... OIL has Doubled in One Year! $120 bbl While NASA Dreams of Moon Rocks!
jonathan
I'M MAD AS HELL......
It's just insane. Oil was as low as $8 a barrel under Pres Clinton.
It increased by $60 a barrel just in the /last year/.
Let's just extrapolate that price increase out a few years, to...say...about the
time NASA gets to kick around a few more Moon Rocks in the year 2025
give or take ten?
I wonder how history will remember this time, when we had a choice between a
New Moon Base, or the Space Solar Power (SSP) program axed by President
Bush upon taking office.
This is what history will say I believe.
Everyone will be looking at our new shiny moon base much like we see
the ISS now. Doing /nothing/ except consume every available dollar just
to keep the thing flying. And they'll say it's clear the choice for the moon
over SSP was a result of two things.
The military: seeking the 'high ground' in the missile defense race.
Corruption: the big contractors preferring another "Bridge to Nowhere"
As they can promise NOTHING in return for the mega-bucks.
They haven't promised to cure anything, fix anything
or create anything beneficial to the taxpayers except
for the 'thing' itself Another ISS, existing only for the
sake of it. "Have Faith" The NASA administrator says...
There can be no other conclusion, that amidst a new global consensus
and awakening on the rapidly warming earth, we abandoned a visionary
long-term program, Space Solar Power, that could revolutionize
the future of this planet. A program that could not only address the
rapidly diminishing oil reserves, but also tackle greenhouse gasses
and global warming.
A single program, Space Solar Power, that could directly effect two of
greatest global threats. Not to mention all that flows from these
two threats, such as wars over oil, economic growth and national
security.
This was the program timeline when Bush canceled SSP
Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program (SERT)
a.. 2005: ~100 kW, Free-flyer, demo-scale commercial space
b.. 2010: ~100 kW Planetary Surface System, demo-scale, space exploration
c.. 2015: ~10 MW Free-flyer, Transportation; Large demo, solar clipper
d.. 2020: 1 GW Free-flyer, Full-scale solar power satellite commercial space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Solar_Power_Exploratory_Research_and_Technology_program
By the time we build that shiny now Moon Base, The United States
...could've been building gigawatt class power satellites...we
...could have been on the threshold of becoming the next energy "Saudi Arabia".
Where ...America is the primary source of energy for the world.
But no, the military needs a new observation post, to target the Chinese.
Are we living in an era of denial, insanity or stupidity?
I can't think of any other reason for the choice we're making
to go back to the moon instead of using NASA not just to study
the atmosphere, but to be the agency responsible for ...improving it
as well.
Hey, you NASA guys want larger budgets??? SSP is the path to
long term public and Congressional support.
A Moon Base is a recipe for a much smaller-leaner NASA.
Stripped to the bones by a public angry that NASA's
..lack of foresight is exceeded only by it's
..lack of backbone.
Jonathan
s
eyeball
>
> By the time we build that shiny now Moon Base, The United States
> ...could've been building gigawatt class power satellites...we
> ...could have been on the threshold of becoming the next energy "Saudi Arabia".
>
> Where ...America is the primary source of energy for the world.
>
> But no, the military needs a new observation post, to target the Chinese.
>
> Are we living in an era of denial, insanity or stupidity?
>
> I can't think of any other reason for the choice we're making
> to go back to the moon instead of using NASA not just to study
> the atmosphere, but to be the agency responsible for ...improving it
> as well.
>
> Hey, you NASA guys want larger budgets??? SSP is the path to
> long term public and Congressional support.
>
> A Moon Base is a recipe for a much smaller-leaner NASA.
> Stripped to the bones by a public angry that NASA's
> ..lack of foresight is exceeded only by it's
> ..lack of backbone.
>
> Jonathan
>
> s
Don't you post under some other names?
http://www.celebrityhack.com/images/john-travolta-hairspray.jpg
Poetic Justice
> On May 6, 9:17 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote:
>> I'M MAD AS HELL......
>>
>> It's just insane. Oil was as low as $8 a barrel under Pres Clinton.
>> It increased by $60 a barrel just in the /last year/.
>>
That's how long since the "New sheriff Pelosi got to town" Remember her
telling us that she was going to ride herd on Bush and that Pelosi would
get gas prices down.....
It looks like Democrats couldn't live up to the promise.
BradGuth
fuel inflation at 3200%
BTW, the moon's L1 is quite doable. Even China can set up camp within
the moon's L1. Would you care to explore my LSE-CM/ISS?
. - Brad Guth
Richard Casady
wrote:
snip
You need to reset your computers clock. It is 12 hours fast.
Casady
Pat Flannery
jonathan wrote:
> I'M MAD AS HELL......
>
I am too! You got out of my killfile somehow.
Pat
BradGuth
nosed minions and otherwise pretend-atheist of Usenet, could care less
how spendy or bloody fossil fuel gets, or of how much secondary
inflation is taking place (especially on a global scale).
Notice how they have no viable alternatives that are not going to cost
us every bit as much if not more. Even their independent spook/mole
William Mook is at best a bipolar farce, exactly as though MI5/CIA and
DARPA orchestrated .
Perhaps their New World Order is coming sooner rather than later.
. - Brad Guth
Matt Wiser
Totorkon
>
> By the time we build that shiny now Moon Base, The United States
> ...could've been building gigawatt class power satellites...we
> ...could have been on the threshold of becoming the next energy "Saudi Arabia".
>
> Where ...America is the primary source of energy for the world.
>
> But no, the military needs a new observation post, to target the Chinese.
>
> Are we living in an era of denial, insanity or stupidity?
>
> I can't think of any other reason for the choice we're making
> to go back to the moon instead of using NASA not just to study
> the atmosphere, but to be the agency responsible for ...improving it
> as well.
>
> Hey, you NASA guys want larger budgets??? SSP is the path to
> long term public and Congressional support.
>
> A Moon Base is a recipe for a much smaller-leaner NASA.
> Stripped to the bones by a public angry that NASA's
> ..lack of foresight is exceeded only by it's
> ..lack of backbone.
>
> Jonathan
>
> s
A 5Gw SPS would have a mass close to 100X the ISS. If its cost were
scaled by the same measure, the price tag would exceed twelve trillion
dollars.
Thank you for the reference to sert. The proposal for a couple of
100Kw solar powered hall thrusters seems like a good way to develope
practical competitive space solar collectors which could well serve
science and give practical experience in the type of challenges SPSs
will have to deal with.
Increasing the number of robotic expeditions in the 10-20 ton range is
a practical way to develope the lower cost launch systems that are
necessary to even contemplate an SPS project.
Rand Simberg
Totorkon <aert...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>A 5Gw SPS would have a mass close to 100X the ISS. If its cost were
>scaled by the same measure, the price tag would exceed twelve trillion
>dollars.
It would be absurd to assume that it would scale that way.
Williamknowsbest
I have perfected low-cost solar panels. Terrestrial solar is the
first step.
Given the nature of PV cells, its easiest to electrolyze water into
hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen plus coal equals crude oil, methane
and char. Char plus oxygen equals carbon dioxide. CO plus hydrogen
equals methanol. Methane plus oxygen equals methanol. Dehydrate
methanol and get iso-octane. Add the iso-octane to the crude oil and
get light crude oil.
I have two facilities under construction in Indonesia that each are
planned to produce 200,000 barrels per day.
