[mojo2]

FINALLY! This MAY be "THE ANSWER" to our Energy Conundrum!

As you all well know I've been concerned with Peak Oil and the spectre of rising prices, insoluble businesses, ruined industries and the failure of the American economy, leading to the fall of the United States.

I've been concerned that our need for oil has made us occupy the M.E. to assure our supply of oil and have warned that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would make our 'life's blood' dependent upon the Iraqi military's ability to protect the oil supplies and prevent al Qaeda terrorists from disrupting our way of life, if not our VERY lives.

All of the alternative energy suggestions have left me unimpressed that they had what was needed to allow us to wean ourselves from M.E. oil or that they'd promise to keep us from a very dark and very primitive existence within the next 15 - 50 years.

Well, I was listenening to the Art Bell hosted Coast to Coast AM www.coasttocoastam.com tonite and I'm excited to tell you we may FINALLY have THE ANSWER!

Here are the links to video clips and websites and other info.

Basically, the moon has the answer. Helium3. Hydrogen and Oxygen galore, and SUNLIGHT.

The last one is particulary intriguing. Collecting the solar energy that falls on the moon, turning it into electricity and microwaving it to Earth.

Plentiful. Cheap. And we have everything we need to do it TODAY with only current, on the shelf technology! All we need is the money.

If we can get ALL the electricity we could EVER need from the moon and reduce the demand on fossil fuels, then maybe, possibly, we could consider giving the Middle East back to the Middle Easterners (after we make sure they have a representative government which supports the need for the people of Iraq to live in freedom) and the price of oil would decrease with our decreased demand.

The global warming problem would decrease.

All kinds of wonderful things could result.



We need to look at this and if there's a problem with it then we'll keep looking for something else. But if this IS it, we could, all of us here at MacNN, help change the world.

http://www.gaiaselene.com/
http://gaiaselene.com/reviews.html
http://gaiaselene.com/gaiaselene/vlog.html
http://gaiaselene.com/gaiaselene/promo.html
http://gaiaselene.com/gaiaselene/sciencepapers.html
http://www.gaiaselene.com/2005/05/moon-umbrellas.html

http://www.uh.edu/collegium/print/spr03/pages/moon.html

UH’s Man on the Moon
by Philip Montgomery

University of Houston Professor of Physics David Criswell concedes he may appear slightly off the wall with his idea for snaring sunbeams on the Moon and transforming that solar power into electric gold for mankind.

The promises are grand—cheap energy for everyone, a reduction in wars over petroleum resources, a new source of wealth unlike anything seen before, and the opening of the solar system to human exploration and habitation. Cheap unlimited power is what people need, and Criswell, who has eighteen patents in space and terrestrial solar power and space transportation, says he has a plan that can deliver.

His vision is solidly grounded in engineering and economics. He is the director of the University of Houston Institute for Space Systems Operations, has worked on the Apollo missions, and directed major research projects and technical review programs at the Lunar and Planetary Institute for NASA. When the shuttle Columbia exploded last February, he was among the experts assembled by The Wall Street Journal for an online roundtable about what the tragedy would mean for the United States space program.

For twenty years, he has touted something called the Lunar Solar Power System. And he has published more than 250 research articles and contract and advisory reports on the economics of returning to the Moon to provide electricity to Earth.

An advocate, such as Robert Ayres, a professor from a top European business school in Fontainebleau, France, says, “The benefits could be enormous. Criswell is aseriously underrecognized scientist whose problem is that he is too far ahead of his contemporaries.” Ayres, a former professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University and a physicist by training, continues, “I believe his proposal should be taken very seriously.... I don’t see any major risks, except the normal risks
accompanying any venture outside the Earth’s atmosphere.”

And foes, who counter with other energy systems or lack of feasibility, are silenced because Criswell can respond with a scientific answer to prove the Lunar Solar Power System can work. His recent article in The Industrial Physicist was downloaded a record 18,000 times in six weeks....

click link to continue article...

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

FINALLY! This MAY be "THE ANSWER" to our Energy Conundrum!

As you all well know I've been concerned with Peak Oil and the spectre of rising prices, insoluble businesses, ruined industries and the failure of the American economy, leading to the fall of the United States.

I've been concerned that our need for oil has made us occupy the M.E. to assure our supply of oil and have warned that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would make our 'life's blood' dependent upon the Iraqi military's ability to protect the oil supplies and prevent al Qaeda terrorists from disrupting our way of life, if not our VERY lives.

All of the alternative energy suggestions have left me unimpressed that they had what was needed to allow us to wean ourselves from M.E. oil or that they'd promise to keep us from a very dark and very primitive existence within the next 15 - 50 years.

Well, I was listenening to the Art Bell hosted Coast to Coast AM www.coasttocoastam.com tonite and I'm excited to tell you we may FINALLY have THE ANSWER!

Here are the links to video clips and websites and other info.

Basically, the moon has the answer. Helium3. Hydrogen and Oxygen galore, and SUNLIGHT.

The last one is particulary intriguing. Collecting the solar energy that falls on the moon, turning it into electricity and microwaving it to Earth.

Plentiful. Cheap. And we have everything we need to do it TODAY with only current, on the shelf technology! All we need is the money.

If we can get ALL the electricity we could EVER need from the moon and reduce the demand on fossil fuels, then maybe, possibly, we could consider giving the Middle East back to the Middle Easterners (after we make sure they have a representative government which supports the need for the people of Iraq to live in freedom) and the price of oil would decrease with our decreased demand.

The global warming problem would decrease.

All kinds of wonderful things could result.

http://www.uh.edu/collegium/print/sp...s/moSystem.jpg

We need to look at this and if there's a problem with it then we'll keep looking for something else. But if this IS it, we could, all of us here at MacNN, help change the world.

http://www.gaiaselene.com/
http://gaiaselene.com/reviews.html
http://gaiaselene.com/gaiaselene/vlog.html
http://gaiaselene.com/gaiaselene/promo.html
http://gaiaselene.com/gaiaselene/sciencepapers.html
http://www.gaiaselene.com/2005/05/moon-umbrellas.html

Without questioning the science here I got to say the site is pretty uninformative. Maybe I just wasn't looking in the right place but where was the cost analysis for development and who is going to foot the bill - us, a collective of the wealthy nations, is this a private venture? I'd also like to see time lines - how long would the construction and testing phase be (they are saying the space elevator is the only cost effective way of building the moon based solar power generating stations but the space elevator itself is just an idea, what kind of addition (other than microwave reception stations located throughout the globe).

