Solar and wind energy on Earth certainly are economically viable, far more than
the costs and damages we'll have to pay for massive climate change. Fossil
fuels are cheap right now only because the costs (military action, increased
pollution and disease and medical costs, climate change,
From: Dan Minette danmine...@att.net
At $10/watt, this is about 4 million.
How badly do you want to see this demo?
I don't expect to see it, ever. But, that demo is an example of the very
easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The
fact that we don't have a
Dan Minette thread-killed:
I don't expect to see it, ever. But, that demo is an example of the very
easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The
fact that we don't have a demo of baby steps is a very good indicator of
where the project is.
This is not
managing the list at
brin-l-ow...@mccmedia.com
From: David Hobby hob...@newpaltz.edu
On 9/5/2013 4:54 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
The propulsion lasers to get the parts up to GEO at a cost where the
whole thing makes economic sense, those are weapons, game changing
weapons. And if I had
At $10/watt, this is about 4 million.
How badly do you want to see this demo?
I don't expect to see it, ever. But, that demo is an example of the very
easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The
fact that we don't have a demo of baby steps is a very good
On Sep 6, 2013, at 12:37 PM, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO chided:
Dan Minette thread-killed:
I don't expect to see it, ever.
I can see Alberto taking issue with this statement, except that it's just Dan
stating his expectation. Are we to judge what Dan expects?
But, that demo is an
David Hobby wrote:
Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing
much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly?
No, even if it was possible to beam energy with 100% efficiency...
it's still energy. It comes down, it must get out. If not,
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 08:24:00 -0300
Subject: Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
From: albm...@centroin.com.br
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
David Hobby wrote:
Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing
much more heat than just the amount from people
On 9/5/2013 7:24 AM, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO wrote:
David Hobby wrote:
Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing
much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly?
No, even if it was possible to beam energy with 100% efficiency...
In a message dated 9/5/2013 4:24:09 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
albm...@centroin.com.br writes:
where the Mad Scientist tries to destroy the Earth by
placing an enormous mirror or lens in orbit, concentrating solar
energy?
It's not in orbit; it's in London melting parked cars.
On 9/5/2013 4:54 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
The propulsion lasers to get the parts up to GEO at a cost where the
whole thing makes economic sense, those are weapons, game changing
weapons. And if I had to bet, it would be for them to be controlled by
the Chinese. Keith Henson _
Now
It looks like a combination of Skylon, a project being developed in the UK
and big propulsion lasers will get the
cost to under $100/kg to GEO.
Do you have any vidios of lasers holding up, say, a 10kg object, for 20
minutes and keeping it under control. This would be one of the easy
From: Pat Mathews mathew...@msn.com
How much does it cost in energy as well as in dollars?
Substantial. I figured this for an elevator and got that the elevator
had a 3 day payback for the parts and the same for lifting. The
calculated energy investment for a kW of capacity was paid back in
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 10:10:33 -0700
Subject: For David Brin and the rest of you
From: hkeithhen...@gmail.com
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
As of last April, there seems to be a solution to the
energy/carbon/climate problems, even water. Relatively cheap, less
than ten dollars a person.
Even if these things were economically viable (which they probably
ain't), ambientally it would be a disaster. I can't image the Earth
getting such extra amount of radiant energy and not turning it (she?
Gaia?) into a hell much worse than the most pessimistic images of the
most radical ecogroups.
On 9/4/2013 4:40 PM, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO wrote:
Even if these things were economically viable (which they probably
ain't), ambientally it would be a disaster. I can't image the Earth
getting such extra amount of radiant energy and not turning it (she?
Gaia?) into a hell much worse
16 matches
Mail list logo