I am selling 20 forward contracts from each of the two facilities that
are under constrution in Indonesia. Each contract sells 10,000
barrels of oil for $750,000. with $250,000 deposit on 10,000 barrels
of oil with a balance of $500,000 due on delivery in 60 months. At
that time if a barrel of oil sells for $125 - this contract will be
worth $1,250,000 - which means after paying the $500,000 for the oil,
you pocket $750,000 on your original $250,000 investment. Of course
if oil drops to less than $75 per barrel at the time you take
delivery, you won't make any money.
I will build 42 facilities like this over the next 14 years. This is
enough to produce 8% of the world's crude oil needs.
I will also buy space launch assets from various aerospace contractors
to built a 7 element RLV capable of putting 500 metric tons into
LEO. A 3 element version puts 225 tons into LEO, and a one element
version with inline upper stage puts 75 tons into LEO. This vehicle
consists of a stretched ET with an aerospike engine at its base, using
5 RS-68 pumpsets. Each flight element masses 1,000 tons at lift off,
produces 1,500 tons of thrust at lift off, and carries 880 metric tons
of propellant. They are also equipped with cross-feed to implement a
unique staging approach I have created, but found out that others have
thought of the same thing in the past. All elements are fully
recovered and reused.
The 500 ton version orbits a thin film concentrator that focuses light
onto a multi-spectral PV array that operates at 5,000x solar
intensity. The PV array drives a free-electron laser that produces
laser energy at very high efficiencies. The laser beam uses
holographic techniques and nonlinear optical media along with adaptive
optics to beam energy to the 42 solar panel powered coal to liquid
facilities located around the world. This increases hyrogen and
oxygen output by 16x. A portion of this is used to increase oil
output to 700,000 b/d per facility - providing 35% of the world's
crude oil. The balance of the increase is used to create hyrogen gas
which s used directly as a fuel., This provides the equivalent of
1,250,000 b/d per facility. Which exceeds the current demand for
energy.
4,000 satellites each generating 6,000 MW of laser power are place in
GEO and operated to feed energy to the coal-to-liquid plants. A fleet
of 30 heavy lift booster take 10 days each to be refurbished and
reloaded for a flight. Three flights per day are carried out. In
four years 4,000 satellites are deployed. It takes 6 years to design
and build out the fleet of rockets and the launch center. It takes
four years from today to get the first two facilities in production.
Revenue from the sale of oil from the first two facilities pays for
everything.
Once the world's energy prices have been resolved, the fleet of 30
heavy lift boosters are available to place piloted payloads onto
orbit, on the moon, on Mars and in the Asteroid belt.
Additional revenues may be earned by developing these accessible
frontier regions.
BradGuth
afford it.
However, no matters how rich and powerful you are, it takes fire to
fight fire, mostly in the form of many ICEs burning off loads of
fossil derived energy that’s getting spendier and even bloodier by the
hour. Electrical powered technology, unless using RTGs or via synfuel
along with h2o2 created, stored and distributed by way of renewable
energy that’s in surplus, isn’t going to fight any significant fire
for long. Perhaps creating a multitude of km tall water towers, say
at least one for each and every 100 square miles that could also be
used as terrific solar energy collectors, as well as each hosting a
250 meter diameter wind turbine would start to make sense.
On May 7, 7:56 am, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> Jeff If all I had was my dog Rudy I would be a happy camper. Got my
> conversion van up to snuff. You know Progress Energy Mafia over billed
> me to the tune of 750 bucks, and will not pay this fraudulent bill. Will
> be turning my water off this week. Even a mother just having a baby that
> needs warm bath water they would leave with no power.(Claire Recinello)
> What chance do I have. Progress Energy billing is fraudulent as proven
> by chanel 9 news Instead of returning $146,000,000 they are with the
> help of Florida Governor Charie Crist making people like me pay these
> overcharged bills. I wonder if Charlie Crist might let these Mafia
> owned utilities break my legs if they are not paid? It fits. Charlie
> Crist will make Osceola sheriff "Bob' Hansel the Florida Attorney
> General. A sheriff that can get away with threatening lives and taking
> away a citizen's first amendment rights is the right man for that job
> Oh ya Bert
I take it you and others of your kind are not happy campers about
joining up with the New World Order, of pandering and otherwise brown-
nosing to those in charge of our 3200% fossil energy inflation in the
past 60 years, and of most everything else made ENRON and Federal
Reserve cartel exclusive, and for the rest of us simply over-priced to
the point where only the rich and powerful can afford their water, gas
and electrical overhead along with their $5/gallon fuel.
Doing the last year's worth of crude oil profits alone, at $60 extra
per barrel with no real increase in their process of extracting that
oil, whereas if anything via technology, automation and labor
efficiency improvements it's taking less overall human effort to
extract each crude barrel of oil (even from oily sand).
$60 * gross oil barrels = net extra profits within just the last
year.
$60 * 31e9 = $1860e9 ($1.86 trillion in surplus profit for 2008)
As I'd said, this doesn't even include any portion of their previously
established profit margins of past years, or the ongoing secondary
cost impacts and thus collateral inflation upon most everything else
(such as water), not to forget those having died and others dieing as
a direct result of such energy profit takings. In total we’re looking
at having to fork out at least an extra $3 trillion in just the last
year alone, and likely $5 trillion for this next inflated year whereas
consumer products, food, housing and services manage to catch up to
their previous plus recent impact of their having to do business with
such artificially higher cost of energy and water.
Expect those pesky energy and food riots, plus a whole lot worse
things to come, just like having been orchestrated by the mostly
Semitic Third Reich DARPA and by those brown-nosed minions of their
faith-based puppeteers in charge of squeezing your private parts.
Soon enough, the final straw may come when beer cost $12 per 6-pack,
cup of joe at $5 and road fuel running $10/gallon (private aviation
fuel with local and federal tax and airport usage surcharge is likely
to hit that $10 mark within the year), then what?
BTW, you and your DARPA friends have not perfected squat, because
otherwise there's be countless commercial and private installations of
those nifty Mook PVs doing their clean and renewable energy thing,
even if only on behalf of creating LH2 or merely H2.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
fooling anyone by his “I have two facilities under construction in
Indonesia that each are planned to produce 200,000 barrels per day. I
am selling 20 forward contracts from each of the two facilities that
typo “constrution”, notice as to the “each are planned to produce”
qualifier, or rather disqualifier. Otherwise, what is it about an
offshore investment in Indonesia that can be trusted any better than a
line of supposed credit with the Bank of Nigeria?
According to lord Mook and his DARPA friends; Anyplace on Earth
becomes livable and otherwise survivable if you can afford it. Well
lo and behold, that seems to be the prevailing problem for most of us
that can’t hardly afford to keep what we’ve got, much less obtain
whatever’s necessary for tomorrow. It’s gotten way past whatever pay-
back time, and it’s not looking good if the likes of private
competitive energy is not being allowed to emerge, or much less given
public incentives for their R&D efforts by way of matching dollars.
What we’re stuck with is having to import finished fuel products
because our oil and coal refinery cartel is either ENRON sick beyond
the point of no return, or sticking with their New World Order as
their one and only plan of action.
. - Brad Guth
On May 6, 6:17 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote:
> d.. 2020: 1 GW Free-flyer, Full-scale solar power satellite commercial spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Solar_Power_Exploratory_Research_a...
>
> By the time we build that shiny now Moon Base, The United States
> ...could've been building gigawatt class power satellites...we
> ...could have been on the threshold of becoming the next energy "Saudi Arabia".