OK, halfway through this I Googled to see if I could find more info:

As for the size of the rectennas (the receiving antennas - um, we need a better word than that) it would be much smaller than the Very Large Array in New Mexico, which at it's max is 30km, he's talking 400m would do for 25MW of power.

http://www.on.br/glossario/alfabeto/...la2_grande.jpg

In this paper he talks in a little more detail about how the site would be constructed on the moon:

http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~veron/moon.pdf

and a EROEI of 1400 times per kilogram of production facility on the moon.

All the same I doubt if we'll see this happen in our lifetime - it would take an extraordinary amount of political will and investment.

[von Wrangell]

Waaaayyy too big picture RIR. Just the link would do just fine.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The global warming problem would decrease.

Maybe. Imagine a world where energy is practically free, lowering the costs on everything. All of a sudden appliances don't have to be designed to be as energy efficient. Cheap energy allows all 6+billion people (and growing) to enjoy modern conveniences. Unfortunately heat is output by everything that uses energy.

I'm not going to give a definitive answer about global warming, but unlimited energy could prove to be as disastrous as rising CO2 levels, if it has any affect at all.

Mojo, I'm surprised you haven't looked into zero point energy, vacuum wave energy, nuclear fusion, antimatter, etc... If you want an energy Manhatten Project, any of these might prove possible before it's "too late."

[dcmacdaddy]

Umm, why go to the moon for solar energy? Don't we have plenty of sunlight falling here on the earth or am I imagining that bright light I see out my patio window?

[TETENAL]

Collect solar energy on the moon and microwave it to earth? Why not simply collect solar energy on earth? Sounds like the simpler idea.

[von Wrangell]

The reason for not doing it on earth is probably two-fold.

Our atmosphere decreases the possible energy from the sun and then the problem of space. I'm not sure many here on earth would be ok with very large areas being filled with solar panels.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Waaaayyy too big picture RIR. Just the link would do just fine.

Didn't realize how big it was till I posted the link - sorry about that folks.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Didn't realize how big it was till I posted the link - sorry about that folks.

np, just trying to prevent a tookination as the pic is good.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Umm, why go to the moon for solar energy? Don't we have plenty of sunlight falling here on the earth or am I imagining that bright light I see out my patio window?

You get 1/10th the energy or something like that here on earth compared to a moon-based collection station - the size of a solar array needed to capture the power would fill most of Southern California

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I'm not sure many here on earth would be ok with very large areas being filled with solar panels.

I'm not looking much at my roof. I don't care what's up there.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

You get 1/10th the energy or something like that here on earth compared to a moon-based collection station - the size of a solar array needed to capture the power would fill most of Southern California

We've got empty stretches of desert in SoCal, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada. I'm sure we can figure out a way to put some of that empty space to good use for solar energy production.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I'm not looking much at my roof. I don't care what's up there.

Having them installed on the roof might be ok for most personal needs (depending on location, it would for example be worthless here during winter time) but it will not be able to deliver enough for everyone. But installing solar panels on most roofs would definitily help.

[Timo]

Intriguing idea, but how again does Halliburton make money doing this?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Umm, why go to the moon for solar energy? Don't we have plenty of sunlight falling here on the earth or am I imagining that bright light I see out my patio window?

How much power is he talking about?

Put electrical power into proper perspective by looking at the energy required to power a 100-watt light bulb.

“Keeping your 100-watt light bulb going for a year requires the power plant in Houston to burn a flow of approximately 660 pounds of coal over that same year,” Criswell explains. “The United States gets the majority of its electric power from the burning of coal, and we use an average of 11,000 watts of thermal or heat energy per person. The 270 million people in the United States use three terawatts [3,000,000,000,000 watts].”

Criswell estimates that the world—at about six billion people as of 2002—needs two to three times more commercial thermal power than the fourteen terawatts now provided by current energy sources.

Earth’s Moon continually drinks in enough terawatts of solar energy—some 13,000—for every man, woman, and child on Earth to use as much electricity as needed with plenty left over.

The solar power to be harvested from the surface of the Moon is unlimited, Criswell says, without the drawbacks of other energy systems. Solar collectors on Earth lose much of their ability to generate electricity on cloudy days, and generating electricity at night is out of the question. Hydroelectric, geothermal, ocean movement, nuclear, coal, oil, and gas as energy systems are unreliable or limited by geographic location or finite or linked to pollution.

[Seb G]

Reminds me of the microwave power plants in SimCity 2000 that once in a while got berserk and zapped half of your city. Great potential for terrorists, too, and an inspiration for another great Bond movie.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Having them installed on the roof might be ok for most personal needs (depending on location, it would for example be worthless here during winter time) […]

There are other means to use solar energy: wind and water power. I would guess you have plenty of wind in winter. This can well be used with off-shore wind power plants for example.

[art_director]

Looks like it could be promising.

Fact is we, as a race and especially as Americans, also need to change our wasteful ways. We need to:

1. Start driving more efficient cars – the SUV explosion has done more to harm our financial security than anything else. It's also increaesd our dependence on foreign sources of energy – something the White House and the Congress refuse to admit or addess.

2. Be more concerned with conservation. That means the Christmas lights go. That means we run the AC a little less. That means we turn off lights when we leave rooms.

3. We need to recycle. A while back I read that recycling 1 (one) aluminum can can save enough energy to power a 100 watt bulb for an hour. Might not seem like much until you look at how many cans of soda Americans drink each day.


Countries in the developing world have load shedding – power goes out in specified areas for hours each day to conserve energy. Yet here, in the US and in much of Europe, we just waste, waste, waste. That must change.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

There are other means to use solar energy: wind and water power. I would guess you have plenty of wind in winter. This can well be used with off-shore wind power plants for example.

IIRC off-shore wind power plants have been deemed impossible here. No current versions can withstand the force of the nature here.

But here we don't really have a need for any new methods for energy. We already only use renewable energy. Geothermal energy and hydro. But we are in a unique situation when it comes to that and I doubt many other nations could do the same.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Timo

Intriguing idea, but how again does Halliburton make money doing this?

Interesting point. Saturday night's C2C guest was business futurist, Joel Barker, who mentioned Apple's ability to achieve success withh the iPod by looking to innovate OUTSIDE of the heated, fiercely competitive crucible of computer sales. By doing so on the periphery Apple was free to try and perhaps fail without endangering their core business or their standing in the industry.

They did this where the computer market leaders COULDN'T without taking tremendous risks.

Halliburton is under a great deal of scrutiny and criticism (perhaps undue?). Using Barker's rationale, I wouldn't expect Halliburton to move on this, even though it looks like it might be a very smart bet.

One thought is that they may be too deeply invested in the OIL services business and their management very much committed to and familar and comfortable with OIL. Just guessing.

