is a discussion forum. You don't have the right to decide who can participate, only who you choose to respond to.

 

And please choose NOT to respond to this modnote. Report it if you disagree with it, but don't discuss it off-topic here.

Oh gee, civil. I must have got the wrong notion from all the ridicule coming my way. I will try to do better, and to EXPECT better in return. I have no idea how to "report it" and little interest.

I AM curious about why you are sticking up for this member, since by his own admission he has little to contribute.

And mine more closely resemble the scale of the enterprise you envision, and its likely cost, and its payoff profile.

 

The key aspect is this:

Asteroid mining is a fine enterprise for those who can afford to launch it.

Merit of your points is acknowledged. Your prediction of doom in China, can you tell me more about that? I am planning a visit there and hoping not to get caught in it, sounds like no fun at all. Reminiscing about my youth and on the subject of China, I can remember Mao and the people all dressing alike in those drab uniforms and riding bicycles. They have come a long way since then, agreed?

[swansont]

It is vastly preferable to put solar power installations in space versus the planetary surface, i.e. where the sunlight is pretty much unobstructed and is available around the clock. Daily and seasonal variations can be avoided, clouds and precipitation are absent, etc.

 

You are ignoring several issues. "vastly preferable" is an assertion. How do you get the energy to the ground? Unless the satellite is in a geostationary orbit, the satellite does not see a fixed target. How many birds will you kill with each MW beam you are sending down to earth? And you'll need a million of them.

[Harold Squared]

You are ignoring several issues. "vastly preferable" is an assertion. How do you get the energy to the ground? Unless the satellite is in a geostationary orbit, the satellite does not see a fixed target. How many birds will you kill with each MW beam you are sending down to earth? And you'll need a million of them.

"A million", you say? How did you derive such an estimate? But it is true that vast amounts of hardware will be required in order to keep pace with anticipated demands, regardless of the location of said hardware. Does this seem reasonable? I am greatly in your debt for returning the discussion to the topic, and to answer your remark concerning installations in geosynchronous orbit, please notice that above I have not mentioned that location, though it might be feasible to have power relay stations there. I have proposed instead various libration points, not so?

 

Currently I favor a polar relay point in the North and possibly another in the more thinly populated South. These would be the so-called "statites" I found described in "Indistinguishable From Magic" by the late and sorely missed Dr. Robert L. Forward. These devices are yet another application of the solar sail concept. Now that I think of it, such a location would be even more preferable for the generation of power in order to eliminate some transmission losses. With one section oriented always towards the Sun to gather energy and another rotating at the same rate as the planet to disperse it, such a device should serve admirably. As a side benefit, they would be an ideal location for continuous monitoring of polar conditions. And of course such locations would be unsuitable for shading the planet.

 

In fairness to your preference for terrestrial infrastructure and a further example of international cooperative endeavors in science and technology I should mention the ITER project in France. Fusion power would deliver us all from worries about pollution since its principal waste product is helium, a noble and docile gas often invited to children's parties. Consumption of fusion power and space based power alike would represent a greater heat burden for the planet thermodynamically, how significant this would be depends on the magnitude and rate of consumption if I am not mistaken.

 

In conclusion and a further tip of the metaphorical hat to Dr. Forward and the book mentioned above, I will mention the possible manufacture of antimatter in space. The ultimate rocket fuel, antimatter could as well be shipped to any particular location if desired and would sidestep microwave transmission altogether. Forward points out that minute quantities have been manufactured to date but that facilities designed expressly for such a purpose have never been built. The obvious merit of antimatter for spacecraft propulsion ensure that eventually they will, in my estimation.

For starters, you are missing the fairly obvious consideration that asteroid mining and similar long term, high tech, large scale ventures will be possible only for civilizations with those resources available and to spare - if China, say, has to feed, clothe, and shelter a couple of hundred million internal refugees on 20% less agricultural productivity in the next thirty years, it won't be of much help in the project. They're going to need resources in a hurry, and the asteroids are a long way off.

 

John Lewis occasionally compares the colonization and exploitation of space to that of the New World. Along that line, the first three colonizations of North America were drastically affected by climate change - the third one more or less wiped out, probably, although some hold that the northeastern Red culture at least was somewhat influenced. And that was the slow, limited, natural, climate variation - nothing like what AGW threatens now.