>
> Where ...America is the primary source of energy for the world.
>
> But no, the military needs a new observation post, to target the Chinese.
>
> Are we living in an era of denial, insanity or stupidity?
>
> I can't think of any other reason for the choice we're making
> to go back to the moon instead of using NASA not just to study
> the atmosphere, but to be the agency responsible for ...improving it
> as well.
>
> Hey, you NASA guys want larger budgets??? SSP is the path to
> long term public and Congressional support.
>
> A Moon Base is a recipe for a much smaller-leaner NASA.
> Stripped to the bones by a public angry that NASA's
> ..lack of foresight is exceeded only by it's
> ..lack of backbone.
>
> Jonathan
>
> s
BTW, my LSE-CM/ISS is still technically doable, as are the expeditions
of Venus, and if need be setting up POOF City at Venus L2.
I've top posted for the benefit of others.
. - BG
Richard Casady
wrote:
>I've top posted for the benefit of others.
Funny, I figured you did it because you are an inconsiderate asshole.
Casady
BradGuth
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:18:07 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've top posted for the benefit of others.
>
> Funny, I figured you did it because you are an inconsiderate asshole.
>
> Casady
So, you're admitting to being one of THEM. (no surprise there)
. - Brad Guth
jonathan
"Totorkon" <aert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:68c06ccd-3308-4868...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>A 5Gw SPS would have a mass close to 100X the ISS. If its cost were
>scaled by the same measure, the price tag would exceed twelve trillion
>dollars.
I think the idea is to only build technology demonstrators. To get to the point
where the commercial sector can take over once NASA has shown SSP
can work and be competitive.
>Thank you for the reference to sert. The proposal for a couple of
>100Kw solar powered hall thrusters seems like a good way to develope
>practical competitive space solar collectors which could well serve
>science and give practical experience in the type of challenges SPSs
>will have to deal with.
>Increasing the number of robotic expeditions in the 10-20 ton range is
>a practical way to develope the lower cost launch systems that are
>necessary to even contemplate an SPS project.
One point that should be made is this. When we create relatively 'small'
goals, we're left with nothing in the end as with Apollo and now ISS.
Ya we got there, and built the thing, but didn't create in the process
the kind of comprehensive space infrastructure to really open up space
to commercial use.
A /large ambitious/ goal such as SSP would require /as prerequisites/ all kinds
of basic infrastructure, such as space ports and low cost to orbit advances
as well as all kinds of other technology breakthroughs. Maybe using
laser transmission instead of microwave and so on. Even is SSP failed
in the end, and was beat out by other ideas, we would still be left with
what we need to commercialize and truly exploit space.
A small goal also inspires little public support, and ends up getting the
bare minimum funding with all the compromises that go along with
ever diminishing public support as the program goes on.
A large, visionary goal, where the public can easily see the tangible benefits
down the road can inspire and create a program that gets more and more
support as time goes on.
As the goal becomes larger and grander, the chance of success grows
along with it.
Our dependence on fossil fuels, and global warming, are perhaps the
two greatest threats to the future of this planet, not to mention our
way of life. The future needs to be rescued. And here we have
a ...single program...that could potentially be the solution to both.
Could potentially 'save the world'. Provided, of course, the nation
rallies behind it and gives it the priority and money it deserves.
Which in my opinion means a NASA budge an entire order of magnitude
larger than what is customary. If not more.
Only the 'Big Idea' that 'Saves the World' can accomplish all that.
I think SSP is that big idea, and I think the public would jump on board
in droves if all the potential benefits to America and the future are
fully expressed.
There are few problems in the world that would NOT benefit from a large
successful SSP program. Which means almost everyone would support it.
From the hawks to the doves, from big business and environmentalists all
would have a direct interest in it's success.
The idea is to come up with a goal with the broadest possible public support.
That is the path to success and to creating a better future.
s
BradGuth
finish. WWIII will just be another reminder that our "no child left
behind" as our national policy of being dumbfounded past the point of
no return, has been working like a charm.
. - Brad Guth
Totorkon
> "Totorkon" <aertr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I don't see any evidence of broad public support.
Each of the Apollo missions lofted less than one percent of the mass
of an SPS, its goal was accomplished with the first step on the
landing deck of the USS Hornet.
When I first read about SPSs, the comparative limitations of
terrestrial solar power stood out. It requires storage, heliostats,
two to three times the area and PV modules and material structure to
resist wind and gravity. That was back when the aerospace giants and
SPS enthusiasts believed the cost to leo would be around $25/lb.
The best that I hope for now is that the means of exploration be tied
to developing the technology of space solar power, larger electric
accelerators powered by acre sized panels and launch systems motivated
by the economics of frequent reuse.
Lloyd
What happened to Bush's promise in 2000 to use his connections with
the Saudis to keep oil prices down?
Scott Hedrick
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:42e9b088-3cd2-4e96...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> What happened to Bush's promise in 2000 to use his connections with
> the Saudis to keep oil prices down?
It's *working*. The demand has skyrocketed, particularly because of China.
We should have seen these prices years ago.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Richard Casady
<dinehn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:42e9b088-3cd2-4e96...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> What happened to Bush's promise in 2000 to use his connections with
>> the Saudis to keep oil prices down?
>
>It's *working*. The demand has skyrocketed, particularly because of China.
>We should have seen these prices years ago.
Yes, China. I wish the US didn't do business with them: they don't
like us and the leadership are scum.
I think China has quite a bit of coal. They do have a place with a
seam of coal three hundred feet thick. If they have the coal, they can
get by without oil if they have to.
As can the US, we have vast quantities of the coal and a fair ammount
of oil. Canada has vast ammounts of tar sands. I believe they are
developing them as fast as they can. They hired all of the available
trained labor. They will sell us oil if we have the dough. We would
rather give them the money than the arabs, who mostly hate us.
I wonder how high the price can go.
Casady
jonathan
>I don't see any evidence of broad public support.
The public hasn't been given a chance to have a say
on the matter. But they have spoken on going back to the
moon, and it's rather negative. And being a Texas oilman, it
seems rather obvious why Bush would want the entire concept
of SSP to just go away. Have you heard any senior NASA official
even mention the word in the last seven years?
I think the term 'banished' best fits current policy on SPS.
>When I first read about SPSs, the comparative limitations of
>terrestrial solar power stood out. It requires storage, heliostats,
>two to three times the area and PV modules and material structure to
>resist wind and gravity. That was back when the aerospace giants and
>SPS enthusiasts believed the cost to leo would be around $25/lb.
Considering virtually NO money has been spent of SSP research, and
yet some are already presenting concepts where directly solar pumped
lasers replace microwaves, and rectenna sizes as small as three
meters, about the size of a car. If some real research money were
dedicated who knows what advances might happen?
Switching to SSP means NASA would have to spend all that
moon-money on low cost to orbit. Does the new hardware
give even a rat's-ass about low cost to orbit?
>The best that I hope for......
That sentiment is NASA's middle name these days.
Unless the folks inside NASA grow a backbone, and start ADVISING
the White House, instead of just following the party line, then we'll
have to endure another wasted generation or two of half-ass goals
and half-ass funding.
I mean how much have we really accomplished since Apollo?
I don't see any reason why the next twenty or thirty years
will be any different given the current goal.
s
Poetic Justice
High enough that Al Gore will be the only one to fill his Lear Jet.