Barker also talks about how new ideas aren't easily embraced by most people (oh, he's GOT to be kidding about that! ) and it might be that unless a small (at least) group at Halliburton can do some intra-preneuring - incubating a new business or industry WITHIN the parent company - they might miss out.

On the OTHER hand, they might stand back and keep an eye on the developments of this project until they know everything they need to and then BUY up the company or companies involved.

Several of the Dot-com millionaires have shifted their gaze to the heavens and it may become like the Wild West of the 21st Century. Full of peril and expense and the unknown but exciting and promising and those who are able to make it will become historic and legendary figures and even more wealthy than they are.

If I had money to invest I'd be looking at the concepts I've presented here as my #1 candidates for being THE ANSWER.

Lots more study is needed on my part but, so far, so good!

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

IIRC off-shore wind power plants have been deemed impossible here.

But you think microwaving energy from the moon is? Get real.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

But here we don't really have a need for any new methods for energy. We already only use renewable energy. Geothermal energy and hydro.

That's great. With more investment into research of renewable energy sources other countries will also be able to create a substantial amount from such energy sources. Realistically and today; without having to dream about space elevators. Germany creates more energy from renewable energy than from nuclear power. That was a good start at least ( grand coalition ).

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Interesting point. Saturday night's C2C guest was business futurist, Joel Barker, who mentioned Apple's ability to achieve success withh the iPod by looking to innovate OUTSIDE of the heated, fiercely competitive crucible of computer sales. By doing so on the periphery Apple was free to try and perhaps fail without endangering their core business or their standing in the industry.

They did this where the computer market leaders COULDN'T without taking tremendous risks.

Halliburton is under a great deal of scrutiny and criticism (perhaps undue?). Using Barker's rationale, I wouldn't expect Halliburton to move on this, even though it looks like it might be a very smart bet.

One thought is that they may be too deeply invested in the OIL services business and their management very much committed to and familar and comfortable with OIL. Just guessing.

Barker also talks about how new ideas aren't easily embraced by most people (oh, he's GOT to be kidding about that! ) and it might be that unless a small (at least) group at Halliburton can do some intra-preneuring - incubating a new business or industry WITHIN the parent company - they might miss out.

On the OTHER hand, they might stand back and keep an eye on the developments of this project until they know everything they need to and then BUY up the company or companies involved.

Several of the Dot-com millionaires have shifted their gaze to the heavens and it may become like the Wild West of the 21st Century. Full of peril and expense and the unknown but exciting and promising and those who are able to make it will become historic and legendary figures and even more wealthy than they are.

If I had money to invest I'd be looking at the concepts I've presented here as my #1 candidates for being THE ANSWER.

Lots more study is needed on my part but, so far, so good!

The money's there as well, if we can drop $200B on Iraq and another $200B on New Orleans reconstruction we can drop $5B to build the space elevator and another $20-30B to set up the moon station. Plus, wasn't that a campaign point or something from Bush - further space exploration including going back to the moon, or something akin to that.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

There are other means to use solar energy: wind and water power. I would guess you have plenty of wind in winter. This can well be used with off-shore wind power plants for example.

Wind can be a great help in conserving and for spot needs but it is impratical to consider for supplying deal amounts of energy. For example, it would take 20,000 windmills to supply the power needs of Paris, France. There have been windmills outside of the San Fransisco Bay area
where the winds seem to blow ALL the time and at quite a velocity. But despite these favorable wind conditions the 'farm' of windmills never seem to be talked about much. They just are there. Some of them are out of order while the others are spinning. If they had greater potential we'd see more of them I think.

Here's a link to the Tehachapi Wind Resource area for more info re: the largest (as of 1999) wind energy producer in the world.

http://www.tehachapi.com/wind/

Here's a pix of their windmill farm.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

But you think microwaving energy from the moon is? Get real.

No, but I think it's an interesting concept. Science will tell us if it's possible.

That's great. With more investment into research of renewable energy sources other countries will also be able to create a substantial amount from such energy sources. Realistically and today; without having to dream about space elevators. Germany creates more energy from renewable energy than from nuclear power. That was a good start at least ( grand coalition ).

It's always a good start but I'd guess you don't have much room to expand on many of the renewable energy sources. We have "too much" possible energy here. Our government for instance decided to build a huge dam (biggest of it's kind) just for one company (that's relocating from the US due to costs) that wanted to build an aluminium smelter here. That's what we are able to do but I'd doubt many other nations will be able to do. And that is also the reason I hope more nations go for nuclear power in the future, because compared to other resources nuclear power is relatively clean (until the next Chernobyl of course).

[mojo2]

Dp!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

But you think microwaving energy from the moon is? Get real.That's great. With more investment into research of renewable energy sources other countries will also be able to create a substantial amount from such energy sources. Realistically and today; without having to dream about space elevators. Germany creates more energy from renewable energy than from nuclear power. That was a good start at least ( grand coalition ).

If I'm not mistaken I believe the space elevator isn't MARRIED to the idea of microwaving energy from the moon to the Earth. It just makes the cost of sending men and materials up to geo-synchronous orbit much less expensive.

What seems to be the NASA plan is to go to the moon again after 40 years or so and stay up there for two weeks to show what can be done and then return to Earth. Much like Christopher Columbus' voyage to America was a short stay before returning home to make a report and the business of exploring began from there.

Well, as Burt Rutan showed just several months ago, NASA no longer has a monopoly on space travel. With the right backing private missions to the moon CAN be considered and I believe they ARE being planned. But if a private group was able to put together a business plan that showed sound research and planning, construction, safety, management, operations and monetization models I think the wait might not be that long for the elevator.

[mojo2]

“The world is energy poor now. We’ve had decades of public concern over the environment and how our energy use affects the environment and how the use of oil creates political instability around the world.”

Oil has been, and continues to be, a key factor in regional and global wars. Daniel Yergin in his Pulitzer Prize-winning 1991 book, The Prize: the Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, makes that point in the concluding paragraph:

“Oil has helped to make possible mastery over the physical world.... It has also fueled the global struggles for political and economic primacy. Much blood has been spilled in its name. The fierce and sometimes violent quest for oil—and for the riches and power it conveys—will surely continue so long as oil holds a central place.”

A prosperous world could exhaust projected resources of oil and natural gas in twenty years and coal in seventy-five years. The Lunar Solar Power System electricity can
preserve oil as the source of plastic and other petroleum products so vital to our civilization. Once the lunar-based power system is in operation, the world will change
forever, Criswell says.

Worldwide prosperity is not an illusion, agrees Kevin Bassler, assistant professor of physics at UH. He is the 2001 recipient of a prestigious Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship awarded to researchers who make fundamental contributions to new knowledge.

