On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM,  "Dan Minette" <danmine...@att.net> wrote:

>>If you have a better way to get humanity off fossil fuels, don't keep it to
> yourself.
> I have actions that, given historical precident, have a much better chance
> of suceeeding.
>>Make a good case that it's cheaper and I will support that instead of
> working on power satellites
>>and laser propulsion.
> I'm not sure if you will like my case because it's not a quick fix.

I make a case that going to laser propulsion and power sats would get
humanity off fossil fuels in 20 years.  Do you consider that a quick

> we've been trying quick fixes since the oil shock of 1973, almost 40 years
> now, and haven't made any significant progress.  So, I'd argue we need a
> plan that will work in the long run as well as remediation in the short run.


I notice you don't put either a cost per kWh or a capital investment
on any of these tired proposals, Nuclear is both expensive and slow
(even in China) to install.  There are also scaling problems.  If you
are going to get off fossil fuel, do you really want to build 15,000 1
GW reactors?

If we are going to make a good choice, we need to cite the numbers.  I
have analyzed the cost of this new idea to build power satellites with
laser propulsion.  I get $1600 per kW and 2 cents per kWh based on
6.8% discount rate.  The cost information for other forms is easy to

Offer stands, but you are going to have to cite defensible numbers to
get me to switch my efforts to your concept of how to solve the



Reply via email to