RE: Energy projects was Underwater mortgages and the economy
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, brin-l-requ...@mccmedia.com wrote: snip I looked at the articles you provided, and I noted, without surprise, that they omitted a very key detail: laser efficiency. In typical everyday usage, lasers are not very efficient. Even in high tech uses, such as inertia fusion, particle beams are much more efficient: about 12% vs. about 1%, back when inertia fusion was big back in the '80s. Solid state diodes of the kind in the Wikipedia picture are hitting 50% now with research projects that expect to raise it to 65% and eventually to 85%. That's not coherent so there is a further loss of perhaps ten percent pumping a coherent laser medium. Even today you can get 20-35% out of a green laser pointer. Green DPSS lasers are usually around 20% efficient, although some lasers have been reported to be 35% efficient. In other words, a green DPSS laser using a 2.5 W pump diode would be expected to output around 500 mW of 532 nm light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode-pumped_solid-state_laser Try this in google solid state laser diodes efficiency 105 kW These are the kind of omissions that are tell-tale to me. It's an absolutely critical piece of information, which isn't mentioned. I've seen it probably literally thousands of times in the writings of true believers. I use it as a measure of a serious engineering or science project. Real practical engineers are very excited when they talk about key technical challenges. True believers don't talk about them. Want a copy of Beamed Energy and the Economics of Space Based Solar Power ? Paper I gave last year at a conference. It's a bit out of date since I now think CW lasers and hydrogen heaters are a better near term prospect than laser ablation. So, tell me, how are the lasers going to get the power to energize the fuel, and what is the efficiency and weight of the lasers involved? Since the lasers stay on the ground the weight isn't very important. Figured at 50% efficient and $10 per watt, 6 GW output will draw 12 GW from the power grid and cost $60 B. That's a lot but there are places it could be done, South Texas was one I looked at, and more recently California near the southern end of the Pacific Intertie. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
It is quite possible that we falter over the next two years, sliding back into depression. One of the most depressing figures is that the average GDP growth rate for the last 30 years will result in unemployment increasing, since we need 3%/year growth to tread water. Not what I meant, sorry, but I was sticking with your definition of black swan as a solution to economic malaise. War, global conflict, would be the most drastic solution. Well, the US did prosper from wars it has been in, but that's fairly unique. Germany didn't, France didn't. The USSR didn't; the Cold War broke them. The UK lost its fortune in WWI and WWII. And, 'Nam hurt the US economy after a while. We couldn't afford guns and butter as the saying went at the time. Even those who argued it was a mangled but essential part of containment, it cost. Finally, as more countries get nuclear weapons, the odds on any real conflict going nuclear increases. For example, what would happen if Chinese territorial zones kept expanding and were enforced by China's navy? Would the US honor treaties, and what would happen then?' Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Dan wrote: Well, the US did prosper from wars it has been in, but that's fairly unique. Germany didn't, France didn't. The USSR didn't; the Cold War broke them. Eventually, but they were our supposed equals for the better part of forty years and one can easily imagine scenarios in which they continued to prosper in at least some sense of the word. And, 'Nam hurt the US economy after a while. We couldn't afford guns and butter as the saying went at the time. Even those who argued it was a mangled but essential part of containment, it cost. Global conflict, to reiterate. Finally, as more countries get nuclear weapons, the odds on any real conflict going nuclear increases. For example, what would happen if Chinese territorial zones kept expanding and were enforced by China's navy? Would the US honor treaties, and what would happen then?' What would happen to our debt to China in the event of such a conflict? Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:49 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy Dan wrote: Well, the US did prosper from wars it has been in, but that's fairly unique. Germany didn't, France didn't. The USSR didn't; the Cold War broke them. Eventually, but they were our supposed equals for the better part of forty years and one can easily imagine scenarios in which they continued to prosper in at least some sense of the word. Sure, if they invaded Europe in '79 and Carter wasn't willing to start Armageddon. But, the military was a drain on their GDP, rising to 45% of it at the end. Look at the war surrogate, the race to the moon. They weren't close. I think they grew faster than the US for about 5 years. Planned economies are OK for a while, but tend to get caught up in artificial goals. China has been the exception, but that's because we are in an era of no real disruptive innovationsand China doesn't have to adapt. Why Japan is in a funk now is interestingsocially they couldn't make the obvious decisions. Finally, as more countries get nuclear weapons, the odds on any real conflict going nuclear increases. For example, what would happen if Chinese territorial zones kept expanding and were enforced by China's navy? Would the US honor treaties, and what would happen then?' What would happen to our debt to China in the event of such a conflict? We'd probably repudiate it. But, there's a much easier way to handle it. Get the deficit (not national debt) down, and put inflation up at 15%/year. After a decade, we'd owe them zilch. That's one very unique thing about the US debt. We owe dollars. We can, by one statement of the Fed, get rid of the debt. It wouldn't matter if interest rates went up, fixed debt in inflationary times is good for the borrower, not the lender. But, if it got to the point of not paying the debt due to conflict, it would probably get to WWIII. China's nukes aren't that good, so we'd probably only lose LA, NY, Chicago, Houston, Washington, areas. I'd guess we'd get by with less than 50 million killed. But, I'd also guess that would set back the economy a good bit. In general war is profitable to the victor if: 1) The homeland isn't hit. 2) They can make money off the conquered. Traditionally, that's been empire and/or pillaging. The US was different in that it gave money to Europe and then used it as a market for US goods. That's why business taxes were 40% of the Federal budget in the '50s and only a few percent now. In essence, we had foreign consumers pay for our government. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Dan wrote: Me: First, let me assure anyone reading this that I in no way advocate war as a solution for anything, I'm just discussing the possible consequences of the State's current situation. Sure, if they invaded Europe in '79 and Carter wasn't willing to start Armageddon. But, the military was a drain on their GDP, rising to 45% of it at the end. Look at the war surrogate, the race to the moon. They weren't close. I think they grew faster than the US for about 5 years. Planned economies are OK for a while, but tend to get caught up in artificial goals. China has been the exception, but that's because we are in an era of no real disruptive innovationsand China doesn't have to adapt. Why Japan is in a funk now is interestingsocially they couldn't make the obvious decisions. The point is that after the war they had a large empire and access to abundant resources. Their subsequent mismanagement of those resources does not negate the fact that they had the potential to prosper as a result of the war. We'd probably repudiate it. But, there's a much easier way to handle it. Get the deficit (not national debt) down, and put inflation up at 15%/year. After a decade, we'd owe them zilch. That's one very unique thing about the US debt. We owe dollars. We can, by one statement of the Fed, get rid of the debt. It wouldn't matter if interest rates went up, fixed debt in inflationary times is good for the borrower, not the lender. Do you really think that China would just let that happen? But, if it got to the point of not paying the debt due to conflict, it would probably get to WWIII. China's nukes aren't that good, so we'd probably only lose LA, NY, Chicago, Houston, Washington, areas. I'd guess we'd get by with less than 50 million killed. I can imagine a scenario in which the likelihood that any of China's nukes hit us is very low, but it would involve a preemptive strike of some sort, defensive nukes, and a way of keeping other powers such as Russia out of it. Considering our power and ability to deliver it to their doorstep, China has much more to fear from a nuclear conflict than we do, but considering the rate at which they are catching up to us, this could change. There are other scenarios that lead to war as well. The people running the PRK are lunatics and they have nukes, though I wouldn't be surprised if they blow themselves up before they blow anyone else up. Then there is the Middle Eastern bag of worms especially when Iran joins the N club. But, I'd also guess that would set back the economy a good bit. At some point, it's set back so far already that it doesn't matter In general war is profitable to the victor if: 1) The homeland isn't hit. 2) They can make money off the conquered. Well, trillions of dollars of debt disappearing overnight might be one source of gain. The fact that we'd have to ramp up our manufacturing capability again would be another. Another thing is that the current atmosphere of internal divisiveness would be ameliorated. Again I make these arguments as devil's advocate; please don't infer that I favor war as any kind of solution for our problems. I do imagine that there _are_ people that would make these kinds of arguments seriously. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