“Criswell has really demonstrated it is not a pie-in-the-sky idea,” says Bassler, who specializes in econo-physics, which applies the principles of physics to financial situations where normal economic models break down. “His economic analysis is quite convincing. The Lunar Solar Power System will be done. Down the road it will happen, because there is no other feasible possibility to solve the world’s power needs.”

And what keeps the Lunar Solar Power System from being implemented?

“There is not a community that can fight for it in competition with other long established energy options,” answers Criswell. “It requires the cooperation of several communities that simply do not talk to one another: lunar science, microwave optics, and industrial glass companies.”

Twenty years is a long time. Has he lost faith? The answer is simple. “No.”

He read about the conquest of space in Collier’s magazine when he was a ten-year-old in his hometown of Rhome, Texas. He’s been a self-acknowledged “space cadet” ever since and participated in the amazing highs and lows of the space program almost from its beginnings. The Institute for Space Systems Operations that he oversees was established by the Texas Legislature in 1991 and has funded more than 170 projects at UH and UH-Clear Lake that further space exploration and development.

“I’ve been interested in finding an economic driver that would push us into space,” he says. His vision goes beyond cheap energy for all and sees humanity inhabiting the solar system and reaching for the stars. “It should not just push us,” he muses. “It should draw us.”

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

It's always a good start but I'd guess you don't have much room to expand on many of the renewable energy sources.

I think you guess wrong. There is room to expand the creation renewable energy. Especially in offshore wind power plants as mentioned.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And that is also the reason I hope more nations go for nuclear power in the future, because compared to other resources nuclear power is relatively clean (until the next Chernobyl of course).

You know that you still can not eat mushrooms from Bavarian forests because of Chernobyl? Chernobyl was not an event that can be brushed away in a subordinate clause.

Irregardless of the risk nuclear power is good and fine, but it's a limited resource as well. Uran will not last forever. The nuclear waste on the other hand will. It's a problem for thousands of future generations. In Germany it is still an unsolved problem. We still don't have an ultimate disposal place for nuclear waste. If you factor in health-risk of uranium-mining, health-risk of nuclear power plants during normal operations, the risk of an accident, and the costs of disposing nuclear waste for thousands of years, nuclear power is economically not feasible.

[cpt kangarooski]

The answer my ass. Maybe someday, if we're able to get that far, but for now it's out of our reach. We can't put that much stuff in space yet, and we can't make it there either. For example, we don't even know if it's possible for us to build a space elevator, much less soon and rapidly.

Plus the moon is the single stupidest thing I've ever heard. You'd have to be an idiot to put the generating facilities on the moon, given its gravity, distance, and rotation. Instead geostationary satellites are where you generate the power.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I think you guess wrong. There is room to expand the creation renewable energy. Especially in offshore wind power plants as mentioned.

But offshore wind power plants won't give you the amount of energy needed for any significant effect. And I doubt there would be much space along the German coast to install these powerplants. Way too much traffic.

You know that you still can not eat mushrooms from Bavarian forests because of Chernobyl? Chernobyl was not an event that can be brushed away in a subordinate clause.

I know, and that is why I mentioned Chernobyl.

Irregardless of the risk nuclear power is good and fine, but it's a limited resource as well. Uran will not last forever. The nuclear waste on the other hand will. It's a problem for thousands of future generations. In Germany it is still an unsolved problem. We still don't have an ultimate disposal place for nuclear waste. If you factor in health-risk of uranium-mining, health-risk of nuclear power plants during normal operations, the risk of an accident, and the costs of disposing nuclear waste for thousands of years, nuclear power is economically not feasible.

It is limited, yes. But it is the cleanest possible energy source available that will deliver enough energy to make a significant contribution to our society. Solar and wind power plants won't do that the next 50 years.

The risks following nuclear power plants are known but since we started we've had very few accidents. The biggest problem is what you mention. The disposal. The Brits are f*cking up the North Sea with Sellafield for instance. But then we have methods like they use in Sweden where they basically bury it very deep underground and then seal it off. That works fine there.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

The answer my ass. Maybe someday, if we're able to get that far, but for now it's out of our reach. We can't put that much stuff in space yet, and we can't make it there either. For example, we don't even know if it's possible for us to build a space elevator, much less soon and rapidly.

Plus the moon is the single stupidest thing I've ever heard. You'd have to be an idiot to put the generating facilities on the moon, given its gravity, distance, and rotation. Instead geostationary satellites are where you generate the power.

Gee, cpt kangarooski, sorry you feel that way.

I think you'll find there's lots of opposition to your opposition.

Kevin Bassler, assistant professor of physics at UH. He is the 2001 recipient of a prestigious Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship awarded to researchers who make fundamental contributions to new knowledge.

“Criswell has really demonstrated it is not a pie-in-the-sky idea,” says Bassler, who specializes in econo-physics, which applies the principles of physics to financial situations where normal economic models break down. “His economic analysis is quite convincing. The Lunar Solar Power System will be done. Down the road it will happen, because there is no other feasible possibility to solve the world’s power needs.”

Professor Robert D. Waldron - Co-inventor

University of Houston Professor of Physics David Criswell
He is the director of the University of Houston Institute for Space Systems Operations, has worked on the Apollo missions, and directed major research projects and technical review programs at the Lunar and Planetary Institute for NASA. When the shuttle Columbia exploded last February, he was among the experts assembled by The Wall Street Journal for an online roundtable about what the tragedy would mean for the United States space program.

For twenty years, he has touted something called the Lunar Solar Power System. And he has published more than 250 research articles and contract and advisory reports on the economics of returning to the Moon to provide electricity to Earth.
Criswell—who organized and administered the review of the first 3,500 proposals submitted to NASA for lunar science, the first 1,000 for flight on the shuttle, as well as some 21,000 external reviews

An advocate, such as Robert Ayres, a professor from a top European business school in Fontainebleau, France, says, “The benefits could be enormous. Criswell is aseriously underrecognized scientist whose problem is that he is too far ahead of his contemporaries.” Ayres, a former professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University and a physicist by training, continues, “I believe his proposal should be taken very seriously.... I don’t see any major risks, except the normal risks
accompanying any venture outside the Earth’s atmosphere.”

And foes, who counter with other energy systems or lack of feasibility, are silenced because Criswell can respond with a scientific answer to prove the Lunar Solar Power System can work. His recent article in The Industrial Physicist was downloaded a record 18,000 times in six weeks.

Then there's the long and distinguished list of Nasa astronauts and scientists who can be seen in video snips at this link:
http://www.gaiaselene.com/gaiaselene/vlog.html

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

But offshore wind power plants won't give you the amount of energy needed for any significant effect. And I doubt there would be much space along the German coast to install these powerplants. Way too much traffic.