 

If you're planning to drain the swamp, include some consideration for the alligators. Especially in threads about 'alligators, up to ass in'.

About this China thing, you have got me really curious!

 

I mean, where will these refugees come from and where will they go? Will all the provinces experience the same decline in agricultural productivity or will it differ, and how much? Will this decline be gradual in nature or of a sudden onset and what would be the immediate cause of this decline? What in Sam Hill do alligators have to do with it?

 

I can really empathize with the Chinese people, the XXth Century was one long series of disasters for them, foreign invasions, civil wars, famines, the infamous Cultural Revolution, having to ride all those goddam bicycles, and NIXON coming around, for God's sake.

 

And now you say alligators are going to invade the place, some people really can't get a break...

 

Thank you incidentally for acknowledging natural causes of climate change but you are dead wrong about such always being gradual and so on as evidenced by 1816, the infamous "Year Without A Summer" and similar examples. Needless to say space based facilities would be exempt from damage inflicted by such events.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

"A million", you say? How did you derive such an estimate?

.

132,000 TWh, mentioned in another thread, is how much energy we use. That's replacing about 6% with million systems running at 1 MW

 

Libration points were mentioned with no justification or detail. No addressing how you get the power to the earth (without killing birds, which is a criterion you included)

 

"one section oriented always towards the Sun to gather energy and another rotating at the same rate as the planet to disperse it"

How does that work?

 

How do isolated collection points eliminate transmission losses?

 

As far as fusion goes, how about we not include technology that hasn't been demonstrated yet.

[Harold Squared]

132,000 TWh, mentioned in another thread, is how much energy we use. That's replacing about 6% with million systems running at 1 MW

 

Libration points were mentioned with no justification or detail. No addressing how you get the power to the earth (without killing birds, which is a criterion you included)

Thank you kindly sir. Of course shipping antimatter to Earth would not kill birds, and microwave transmission of communication signals is common practice today. Beyond routing power signals to avoid major migratory flyways I confess I do not know any particular means to avoid harm to our feathered friends at the moment. I also have no real idea how many birds are killed by aircraft operations but I don't expect people to quit flying altogether. Depending on the design of a solar installation it could present a bird hazard as well, I refer to those which focus light from a field of heliostats upon a central target located in a tower, e.g., Solar One, the now defunct model in California.

[dimreepr]

Thank you kindly sir. Of course shipping antimatter to Earth would not kill birds, and microwave transmission of communication signals is common practice today. Beyond routing power signals to avoid major migratory flyways I confess I do not know any particular means to avoid harm to our feathered friends at the moment. I also have no real idea how many birds are killed by aircraft operations but I don't expect people to quit flying altogether. Depending on the design of a solar installation it could present a bird hazard as well, I refer to those which focus light from a field of heliostats upon a central target located in a tower, e.g., Solar One, the now defunct model in California.

 

 

 

What has antimatter got to do with “microwave transmission of communication signals”?

 

However given the context I imagine you think that is a viable method of communicating the energy collected to earth, if so, think again.

Edited June 11, 2015 by dimreepr

[Harold Squared]

No matter what the cause, I am afraid a certain level of avian mortality is a consequence of industrial civilization. Commensal birds such as pigeons will in all probability be unaffected. Unfortunately.

 

Will Ducks Unlimited boycott space based electricity? Frankly, my dear colleagues...

[dimreepr]

No matter what the cause, I am afraid a certain level of avian mortality is a consequence of industrial civilization. Commensal birds such as pigeons will in all probability be unaffected. Unfortunately.

 

Will Ducks Unlimited boycott space based electricity? Frankly, my dear colleagues...

[swansont]

Of course shipping antimatter to Earth would not kill birds, and microwave transmission of communication signals is common practice today.

Communications signals are much lower power than what we're discussing - you had proposed two beams of reflected sunlight. How big would the collectors have to be? If you have a non-thermal solution, (e.g. microwaves) same question, in the context of not ionizing the atmosphere. You're transferring several TW of power.

 

Antimatter power generation is another undemonstrated technology. That's inconsistent with the assertion that this is viable. You don't know that.