Poetic Justice
> "Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
> news:42e9b088-3cd2-4e96...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> What happened to Bush's promise in 2000 to use his connections with
>> the Saudis to keep oil prices down?
Hey I can use my connections to sell you a bridge....
jonathan
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2270cc3-8322-4bfc...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Forgot to mention, it's an oil and blood sucking sprint to the
finish. WWIII will just be another reminder that our "no child left
behind" as our national policy of being dumbfounded past the point of
no return, has been working like a charm.
. - Brad Guth
And just yesterday I heard somewhere that with the summer demand
picking up steam, we can expect gas prices to go up five to ten cents
...per week...for a while.
It's rather easy to see when a system is nearing it's breaking or tipping
point. When a normally minor change in a basic variable results in
unusually large effects, cascading to other related systems...that's
when the point is approaching.
For instance, the latest increases in oil prices set off rapid
inflation in food prices and shortages around the world.
We can expect each new round of increases to have
ever larger effects throughout our economy.
And most importantly, the effects are not only out of proportion
(non-linear) to the cause, but unpredictable to boot.
I think it's pretty easy to argue we're getting to a critical point
and fast.
Wait until the new administration takes office. We'll all be
shocked at just how much this administration has covered
up one problem after another. For the sake of our security.
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> Considering virtually NO money has been spent of SSP research, and
> yet some are already presenting concepts where directly solar pumped
> lasers replace microwaves, and rectenna sizes as small as three
> meters, about the size of a car. If some real research money were
> dedicated who knows what advances might happen?
The world has a population of several billion people so giving every
one their own SSP satellite would require several billion satellite,
that is not going to happen. Consequently SSP satellites have to be
city sized.
The solar power collected by the SSP satellite needs converting for
downloading. On the Earth a gigantic receiver is needed - the size
of a city. (A small receiver on every roof is still the size of a city,
it just has wasteful holes in it.) That receiver will be lucky to get
as much power as solar cells at the same location.
The advantage SSP has over Earth solar cells and solar thermal is
that it works at night. Pity we use less electricity at night.
(Offices and factories close at night.)
If you want to help the world build wind farms, solar power towers,
terrestrial solar electric panels and add a solar thermal water heating
system to your roof. Forget SSP.
Andrew Swallow
BradGuth
Good for telling it like it is. Another good thing you're not up
against William Mook, our resident PV wizard.
However, perhaps my 1.2 TW SSP that's at the end of the LSE-CM/ISS
tether dipole element (roughly 2r from Earth) has potential for a
whole lot more than clean energy.
BTW, I totally agree with wind-farms, even if it's just one super-
tower per 100 square miles is roughly a whole lot better than what
we've got. A multitasking wind, solar and stirling energy tower
should be good for at least 40 kw/m2 of its tower footprint, with a 50
kw/m2 potential.
. - Brad Guth
Richard Casady
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>If you want to help the world build wind farms,
Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
solar, it works at night.
,
Terrestrial solar electric panels are the thing for a boat. Keep the
batteries charged and run a ventilation blower and a bilge pump.
Casady
BradGuth
jonathan wrote:
> "BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c2270cc3-8322-4bfc...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > Forgot to mention, it's an oil and blood sucking sprint to the
> > finish. WWIII will just be another reminder that our "no child left
> > behind" as our national policy of being dumbfounded past the point of
> > no return, has been working like a charm.
> > . - Brad Guth
>
>
> And just yesterday I heard somewhere that with the summer demand
> picking up steam, we can expect gas prices to go up five to ten cents
> ...per week...for a while.
Our ENRON managed oil refineries will be sure to make that one come
true, if not work at doubling that weekly increase amount.
>
> It's rather easy to see when a system is nearing it's breaking or tipping
> point. When a normally minor change in a basic variable results in
> unusually large effects, cascading to other related systems...that's
> when the point is approaching.
>
> For instance, the latest increases in oil prices set off rapid
> inflation in food prices and shortages around the world.
> We can expect each new round of increases to have
> ever larger effects throughout our economy.
> And most importantly, the effects are not only out of proportion
> (non-linear) to the cause, but unpredictable to boot.
>
> I think it's pretty easy to argue we're getting to a critical point
> and fast.
>
> Wait until the new administration takes office. We'll all be
> shocked at just how much this administration has covered
> up one problem after another. For the sake of our security.
Even if the return of Christ took charge, I think we're sort of
screwed, especially after our DARPA and company of brown-nosed minions
gets him put back on that stick again.
. - Brad Guth
Totorkon
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 22:52:11 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >A 5Gw SPS would have a mass close to 100X the ISS. If its cost were
> >scaled by the same measure, the price tag would exceed twelve trillion
> >dollars.
>
> It would be absurd to assume that it would scale that way.
But it will serve as a handy baseline for any critic of such a
project. At 12 cents/Kwh it would have to cost no more than 1% of
that figure, $120B, just to pay for itself, without a profit. A
structure of more than nine square miles, in GEO, for less than the
cost of the ISS.
I don't think this is absurd, but it does have the smell of political
suicide.
Rand Simberg
Totorkon <aert...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>On May 7, 5:25 am, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 22:52:11 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
>> Totorkon <aertr...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
>> such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>> >A 5Gw SPS would have a mass close to 100X the ISS. If its cost were
>> >scaled by the same measure, the price tag would exceed twelve trillion
>> >dollars.
>>
>> It would be absurd to assume that it would scale that way.
>
>But it will serve as a handy baseline for any critic of such a
>project. At 12 cents/Kwh it would have to cost no more than 1% of
>that figure, $120B, just to pay for itself, without a profit. A
>structure of more than nine square miles, in GEO, for less than the
>cost of the ISS.
There's no reason that the unit cost couldn't be much less than that.
As I said, it's an absurd way to cost it. There is almost zero
relationship between the costs of ISS and any future large-scale
structural activity.
Poetic Justice
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> If you want to help the world build wind farms,
>
> Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
> solar, it works at night.
What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?
Call Me Ishmael
> Richard Casady wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to help the world build wind farms,
>>
>> Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
>> solar, it works at night.
>
> What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?
>
>
On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....
So you have to maintain two systems.... how much carbon does it take to
care for two seperate power systems than just one ?
Richard Casady
<@OutSourcedNews.com> wrote:
>Poetic Justice wrote:
>> Richard Casady wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you want to help the world build wind farms,
>>>
>>> Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
>>> solar, it works at night.
>>
>> What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?
>>
>
>On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....
You fire up a standby gas turbine plant. They have one of those in
downtown Des Moines. Doesn't even have a stack or cooling towers and
it's not all obtrusive. Wind generators are not expensive to build and
there is no cost whatever for fuel. It pays to have them even if you
still have to have a full set of fossil or nuke plants, that can carry
the load with no wind. No wind across the entire state is unlikely to
say the least. When the wind blows you put fossil plants on standby,
and don't burn the fuel.
>So you have to maintain two systems.... how much carbon does it take to
>care for two seperate power systems than just one ?
It takes next to no carbon to maintain a wind generator. Maybe a coat
of paint every ten years. Change the oil once a year?
As for big coal plants, it's still negligible. By carbon for 'care',
you must mean the gas it takes some of the employees to drive to work.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> I'M MAD AS HELL......
>
> It's just insane. Oil was as low as $8 a barrel under Pres Clinton.
> It increased by $60 a barrel just in the /last year/.
>
> Let's just extrapolate that price increase out a few years, to...say...about the
> time NASA gets to kick around a few more Moon Rocks in the year 2025
> give or take ten?