Wind energy is going to more than triple till 2010 with off-shore and on-shore wind power plants in Germany.

http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/36041/

It is limited, yes. But it is the cleanest possible energy source available

Only if you don't consider radiation to be pollution.

[Nuclear power plants] deliver enough energy to make a significant contribution to our society. Solar and wind power plants won't do that the next 50 years.

Renewable energy creates more power than nuclear power plants in Germany. Today!

The disposal. [W]e have methods like they use in Sweden where they basically bury it very deep underground and then seal it off. That works fine there.

That works fine now, but nuclear waste needs to be stored for many many thousands of years. And it can not be buried and kept unattended. It's a burden for thousands of future generations with completely unforeseeable costs.

[mojo2]

mojo2
Addicted to MacNN


Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,293
Status: Offline
08-31-2005, 02:06 AM

WHY NUCLEAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Same as the above reason for posting...giant sneeze.
Quote:

"What About Nuclear Energy?"

Nuclear energy requires uranium - of which the US has enough to power existing reactors for 25-40 years. As with oil, the extraction of uranium follows a bell-curve. If a large scale nuclear program was undertaken the supply of US domestically derived uranium would likely peak in under 15 years.

Even if such a program is undertaken, there is no guarantee the energy generated from nuclear sources would be any cheaper than energy generated from fossil fuels. Attempts by China and India to scale up their use of nuclear energy, for instance, have already caused uranium prices to skyrocket.

Uranium supply issues aside, a large scale switch over to nuclear power is not really an option for an economy that requires as much energy as ours does. It would take 10,000 of the largest nuclear power plants to produce the energy we get from fossil fuels. At $3-5 billion per plant, it's not long before we're talking about "real money" - especially since the $3-5 billion doesn't even include the cost of decommissioning old reactors, converting the nuclear generated energy into a fuel source appropriate for cars, boats, trucks, airplanes, and the not-so-minor problem of handling nuclear waste.

Speaking of nuclear waste, it is a question nobody has quite answered yet. This is especially the case in countries such as China and Russia, where safety protocols are unlikely to be strictly adhered to if the surrounding economy is in the midst of a desperate energy shortage. It may also be true in the case of the US because, as James Kunstler points out in his recent book, The Long Emergency:

. . . reactors may be beyond the organizational means of
the society we are apt to become in the future, mainly one
with much weaker central authority, less police power, and
reduced financial resources . . . in the absence of that
(cheap) oil we can't assume the complex social organization
needed to run nuclear energy safely.

Assuming we find answers to all questions regarding the cost and safety of nuclear power, we are still left with the most vexing question of all:

Where are we going to get the massive amounts of oil
necessary to build hundreds, if not thousands, of these
reactors, especially since they take 10 or so years to build
and we won't get motivated to build them until after oil
supplies have reached a point of permanent scarcity?

Remember, once we get the reactors built, we still have the not-so-inexpensive task of retrofitting a significant portion of the following to run on nuclear-derived electricity:

1.700 million oil-powered cars traversing the world's
1.roads;

2.Millions of oil-powered airplanes crisscrossing the
1.world's skies;

3.Millions of oil-powered boats circumnavigating the
2.world's oceans.

Scientists have made some progress in regards to nuclear fusion, but the road from success in tabletop laboratory experiments to use as an industrial scale replacement for oil is an extremely long one that, even in the most favorable of circumstances, will take decades to traverse.

Again, as with other alternatives to petroleum, all forms of nuclear energy should certainly "be on the table." But if you're hoping that it's going to save you from the ramifications of Peak Oil, you are sorely mistaken.

[mojo2]

"What About Green Alternatives like
Solar, Wind, Wave, and Geothermal?"

Solar and wind power suffer from four fundamental physical shortcomings that prevent them from ever being able to replace more than a tiny fraction of the energy we get from oil: lack of energy density, inappropriateness as transportation fuels, energy intermittency, and inability to scale.

I. Lack of Energy Density/Inability to Scale:

Few people realize how much energy is concentrated in even a small amount of oil or gas. A barrel of oil contains the energy-equivalent of almost 25,000 hours of human labor. A single gallon of gasoline contains the energy-equivalent of 500 hours of human labor. Most people are stunned to find this out, even after confirming the accuracy of the numbers for themselves, but it makes sense when you think about it. It only takes one gallon of gasoline to propel a three ton SUV 10 miles in 10 minutes. How long would it take you to push a three ton SUV 10 miles?

Most people drastically overstimate the density and scalability of solar, wind, and other renewables. Some examples should help illustrate the limited capacity of these energy sources as compared to fossil fuels:

1.According to author Paul Driessen, it would take all of
1.California's 13,000 wind turbines to generate as much
1.electricity as a single 555-megawatt natural gas fired
1.power plant.

1.According to the European Wind Energy Association's
3.Wind Force 12 report issued in May of 2004, the
3.United States has 6,361 megawatts of installed wind
3.energy. This means that if every wind turbine in the
3.United States was spinning at peak capacity, all at the
3.exact same time, their combined electrical output
3.would equal that of six coal fired power plants. Since 3.wind turbines typically operate at about 30% of their 3.rated capacity, the combined output of every wind
3.turbine in the US is actually equal to less than two
3.coal fired power plants.

1.To replace the amount of energy produced by a single
6.offshore drilling platform that pumps only 12,000
6.barrels of oil per day we would need to build 706 Vesta
6."V82" wind turbines.
1.
1.The numbers for solar are ever poorer. For instance,
1.on 191 of his book The End of Oil: On the Edge of a
1.Perilous New World, author Paul Roberts writes:

" . . . if you add up all the solar photovoltaic cells now
running worldwide (2004), the combined output -
around 2,000 megawatts - barely rivals the output of
two coal-fired power plants."

2.Robert's calculation assumes the solar cells are
2.operating at 100% of their capacity. In the real world, 2.the average solar cell operates at about 20% of its
2.rated capacity. This means that the combined output
2.of all the solar cells in the world is equal to less than
2.40% of the output of a single coal fired power plant.

2.According to ExxonMobil, the amount of energy
4.distributed by a single gas station in a single day is
4.equivalent to the amount of energy that would be
4.produced by four Manhattan sized city blocks of solar
4.equipment.
4.
4.With 17,000 gas stations just in the United States,
4.you don't need to be a mathematician to realize that 4.solar power is incapable of meeting our urgent need for 4.a new energy source that - like oil - is dense,
4.affordable, and transportable.

3.According to Dr. David Goodstien, professor of physics 5.at Cal Tech University, it would take close to 220,000 5.square kilometers of solar panels to power the global
5.economy via solar power. This may sound like a
5.marginally manageable number until you realize that
5.the total acreage covered by solar panels in the entire 5.world right now is a paltry 10 square kilometers.