 

If avian mortality is something we have to accept, then you can't bring it up as an objection to wind. You have to accept it. Otherwise it's hypocritical

[Harold Squared]

Of course I will do my best to answer your objections in the spirit they were raised.

 

As to bird frying specifically, I have conceded that no matter what course we pursue, a certain amount is unavoidable.

 

Your observation that communications microwave transmission involves much lower power levels than those involved in my proposal is spot on, and I confess that I have no specific knowledge of any harm caused by such microwave transmissions. The manufacture of antimatter is well understood and indeed proceeds at particle accelerators around the world as we speak, but it is hideously expensive per gram. In fact to date I am not aware that a gram quantity has been made, although in space where we can build as large as we like given the materials it would be a real possibility.

 

So we will table that scheme in favor of more pedestrian fuels, perhaps methane. Do you think microwave transmission to a designated area, restricted in access and possibly remote, would be a viable option?

 

If we switch from North to South polar statites, it might be clever to ues a suitable location on the Antarctic coast as a base for methane manufacture via the Sabatier reaction, killing two metaphorical birds with one stone, abating CO2 in the atmosphere while producing fuel simultaneously. Whew, run on sentence that!

 

But much more familiar than the antimatter option, and the added bonus of concentrating heavy water as well as the CO2 abatement angle. Maybe ammonia too via the Haber-Bosch process. There is already a fairly robust infrastructure for distribution of methane and currently it seems to be the fuel of choice as far as generation of electricity, since it can run gas-turbine driven generators whose exhaust can in turn drive steam turbines. Waste heat from the enterprise can be used by local residents, researchers, etc. Very handy this time of year, from what I understand. And ambient cold conditions should facilitate isolation of the CO2, or am I mistaken? I think that commercial quantities of carbon dioxide are not extracted from the atmosphere but synthesized from carbonate rocks.

 

Anyway, since I am thinking about it and posting to the thread, let me assure you guys that I understand Overtone's "alligators" are only metaphorical, and that I was only making a little joke. Very likely I am the only one amused, but c'est la vie...

Edited June 11, 2015 by Harold Squared

[Harold Squared]

Turns out this sunshade idea is nothing new. For details see "Could Space Mirrors Stop Global Warming" by Rachel Kaufman, 08/08/2012, live science.com

 

As far as expense goes the major factor is cheap access to orbit, 3blake7 speculates a StarTram system could be built for $60 billion US. Me, I am hesitant to hazard a guess because inflationary factors can make them wildly inaccurate, think of Weimar Germany.

 

Space Elevator, Space Fountain, whatever, something durable and reliable to bridge the gap between planetary surface and orbit will be the real breakthrough.

 

One thing for sure, it will not be chemical rockets.

[swansont]

Regarding antimatter, it's the production of useful energy from it that also concerns me. Not just the ridiculously inefficient production.

[Harold Squared]

Regarding antimatter, it's the production of useful energy from it that also concerns me. Not just the ridiculously inefficient production.

Yes, but as Forward points out, no purposely built device has yet been constructed. There are formidable problems of storage and transportation as well, which have no doubt been aware of from the beginning.

 

It was the only physical commodity I could think of at the time which could be manufactured in that environment. Quite obviously the microgravity and near vacuum conditions present in that setting would be an asset.

 

With regard to the Antarctic rectenna field, the interior of the continent is barren and for good reason.

 

On the pro side a large field should keep the atmospheric ionization problem you raised in check, or do you disagree?

 

Unfortunately construction and maintenance will be challenging to say the least, in terms of logistics and everything else.

 

Way off topic, but I might as well mention that if everyone demanded a cost analysis before plunging precipitously into wars our history would be less tragic. Thank you all for your comments.

[swansont]

Yes, but as Forward points out, no purposely built device has yet been constructed. There are formidable problems of storage and transportation as well, which have no doubt been aware of from the beginning.

 

It was the only physical commodity I could think of at the time which could be manufactured in that environment. Quite obviously the microgravity and near vacuum conditions present in that setting would be an asset.

 

The vacuum, sure, but it's not at all obvious how microgravity would be an asset.

With regard to the Antarctic rectenna field, the interior of the continent is barren and for good reason.

 

On the pro side a large field should keep the atmospheric ionization problem you raised in check, or do you disagree?

 

I can neither agree nor disagree without some science here. You haven't done any sort of calculation.