>
> I wonder how history will remember this time, when we had a choice between a
> New Moon Base, or the Space Solar Power (SSP) program axed by President
> Bush upon taking office.
It, probably won't remember an idiot Bush at all.
Since NASA funds far more computer research, solar energy
research,
optics research, communications research, telescope research,
physics research, aeronautics research, and robot research
than it does GM idiots like Bush.
Richard Casady
<@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>Richard Casady wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to help the world build wind farms,
>>
>> Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
>> solar, it works at night.
>
>What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?
Those conditions are relatively rare in Iowa. It is a windy place.
They call Chicago the windy city, but Des Moines is windier.
BradGuth
There's nothing good about mining, hauling, processing and the burning
of coal, or that of most any other fossil fuel, especially considering
their birth-to-grave impact of byproducts plus loads of soot laced
with CO2 and NOx (not to mention a few too many other good and bad
elements).
. - Brad Guth
Rand Simberg
richar...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:33:41 -0400, Poetic Justice
><@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>
>>Richard Casady wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you want to help the world build wind farms,
>>>
>>> Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
>>> solar, it works at night.
>>
>>What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?
>
>Those conditions are relatively rare in Iowa. It is a windy place.
>They call Chicago the windy city, but Des Moines is windier.
They call Chicago the Windy City because of its bloviating
politicians. It has nothing to do with the weather.
BradGuth
Duh, or perhaps double duh. Christ almighty, is your entire genetic
gene pool that pathetic?
. - BG
Poetic Justice
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:33:41 -0400, Poetic Justice
> <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>
>> Richard Casady wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you want to help the world build wind farms,
>>> Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
>>> solar, it works at night.
>> What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?
>
> Those conditions are relatively rare in Iowa. It is a windy place.
> They call Chicago the windy city, but Des Moines is windier.
> ,
At least they have that.
Poetic Justice
Summer hot still? Missouri is windy in spring and fall too but summer is
hot and still.
Good Luck to Chicago I hope they get air conditioning on the hot days
they need it, they could brown out like the Northeast does.
Richard Casady
wrote:
>There's nothing good about mining, hauling, processing and the burning
>of coal, or that of most any other fossil fuel, especially considering
>their birth-to-grave impact of byproducts plus loads of soot laced
>with CO2 and NOx (not to mention a few too many other good and bad
>elements).
Your post has nothing to do with the subject under discussion which is
wind power.
Casady
Richard Casady
Simberg) wrote:
>They call Chicago the Windy City because of its bloviating
>politicians. It has nothing to do with the weather.
That isn't true, of course, but so what? Good one.
Casady
Richard Casady
<@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 16:44:34 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>> richar...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) made the phosphor on my
>> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:33:41 -0400, Poetic Justice
>>> <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Casady wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>>> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to help the world build wind farms,
>>>>> Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
>>>>> solar, it works at night.
>>>> What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?
>>> Those conditions are relatively rare in Iowa. It is a windy place.
>>> They call Chicago the windy city, but Des Moines is windier.
>>
>> They call Chicago the Windy City because of its bloviating
>> politicians. It has nothing to do with the weather.
>
>Summer hot still? Missouri is windy in spring and fall too but summer is
> hot and still.
>
>Good Luck to Chicago I hope they get air conditioning on the hot days
>they need it, they could brown out like the Northeast does.
Very few die in Des Moines, and they do in Chicago. I understand that
many there have nailed all their windows shut, due to crime, and have
no air conditioner, just a fan or two. In the sixties a window fan, 20
inch, cost about 20 bucks. They still are about that, or were before
the butt fell off the dollar. There are people in DM that donate fans
to the poor during heat waves. Summer weather sucks in Iowa and all
points to the South. There_is_ a lake on the Minn border that isn't
bad.
Casady
Alain Fournier
Richard Casady wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:09:35 -0400, Call Me Ishmael
> <@OutSourcedNews.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Poetic Justice wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Casady wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>><am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you want to help the world build wind farms,
>>>>
>>>>Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
>>>>solar, it works at night.
>>>
>>>What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?
>>>
>>
>>On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....
>
>
> You fire up a standby gas turbine plant. They have one of those in
> downtown Des Moines. Doesn't even have a stack or cooling towers and
> it's not all obtrusive. Wind generators are not expensive to build and
> there is no cost whatever for fuel. It pays to have them even if you
> still have to have a full set of fossil or nuke plants, that can carry
> the load with no wind. No wind across the entire state is unlikely to
> say the least. When the wind blows you put fossil plants on standby,
> and don't burn the fuel.
You have the right idea but a few mistakes in the implementation.
You don't want a full set of coal or nuke plants. Those take days
to restart and weather forecast still isn't perfect. You want
something that can be started in minutes. The gas turbine will do
the trick. Even better is hydro-power, you can start or stop
a turbine in a hydro-power plant in seconds, and the turbine
itself is cheap, its the dam that is expensive. When you
shutdown a few turbines at a hydro-electric dam, the dam is still
doing its work, it is accumulating water for when the wind will
go down. Here, in Quebec, we have added turbines to our dams so
we can make electricity at a rate that would not be sustainable
by the amount of rain we get. We can deplete our reservoirs when
the wind is down and replenish them when there is more wind.
Also, your claim that no wind across the entire state is unlikely
is not good. Weather patterns are rather large entities.
Alain Fournier
BradGuth
wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 10:09:12 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There's nothing good about mining, hauling, processing and the burning
> >of coal, or that of most any other fossil fuel, especially considering
> >their birth-to-grave impact of byproducts plus loads of soot laced
> >with CO2 and NOx (not to mention a few too many other good and bad
> >elements).
>
> Your post has nothing to do with the subject under discussion which is
> wind power.
>
> Casady
I was first with a composite of wind and solar power solutions, and
YOU had nothing good to say, same as your friend lord Mook had nothing
good to say. It's bipolar folks like yourself that suck.
My average 40 kw/m2 of tower footprint of energy density has been
technically doable. (yours?)
If it was illegal to consume atmosphere for the burning of fossil or
synfuel, then only solar PV, wind, tidal and geothermal options would
have to do.
Earth soon enough needs 100 terawatts of sustainable, clean and
renewable energy. This can not be accomplished by way of coal or from
most any alternative form of fossil fuels.
So, what is your best and most affordable plan of action?
. - Brad Guth
Pat Flannery
Call Me Ishmael wrote:
>>>
>>> Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
>>> solar, it works at night.
>>
>> What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or
>> breeze?
>>
>>
>
> On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....
>
> So you have to maintain two systems.... how much carbon does it take
> to care for two seperate power systems than just one ?
Since they are making 5% via wind, that implies they are making 95% some
other way.
I think the 5% is a average over a year's time.... on still days 0% is
coming from wind, on very windy days more than 5% of it is being made
via wind, and it averages out at 5%.
States sell electric power to each other, so if the wind farms out
turning out much power, it can come into the state from other sources.
My state of North Dakota is starting to build more wind farms - as we
are the windiest state in the nation and have vast areas of basically
empty and flat farmland that the wind generators can be built on.
Pat
Poetic Justice
Is the land *dual use* wind generator/food crops? Or does the wind farm
just farm wind?
More land out of truck farming use would raise food costs even more than
now with Alcohol grains pushing out the Food.
Richard Casady
<@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>Is the land *dual use* wind generator/food crops? Or does the wind farm
>just farm wind?
The area occupied by the tower is tiny compared to even a small farm.