4.According a recent MSNBC article entitled, "Solar
7.Power City Offers 20 Years of Lessons:"

By industry estimates, up to 20,000 solar electricity
units and 100,000 heaters have been installed in the
United States — diminutive numbers compared to the
country’s 70 million single-family houses.

This means that even if the number of American
households equipped with solar electricity is increased
by a factor of 100, less than two million American
households will be equipped with solar electric
7.systems. Assuming we are even capable of scaling the
7.use of household solar electric systems by that huge a
7. factor, we must ask ourselves two questions:

A.What do the other 68 million households do?
AA. What about the millions of companies, nations,
and industries around the world on which we in
the industrialized world are dependent?

B.Since it is oil, not electricity, that is our primary
transportation fuel (providing the base for over
90% of all transportation fuel) what good will
this do us when it comes to keeping our global
network of cars,trucks, airplanes, and boats
going?

II. Energy Intermittancy:

Unlike an oil pump, which can pump all day and all night under most weather conditions, or coal fired/natural gas fired power plants which can also operate 24/7, wind turbines and solar cells
only produce energy at certain times or under certain conditions. This may not be that big of a deal if you simply want to power your household appliances or a small scale, decentralized economy, but if you want to run an industrial economy that relies on airports, airplanes, 18-wheel trucks, millions of miles of highways, huge skyscrapers, 24/7 availability of fuel, etc., an intermittent source of energy will not suffice.

Consequently, in order to produce energy during times when the wind is no blowing or the sun is not shining, large scale solar/wind farms must be backed up by things like . . . oil pumps or natural gas/coal fired powered plants.

III. Inappropriateness as Transportation Fuels:

Approximately 2/3 of our oil supply is used for transportation. Over ninety percent of our transportation fuel comes from petroleum fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet-fuel). Thus, even if you ignore the challenges cataglouged above, there is still the problem of how to use the electricity generated by the solar cells or wind turbines to run fleets of food delivery trucks, oceanliners, airplanes, etc. . .

Unfortunately, solar and wind cannot be used as industrial-scale transportation fuels unless they are used to crack hydrogen from water via electrolysis. Hydrogen produced via electrolysis is great for small scale, village level, and/or experimental projects. However, in order to power a significant portion of the global industrial economy on it, we would need the following:

1.Hundreds of trillions of dollars to construct fleets of
hydrogen powered cars, trucks, boats, and airplanes.

2.Hundreds, if not thousands, of oil-powered factories to
accomplish number one.

3.The construction of a ridiculously expensive global
refueling and maintenance network for number one.

4.Mind-boggingly huge amounts of platinum, silver, and
copper, and other raw materials that have already
entered permanent states of scarcity.

IV. Painfully Low Starting Point:

Finally, most people new to this issue drastically overestimate the amount of energy we will be able to realistically derive from these sources inside of the next 5-25 years. If the examples in Part I didn't convince you that solar and wind are incapable of replacing oil and gas on more than a small scale/supplemental level, consider the following, easily verifiable facts:

In 2003, the US consumed 98 quadrillion BTU's of energy. A whopping .171 quadrillion came from solar and wind combined. Do the math (.171/98) and you will see that a total of less then one-sixth of one percent of our energy appetite was satisfied with solar and wind combined. Thus, just to derive a paltry 2-3 percent of our current energy needs from solar and wind, we would need to double the percentage of our energy supply derived from solar/wind, then double it again, then double it again, and then double it yet again.

Unfortunately, the odds of us upscaling our use of solar and wind to the point where they provide even just 2-3 percent of our total energy supply are about the same as the odds of Michael Moore and Dick Cheney teaming up to win a 5K relay race. Despite jaw-dropping levels of growth in these industries, coupled with practically miraculous drops in price per kilowatt hour (95% drop in two decades), along with increased interest from the public in alternative energies, the percentage of our total energy supply derived from solar and wind is projected to grow by only 10 percent per year.

Since we are starting with only one-sixth of one percent of our energy coming from solar and wind, a growth rate of 10 percent per year isn't going to do much to soften a national economic meltdown. Twenty-five years from now, we will be lucky if solar and wind account for one percent of our total energy supply.

While other alternative energy sources, such as wave and geothermal power, are fantastic sources of energy in and of themselves, they are incapable of replacing more than a fraction of our petroleum usage for the same reasons as solar and wind: they are nowhere near as energy dense as petroleum and they are inappropriate as transportation fuels. In addition, they are also limited by geography - wave power is only technically viable in coastal locations. Only a handful of nations, such as Iceland, have access to enough geothermal power to make up for much of their petroleum consumption.

This is by no means reason not to invest in these alternatives. We simply have to be realistic about what they can and can't do. On a household or village scale, they are certainly worthy investments. But to hope/expect they are going to power more than a small fraction of our forty-five trillion dollar per year (and growing) global industrial economy is woefully unrealistic.

On a related note, even if solar, wind, and other green alternatives could replace oil, we still wouldn't escape the evil clutches of so called "Big Oil." The biggest maker of solar panels is British Petroleum with Shell not too far behind. Similarly, the second biggest maker of wind turbines is General Electric, who obtained their wind turbine business from that stalwart of corporate social responsibility, Enron. As these examples illustrate, the notion that "Big Oil is scared of the immerging renewable energy market!" is silly. "Big Oil" already owns the renewable energy market.

[OreoCookie]

mojo, I don't know what I should say. You dismiss more realistic alternatives such as wind power (in 2004, Germany was producing quite a bit of electricity with wind power, more than 5 %, and it's growing rapidly) in favor of collectors on the moon?? Helium-3 collection? I'm not really sure what your scientific knowledge is, but Helium-3 is probably the most volatile gas known. It can diffuse through metal containers, tiny, tiny cracks.

I probably would react differently if you hadn't already posted quite a bit on the subject and claimed the unfeasibility of far more immediate technologies which are beginning to be competitive already. I think you'll find this helpful.

[OreoCookie]

Just to comment on your last post (must have been made while I was still typing). As of 2004, approximately 39 % of all wind turbines are installed in Germany and their growth was 43 % in the last year, and growing. More powerful wind mills are being tested right now and for their intents and purposes they do an excellent job.

Namely you forget to mention that a fossil/nuclear power plant is only good for the base load. The efficiency of a coal-fired power plant is abysmal if it's output drops below around 70 % of its peak output capacity. Water (in the form of reservoirs) and wind power are not suited to replace power plants which currently cover the base load. But on the other hand, fossil fuel power plants are not well suited to do anything but the base load. It doesn't even have anything to do with the desire to increase the share of alternative energy sources, it's the way it has always worked. What you call intermittent sources is not just needed, it's been in use for many years now.

[cpt kangarooski]

mojo2--

I think you'll find there's lots of opposition to your opposition.

I don't oppose it, other than putting the collectors on the moon, rather than in geostationary orbit. I just think that it's unlikely to happen within our lifetimes if at all, because in order to be even vaguely economically feasible, it relies on scientific advances we haven't made, and which we don't know can be made or not. It's not as far out of our reach as cold fusion or something, but it's still out of reach.

What's worse is that even if it is attainable, if we're not careful with our use of energy and how we treat the environment prior to this, we might still lose the window of opportunity to be able to do it.

Also, does anyone else think it's funny that the guy promoting this is named Criswell?

[smacintush]

Too bad the politicians will never get around to letting something like this happen. They are too busy building bridges to nowhere and blaming each other for things that they all have their hands in.

And, don't kid yourself Mojo, it would NOT be cheap for US. We would still pay close to what we pay now for energy and the difference in cost would be used to pad the bottom line of those who were involved with this.

At least this is how it would be in America.

Bet on it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If we can get ALL the electricity we could EVER need from the moon and reduce the demand on fossil fuels, then maybe, possibly, we could consider giving the Middle East back to the Middle Easterners

Don't you ever feel bad for being so despicably evil? I'm not saying this isn't the true basis of our country's foreign policy, I'm just saying I weep when I think about it. Do you...ever? Ever speak out against villainy instead of rallying around it?

[mojo2]

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhy..._ad.html?print

U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program
Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Energy

Wind energy offers many advantages, which explains why it's the fastest-growing energy source in the world. Research efforts are aimed at addressing the challenges to greater use of wind energy.

Advantages
Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source. Wind energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind turbines don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or greenhouse gasses.

Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.

Wind energy relies on the renewable power of the wind, which can't be used up. Wind is actually a form of solar energy; winds are caused by the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the earth, and the earth's surface irregularities.

Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the particular project.

Wind turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus benefiting the economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found. Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind turbines use only a fraction of the land. Wind power plant owners make rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land.

Disadvantages
Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a cost basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may or may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that the wind is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is needed. Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity demands.

Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from cities where the electricity is needed.

Wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land and those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity generation.

Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the environment compared to other conventional power plants, there is some concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic (visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind plants.

Webmaster | Security & Privacy | Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program Home | EERE Home
U.S. Department of Energy
Content Last Updated: 07/01/2005

[mojo2]

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhy..._ad.html?print

U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program
Advantages and Disadvantages of Hydropower

This fish ladder on the Ice Harbor Dam on the lower Snake River provides safe passage for migrating fish.

Hydropower offers advantages over other energy sources but faces unique environmental challenges.

Advantages
Hydropower is a fueled by water, so it's a clean fuel source. Hydropower doesn't pollute the air like power plants that burn fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas.

Hydropower is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United States.

Hydropower relies on the water cycle, which is driven by the sun, thus it's a renewable power source.

Hydropower is generally available as needed; engineers can control the flow of water through the turbines to produce electricity on demand.

Hydropower plants provide benefits in addition to clean electricity. Impoundment hydropower creates reservoirs that offer a variety of recreational opportunities, notably fishing, swimming, and boating. Most hydropower installations are required to provide some public access to the reservoir to allow the public to take advantage of these opportunities. Other benefits may include water supply and flood control.

Disadvantages
Fish populations can be impacted if fish cannot migrate upstream past impoundment dams to spawning grounds or if they cannot migrate downstream to the ocean. Upstream fish passage can be aided using fish ladders or elevators, or by trapping and hauling the fish upstream by truck. Downstream fish passage is aided by diverting fish from turbine intakes using screens or racks or even underwater lights and sounds, and by maintaining a minimum spill flow past the turbine.

Hydropower can impact water quality and flow. Hydropower plants can cause low dissolved oxygen levels in the water, a problem that is harmful to riparian (riverbank) habitats and is addressed using various aeration techniques, which oxygenate the water. Maintaining minimum flows of water downstream of a hydropower installation is also critical for the survival of riparian habitats.

Hydropower plants can be impacted by drought. When water is not available, the hydropower plants can't produce electricity.

New hydropower facilities impact the local environment and may compete with other uses for the land. Those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity generation. Humans, flora, and fauna may lose their natural habitat. Local cultures and historical sites may be impinged upon. Some older hydropower facilities may have historic value, so renovations of these facilities must also be sensitive to such preservation concerns and to impacts on plant and animal life.



Webmaster | Security & Privacy | Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program Home | EERE Home
U.S. Department of Energy
Content Last Updated: 07/01/2005

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Too bad the politicians will never get around to letting something like this happen. They are too busy building bridges to nowhere and blaming each other for things that they all have their hands in.

And, don't kid yourself Mojo, it would NOT be cheap for US. We would still pay close to what we pay now for energy and the difference in cost would be used to pad the bottom line of those who were involved with this.

At least this is how it would be in America.

Bet on it.

Would you mind paying the same amount of money you now pay for electricity for unlimited amounts of electricity with no pollution, no need to further deplete fossil fuels to generate the electricity and no need to occupy foreign lands?

I won't hold my breath waiting for government to do it but I do hope business can see the potential profits to be made and will do it sooner rather than later.

And for those who invested their money to make it possible, I say GOOD FOR YOU! YOU DESERVE EVERY PENNY YOU MAKE FROM THIS PROCESS!

I don't begrudge Steve Jobs being a wealthy man. I don't mind Apple shareholders making a fortune, do you?

[von Wrangell]

The saddest part about all this is that you mojo believe that occupying foreign countries is OK. You've learned absolutely nothing from history and that will one day come back to haunt you.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Don't you ever feel bad for being so despicably evil? I'm not saying this isn't the true basis of our country's foreign policy, I'm just saying I weep when I think about it. Do you...ever? Ever speak out against villainy instead of rallying around it?

SIGH!

I wish I knew how you can stand living in such a wicked world. I wish I knew what fairy tales you were told to be so idealistic. I wish I knew what brand of Corn Flakes you ate which might have kept you immune to facing some of the more unpleasant realities of life for so long.

Something about the pain in your cry reminds me of von Wrangell's brand of idealism. He is now long ago jaded, but the flavor of idealism still shines through at times.

I once fought against what I thought was government injustice and then I was given a 'time-out' and in that time I was able to focus on the larger picture.

In a family, a business, a team, a group, a movement, a government administration there are leaders and followers.