It would interfere somewhat with growing grain, no effect on grazing.
>More land out of truck farming use would raise food costs even more than
>now with Alcohol grains pushing out the Food.
There is no truck farming [to speak of] in the Dakotas, and not much
in Iowa.
Casady
jonathan
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:5uGdnYER0uiix7jV...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
You seem to find the threads I start worth jumping in on.
Would that make you a hypocrite?
A troll is typically a post that is not well-meaning.
So compare my posts to your replies to me?
Which is well-meaning, and which is not?
>
> Pat
Totorkon
> "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The installed wind electric capacity in the US was 16.8 Gw in 2007,
roughly 17 three mile island sized pwrs or more than three 5GW spss.
If wind comprises more than 20% of generation, problems with supply vs
demand become important but could be handled with pumped storage,
pressurised air or more exotic possibilities.
The subject is relevant. Should treasure be spent on earthbound green
power of known fiscal risk, that can be advanced incrementally, or on
what most people would consider to be 'pie in the sky'.
Pat Flannery
Poetic Justice wrote:
>>
>> Pat
>
> Is the land *dual use* wind generator/food crops? Or does the wind
> farm just farm wind?
The ones I've seen are dual use, with the tower for the wind turbine
coming out of a field, surrounded by a fenced-in area at its base of
around 150 feet on a side. Since everything is pretty much flat in the
eastern half of the state, it's very easy for tractors and combines to
navigate around the wind turbines as they do their farming, or cattle to
graze on the land if ranching is done.
>
> More land out of truck farming use would raise food costs even more
> than now with Alcohol grains pushing out the Food.
It's a matter of size; even thousands of wind towers would take up only
a very small fraction of the state's farming area (plus they could be
built on land that was unsuitable for farming), besides which, we are at
nowhere near maximum farming capability at the moment.
The high food prices at the moment are due to several factors, including:
1.) Many farmers devoted large areas of farmland to corn production as
its sales price rose when it used for ethanol production. This in turn
meant that less area was devoted to wheat production, causing its price
to rise.
2.) Corn served as a staple feed source for farm animals such as cattle,
pigs, and chickens - causing their prices to also increase as the price
of corn increased.
3.) Farm production uses a large amount of oil and natural gas derived
products, such as fuel for the farm machinery, oil-based insecticides
and herbicides, as well as nitrogen fertilizers...so as the price of oil
rose so did production costs.
4.) Getting the raw farm produce to the places where they are processed
into foods, and from there to market, requires moving large amounts of
heavy product (such as grains) via either truck or railway. Since both
these use diesel fuel, and that has gone way up in price, this also adds
to the final price of the food.
At least in the case of #1, things should get better fairly
shortly...the rising price of wheat has led to more planting of it this
year, and the rising price of corn is making ethanol production by that
means increasingly uneconomic.
I think the whole corn-produced ethanol process is going to be looked
back on as a major mistake, although other means might be very feasible
The wild switchgrass that naturally grows in abundance in our state
could be harvested after only comparatively minor input in regards to
fertilization and care.
Its energy output per energy input in its production is 20 times greater
than that of corn.
Since the switchgrass will regrow every year without needing to be
reseeded, will grow on poor quality land, and can serve as cattle feed
also, it really has great potental for solving a lot of problems at once.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Richard Casady wrote:
> The area occupied by the tower is tiny compared to even a small farm.
> It would interfere somewhat with growing grain, no effect on grazing.
>
About the only problem you'd hit round here would be with birds.
We have vast numbers of ducks and geese migrating over the state at
night in spring and fall, and some of those are bound to hit the blades
on the wind turbines. This might be able to be prevented by either
mounting high intensity LEDs on the blades themselves or illuminating
them via floodlights on the ground near the turbine, so that the birds
could see them in the night and avoid them.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Totorkon wrote:
> The installed wind electric capacity in the US was 16.8 Gw in 2007,
> roughly 17 three mile island sized pwrs or more than three 5GW spss.
> If wind comprises more than 20% of generation, problems with supply vs
> demand become important but could be handled with pumped storage,
> pressurised air or more exotic possibilities.
>
> The subject is relevant. Should treasure be spent on earthbound green
> power of known fiscal risk, that can be advanced incrementally, or on
> what most people would consider to be 'pie in the sky'.
>
I've got Johnathan killfiled, as I consider him off his rocker...but
Earthbound versus space-based power generation is a interesting question
as far as cost-versus-benefits goes.
Certainly the Earth-based systems are a lot easier and cheaper to do
maintenance on, and also easier to tie into the present power grid.
This is a interesting project: http://www.enviromission.com.au/index.htm
Also, there was a recent development regarding "superinsulators" that
could surround superconducting power cables:
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2008/MSD080404.html
Pat
Totorkon
The problem with a solar updraft tower is that it is only about half a
percent efficient, and that 1000m tower would have 200m on the Burj
Dubai.
One thing space solar power does have is a fairly good energy return
on energy investment. Even with losses of close to 60% from the
electrolysis and liquification of H2, a power satellite could put its
twin in orbit in under two years.
A Gw year (Gwyr?) is worth about $1G, or will be soon. That works out
to about half the cost of delivery at the going rate, about $20000/Kg
for a 25yr lifespan, 25000 ton 5Gw sps. At $2000/Kg to leo the sps
option merits serious study.
The developement of space solar to power ion drives and hall thrusters
for robotic missions and equipment transport would have independant
merit, but so much the better if this ties into what should be NASA's
ultimate pie pan in the sky purpose. Absurd, possibly; audacious...
well that was part of the job discription that resulted in tranquility
base.
BradGuth
As per Usenet/Group dumbfounded usual, most here are all quite
certifiably crazy, and otherwise running decades behind the fossil,
thorium and renewable energy ball. I guess your having been
continually snookered to death and “no child left behind” dumbfounded
past the point of no return is what suits your incest cultivated Borg
like clown collective, as representing 99.9% of these mostly bogus and
otherwise pretentious Usenet/Groups that’ll go along with anything
DARPA or otherwise Semitic Third Reich, that which you have custom
made in charge of protecting and sustaining your bogus past, your
LLPOF present and thereby unavoidably skewed to death future, on
behalf of all-out protecting your status quo butts, or bust.
No wonder we’re headed for the truly hard times of either WWIII and/or
that of our self inflected demise. The American version of being dumb
and dumber has come home.
Since the laws of physics haven't changed, and the technology of
obtaining clean and renewable energy has existed for decades, where's
the supposed all-American form of our can-do action that's doing to
fix everything, by delivering those badly needed terawatts of
affordably clean and renewable energy in any sufficient surplus (w/o
ENRON or ExxonMobile getting any piece of the action)?
Do any of you silly folks have a viable collective plan of action? (I
didn’t think so)
Is there ever going to be a Usenet collective mindset, other than auto-
destructive? (I didn’t think so)
Even those terribly space consuming Mook PV farms, intended for mostly
creating his commercial volumes of supposedly cheap H2, would have
become a thousand percent better off than anything coming out of this
pathetic anti-think-tank group of spooks, moles and rusemasters of the
faith-based naysay puppet-master kind. It seems your _ New World
Order _ will have arrived, except with no good reason for the rich and
powerful to share squat, at least not at one cartel motivated cent
less than the global market will bare.
You do realize the conventional fossil oil reserves are getting down
towards those foreseeable dregs, plus artificially made spendy as hell
alternatives (such as oil shale or even coal gasification), that for
the most part we’re being continually lied to by those of our very own
bipolar greedy and arrogant kind (usually pretend-atheists that only
act as though a Zionist would).
With the energy sucking needs of China being in charge of our global
spot-energy markets, the ongoing fossil sprint for all the profits
that can be extracted from us is stuck on full speed ahead, whereas we
should expect local energy and food to double in cost by the next year
from now (in many nations it has already more than accomplished just
that within less than the last year of inflation), with most of
everything else increasing by as much as 50%. For us that’ll
represent less than 64 years worth of 6400% energy inflation, making
brown-nosed minions and clowns like yourselves very happy campers.
Screw the laws of physics and exclude whatever truth doesn’t go along
with the cloak of your Old Testament ruse. God forbid, you folks as
minions of DARPA wouldn’t want to rock your trickle-up policy of that
trusty mainstream good ship LOLLIPOP, now would you. You’d much
rather topic/author stalk, bash and continue to banish the truth as
you continually lie through your infomercial spewing butt-cheeks. PR
infowar hype on behalf of damage-control is apparently the best this
group of incest cloned brown-nosed clowns can muster.
. - Brad Guth
On May 6, 6:17 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote:
> I'M MAD AS HELL......
>
> It's just insane. Oil was as low as $8 a barrel under Pres Clinton.
> It increased by $60 a barrel just in the /last year/.
>
> Let's just extrapolate that price increase out a few years, to...say...about the
> time NASA gets to kick around a few more Moon Rocks in the year 2025
> give or take ten?
>
> I wonder how history will remember this time, when we had a choice between a
> New Moon Base, or the Space Solar Power (SSP) program axed by President
> Bush upon taking office.
>
Scott Hedrick
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:aab6e40d-6bc1-4835...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
It, probably won't remember an idiot Bush at all.
Of course not- but history will remember both Bush presidencies, with
distinction.
> Are we living in an era of denial, insanity or stupidity?
Not since Clinton left office.
>
> I can't think
Well stated.
>
> Hey, you NASA guys want larger budgets??? SSP is the path to
> long term public and Congressional support.
Write a check, then.
> ..lack of foresight is exceeded only by it's
> ..lack of backbone.
Then you don't want a Democrat elected.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Scott Hedrick
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:48367f63....@news.east.earthlink.net...
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 17:40:51 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
> <dinehn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:42e9b088-3cd2-4e96...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> What happened to Bush's promise in 2000 to use his connections with
>>> the Saudis to keep oil prices down?
>>
>>It's *working*. The demand has skyrocketed, particularly because of China.
>>We should have seen these prices years ago.
>
> Yes, China. I wish the US didn't do business with them: they don't
> like us and the leadership are scum.
> I think China has quite a bit of coal.
And a lot fewer people standing in the way of using it.
> As can the US, we have vast quantities of the coal and a fair ammount
> of oil. Canada has vast ammounts of tar sands. I believe they are
> developing them as fast as they can.
At the current price, it's cost effective.
> I wonder how high the price can go.
Hang on!
Scott Hedrick
>They still are about that, or were before
> the butt fell off the dollar.
See? I told ya to save all them Canadian quarters!
Richard Casady
<dinehn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:484fa5ae....@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>They still are about that, or were before
>> the butt fell off the dollar.
>
>See? I told ya to save all them Canadian quarters!
>
I like the dime, but then I built a plastic model of the Bluenose when
I was a kid.
Casady
BradGuth
wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:05:39 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
>
>
> >"Richard Casady" <richardcas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:484fa5ae....@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >>They still are about that, or were before
> >> the butt fell off the dollar.
>
> >See? I told ya to save all them Canadian quarters!
>
> I like the dime, but then I built a plastic model of the Bluenose when
> I was a kid.
>
> Casady
It's all a fun game, isn't it. Doesn't matter how much grief and
death comes to others. Isn't Usenet/Groups so warm and fuzzy, and
without every a speck of remorse.
. - Brad Guth
Whata Fool
Can you say just what the hell you are talking about, is there
anybody in the world that doesn't care what happens to others.
But how many people can actually do anything to avoid or
prevent others from grief and death?
The terrorists could if they stopped killing people.
People could be more aware of the weather and seek shelter
in time and be safe.
Other than that, just what the hell _are_ you talking about,
in a stupid newsgroup about a myth being used by scammers of all
kinds to make money and distort political views?
Pat Flannery
Totorkon wrote:
> Dubai.
>
> One thing space solar power does have is a fairly good energy return
> on energy investment. Even with losses of close to 60% from the
> electrolysis and liquification of H2, a power satellite could put its
> twin in orbit in under two years.
>
We could make amazing strides in energy savings for transporting goods
via electrically driven trains that ride on new, wider, tracks laid
across the US.
Are we going to do this?
No, of course not.
The initial investment would be too high - especially when it came to
increasing the size of the railway tunnels that run through the
mountains, and adding the the electrical power supply towers that the
trains run under and draw their energy from.
In the case of SPS, kick that initial expense up via a order of
magnitude or three, and you realize the initial investment this is going
to require.
There's no easy way for us to get from where we are to that wonder world
in a incremental manner that a company or government could afford.
For starters, you need _huge_ SSTO vehicles - that no one knows how to
make yet - that can carry worthwhile payloads.
Figuring out how to build those (assuming they are even possible with
existing or near-term future technology) is going to eat up tens of
billions of dollars by the time they are done.
Then there's the whole infrastructure cost for launching and servicing
them; that's what really killed of the 1930's passenger dirigibles...the
dirigibles themselves weren't all that expensive...but the hangers,
mooring masts, and ground crew needed at anywhere they were going to
operate from nailed the whole concept from a monetary point of view.
In the case of the SPS concept, you can launch them all up into GEO from
the same place and have them return to it somewhere near the equator.
But all the microwave antennas needed to get the power down, and use it
in the US, are complex and expensive due to our limited ability to
transmit power over very long distances without excessive losses during
transmission.
> A Gw year (Gwyr?) is worth about $1G, or will be soon. That works out
> to about half the cost of delivery at the going rate, about $20000/Kg
> for a 25yr lifespan, 25000 ton 5Gw sps. At $2000/Kg to leo the sps
> option merits serious study.
>
> The developement of space solar to power ion drives and hall thrusters
> for robotic missions and equipment transport would have independant
> merit, but so much the better if this ties into what should be NASA's
> ultimate pie pan in the sky purpose. Absurd, possibly; audacious...
> well that was part of the job discription that resulted in tranquility
> base.
>
As I said, it's the initial capital investment needed to get it done
that's going to be the killer.
No company on the planet has that much money to throw at the project,
despite the profits to be realized once it's completed.
Therefore, it must be a project done by either one or more governments.
And who gets the profits from it once it's completed at public expense?
I frankly wouldn't want to throw hundreds or thousands of my tax dollars
at it on a yearly basis over a decade or so ...so that Lockheed and
Exxon can reap the profits from it as they sell the electrical power
generated by it to me till the day I die.
If you are going to do something like that, then make it publicly funded
and owned...as well as run on a non-profit basis like the TVA's
hydroelectric dams from the 1930's..
Pat
BradGuth
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 11, 7:19 pm, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady)
> >wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:05:39 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
>
> >> <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"Richard Casady" <richardcas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:484fa5ae....@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >> >>They still are about that, or were before
> >> >> the butt fell off the dollar.