The leaders are never perfect. The followers are never perfect. The compromise is that in exchange for moving along in the right direction and working to improve in the ability to fulfill the needs of the followers and the objectives of the assemblage, the followers will continue to give their support.

The way our system of government works is that every four years we get a chance to make a change at the top. Until then you speak up and speak out if you feel you must but you always remember that despite MY misgivings and doubts there are people who may feel 180 degrees opposed to MY thoughts and feelings who generally speaking want the same basic things I want.

They want me to be safe. I agree with that. They want things to work well. I can agree with that. They want the country to be prosperous. Me too. They agree to deal justly with others as required by law. Ok. They are committed to honor the Constitution. Cool!

There are other things that could be said and maybe some exceptions to be mentioned. But generally speaking, we make compromises on the lesser important things and realize nothing is ever 100% and work at changing the things you don't like..

This nation wants to play nice, make money and be free. And we wish it for others, as well.

In the case of our being in Iraq I know this is true. We want to be fair with the Iraqi people. Our economy depends on oil to grow and so to make money we must have oil. We want to be free to do all the things assured by our Constitution and we want to help make those freedoms available to the iraqi people. We DON'T take their oil from them. We PAY for the oil just as we always have. We simply want to keep others from cutting off our flow.

If my car ran out of gas I can't go to work. If my car can never get gas I will lose my job. If I lose my job I can't pay my bills. If I can't pay my bills I'll get evicted. If I'm homeless I'll apply for unemployment insurance. But that's not enough to live on so I must look for another job and a place to live. Once my UI benefits run out I'll have to go on welfare. If there is no more welfare then I'm screwed.

NO MORE WELFARE??? How can THAT be???

If my car ran out of gas because the Saudis or Saddam or al Qaeda or OPEC disrupted the flows of oil then it wouldn't be long before the whole country was on it's knees.

Sometimes Unc, you do things because you must. For self preservation. It may not be what you'd prefer to do but you can't let your family down, if you are the father and the kids are hungry. You must feed them any way you can.

President Bush realized his family, the citizens of the USA might have become vulnerable to an oil disruption so he did what he HAD to do to keep this country solvent. It may not have been what he would have wanted to do, but it was something that HAD TO BE DONE to safeguard America's continued survival.

If you call that evil, so be it.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The saddest part about all this is that you mojo believe that occupying foreign countries is OK. You've learned absolutely nothing from history and that will one day come back to haunt you.

Would you not do whatever was necessary to feed your children?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

The answer my ass. Maybe someday, if we're able to get that far, but for now it's out of our reach. We can't put that much stuff in space yet, and we can't make it there either. For example, we don't even know if it's possible for us to build a space elevator, much less soon and rapidly.

Plus the moon is the single stupidest thing I've ever heard. You'd have to be an idiot to put the generating facilities on the moon, given its gravity, distance, and rotation. Instead geostationary satellites are where you generate the power.

I don't know the advantages of having the reflectors in geostationary orbit but as I am giving a provisional ok to the plan that has the collectors on the moon, then I'm assuming this team of ROCKET SCIENTISTS has considered collectors in orbit and chosen to place them on the moon, instead, for a reason.

And I believe we DO know that we CAN build a space elevator and I believe all the technology now exists to enable it to become a reality. All that's missing is the $$, if I'm not mistaken.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Would you not do whatever was necessary to feed your children?

This has nothing to do with being able to feed the children. Absolutely nothing. What it has to do with is sustaining a lifestyle which you can't sustain without occupation. It's been tried before if you didn't know. And it will come back to haunt you in the future just like it did to those before you.

And no, I would not do whatever necessary if that meant killing other children. Not a chance.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I don't know the advantages of having the reflectors in geostationary orbit but as I am giving a provisional ok to the plan that has the collectors on the moon, then I'm assuming this team of ROCKET SCIENTISTS has considered collectors in orbit and chosen to place them on the moon, instead, for a reason.

And I believe we DO know that we CAN build a space elevator and I believe all the technology now exists to enable it to become a reality. All that's missing is the $$, if I'm not mistaken.

You know, I'm about the biggest space advocate you'll find anywhere. People look at me like I'm crazy when I say I want to be a space pilot in a few decades.

But you show me where I can buy lengths of carbon nanotubes in any length over a millimeter and I'll get right on building that space elevator. While I'm at work building the elevator out of something that still doesn't exist as a real life application, could you move those pesky satellites in orbits lower than geosynchronous orbit. It might be kind of hard to build the thing if I keep having stuff collide with it at such high speeds.

For that matter, if we go with your proposal, every LEO sat will have to be deorbited unless we don't mind sending them up just to get fried a few weeks later by microwave beams. What happens if there is a problem with the alignment of the microwave beam, because of meters to feet calculation errors or some such thing, and half of Phoenix gets fried?

These problems will be solved eventually, and the space elevator is going to allow us to REALLY take advantage of nuclear and solar power. What do we do with all that nuclear waste? Send it up the elevator and bury it on the moon of course.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm
while our easily obtainable supplies of uranium are limited, there is a whole boatload of other sources that cost more to obtain. This site backs up your initial claims of uranium deposits with a few additional sources. We just need to buy enough time for other tech to come to fruition.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

This has nothing to do with being able to feed the children. Absolutely nothing. What it has to do with is sustaining a lifestyle which you can't sustain without occupation. It's been tried before if you didn't know. And it will come back to haunt you in the future just like it did to those before you.

And no, I would not do whatever necessary if that meant killing other children. Not a chance.

We were able to sustain our lifestyle just fine until OBL made it known he would resort to ANY tactics to bring us down. He announced he wanted to drive oil prices to $200/bbl. To prevent that we decided to safeguard the oil.

When you are faced with your own mortality or that of your family you will do what you must to survive.

Donner Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Donner Party was a group of California-bound American settlers caught up in the "westering fever" of the 1840s. They are believed to have resorted to cannibalism while snowbound in the Sierra Nevada. The nucleus of the party consisted of the Donner and Reed families and their hired hands, some 31 people from Springfield, Illinois.

The President of the United States is like our figurative father and the citizens and businesses are like his children...in a strange way of looking at it.

It is HIS job to provide for us the things we can't provide for ourselves.

If he hadn't can YOU guarantee OBL wouldn't have driven the price of oil up to $200/bbl by now?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

We were able to sustain our lifestyle just fine until OBL made it known he would resort to ANY tactics to bring us down. He announced he wanted to drive oil prices to $200/bbl. To prevent that we decided to safeguard the oil.

When you are faced with your own mortality or that of your family you will do what you must to survive.

This part is even more sad. You seem to believe this all started with OBL. FFS open up some history books before you post again.

Or revert to your usual tactic of posting several endless snips from articles that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I have a pretty good idea of which way you'll go.