>
> >> >See? I told ya to save all them Canadian quarters!
>
> >> I like the dime, but then I built a plastic model of the Bluenose when
> >> I was a kid.
>
> >> Casady
>
> >It's all a fun game, isn't it. Doesn't matter how much grief and
> >death comes to others. Isn't Usenet/Groups so warm and fuzzy, and
> >without every a speck of remorse.
> >. -BradGuth
>
> Can you say just what the hell you are talking about, is there
> anybody in the world that doesn't care what happens to others.
Obviously you don't care.
What part of Usenet/newsgroups honestly cares about humanity, our
frail environment and the truth about physics and science? (you
certainly don't)
These supposedly smart folks are off on some other planet, where being
a liar and a born-again rusemaster is their status quo.
>
> But how many people can actually do anything to avoid or
> prevent others from grief and death?
Anyone can simply stop lying to themselves and others.
Anyone can accept the regular laws of physics.
Anyone can accept the best available science.
If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.
>
> The terrorists could if they stopped killing people.
I agree that our GW Bush and company of brown-nosed minions (plus
those before his time in office) should stop causing the likes of cold
wars and 911, and especially stop killing those mostly innocent
Muslims, all because of his bogus wars that were intended to inflate
the global cost of energy, and otherwise to control as much of that
Muslim oil as he and his oily friends could muster.
I agree that we should stop allowing our AGW and natural GW process to
be killing off innocent folks and otherwise causing so much collateral
damage, because such has nearly always been technically doable.
>
> People could be more aware of the weather and seek shelter
> in time and be safe.
You have to be minimal educated (I'm talking basic 5th grader), and of
course your state and federal government has to actually give a
tinkers damn.
>
> Other than that, just what the hell _are_ you talking about,
> in a stupid newsgroup about a myth being used by scammers of all
> kinds to make money and distort political views?
99.9% of newsgroups is bogus, including most of what the likes of
yourself and others think is the truth.
How much of whatever is government infowar/infomercial hype is
actually truth worthy?
The public via newsgroups is being continually lied to, as well as
having evidence excluded on a fairly regular basis, and apparently you
think that's perfectly OK.
You do realize that our mutually perpetrated cold-war was also
entirely bogus, and that we have not walked on our moon. (why of
course you don't, because you are either an idiot or one of them)
. - Brad Guth
Vincent Brannigan
>
> If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
> 6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
> go, then do share and share alike.
O , who can argue with that
Just a question
how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?
64 years ago was 1944.
For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2006_fcvt_fotw426.html
$2.28 in 2005 dollars
Vince
BradGuth
>
> $2.28 in 2005 dollars
>
> Vince
What's the matter, isn't 6400% of fossil energy inflation in 64 years
quit good enough?
The automation and technology of delivering fossil energy has more
than cut their man-hours/barrel to something far less than 10% of what
it used to take.
Even coal gasification is nearly all automated, at perhaps not 1% of
the original man-hours/barrel in the 1940's (such as what Germany had
to cope with).
By this time next year we'll be at or above the 64:1 inflation mark of
such energy cost, and most of everything else catching up by
unavoidably following suit at perhaps as great as 32:1 per 64 year
span.
In the 1940's the fossil fuel consumption average per individual
wasn't hardly anything to speak of (in many developing nations it was
nothing) and even next to nothing in China, so it's not exactly a fair
example of true global inflation, because if we'd been using as much
fossil energy per individual back in the 1940's would only make this
energy inflation seem much greater.
Playing games with words or numbers isn't making life any better or
more affordable, but then what our faith-based puppet government does
best is to snooker and dumbfound as many of us village idiots as they
BradGuth
>
> $2.28 in 2005 dollars
>
> Vince
If we all had the “USA inflation adjusted” income to go along with
your “USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline”, as such there
wouldn’t hardly any problem, whereas I too could manage to get by on
that USA inflation adjusted income of $10,000/month (same as $156.25/
mo as of 64 years ago).
. – Brad Guth
BradGuth
>
> $2.28 in 2005 dollars
>
> Vince
What's the matter, isn't 6400% of fossil energy inflation within 64
years quit good enough?
The automation and technology of delivering fossil energy has more
than cut their man-hours/barrel to something far less than 10% of what
it used to take (if not as little as 1%).
Even coal gasification is nearly all automated, at perhaps not 1% of
the original man-hours/barrel in the 1940's (such as what Germany and
Hitler had to cope with).
By this time next year we'll likely be soaring at or above the 64:1
inflation mark of such energy cost, and most of everything else
catching up by unavoidably following suit at perhaps as great as 32:1
per 64 year span.
In the 1940's the fossil fuel consumption average per individual
wasn't hardly anything to speak of (in many developing nations it
_was_ nothing) and even next to nothing in China, so it's not exactly
a fair and square example of true global inflation, because if we'd
been using as much fossil energy per individual back in the 1940's
would only make this energy inflation seem much greater.
Playing those silly damage-control games with words or numbers isn't
making our lives any better or more affordable, but then what our
faith-based puppet government does best is to snooker and dumbfound as
many of us village idiots as they can muster.
If we all had the “USA inflation adjusted” income to go along with
your “USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline”, as such there
wouldn’t hardly be any problem, whereas I too could manage to get by
on that USA inflation adjusted income of $10,000/month after federal
tax, in personal loot (same as $156.25/mo as of 64 years ago).
How much were you earning (take home pay) as of 64 years ago?
. – Brad Guth
Vincent Brannigan
> On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>
>>> If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
>>> 6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
>>> go, then do share and share alike.
>> O , who can argue with that
>>
>> Just a question
>>
>> how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?
>>
>> 64 years ago was 1944.
>>
>> For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see
>>
>> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2006_fcvt_fotw426....
>>
>> $2.28 in 2005 dollars
>>
>> Vince
>
> What's the matter, isn't 6400% of fossil energy inflation in 64 years
> quit good enough?
>
I can inflate balloons or prices or currency
But the laws of thermodynamics preclude inflating energy
Vincent Brannigan
We have established that you can't read
now you prove that you cant multiply
the inflation correction for 156.25 in 1944 is $1,840.38 at the present
time
http://www.aier.org/research/cost-of-living-calculator/
Vincent M Brannigan
U of Maryland Consumer Economics Program
Assistant Prof 1977-83
Associate Prof 1983-1991
Professor 1991-92
have a nice day
BradGuth
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-003.pdf
“i n 1946 and resided in nonfarm areas was about $2,100 as compared
with $1,000 for women”
Divide that average income roughly in half for the typical nonwhite or
farm worker (this only applies to the nonfamily employed worker
because, the bulk of whatever the local/farm family member received
was paid via room and board).
Since I would have been much higher paid than average, by at least
twice that average of $175/month, makes my 1946 earnings worth $350/
month. Now multiply that by 64 = $22,400/month.
As I’d said, no problem with spending $5/gallon, as long as I had the
after tax take-home loot of $22,400/month to spend.
Of course that still doesn't fix a damn thing for most other places on
Earth, that are simply getting summarily screwed left and right as
well as top to bottom by the fossil fuel sucking and global inflation
likes of yourself. And here you sit and wonder, as to why Muslims and
a few too many other nice and low carbon footprint kind of folks are a
little pissed.
Do you even know the meaning of _duh_?
. – Brad Guth
BradGuth
You know exactly what I'd meant. Proves who you really are, doesn't
it.
. - BG
Vincent Brannigan
This is where you make your mistake
Read the cite
so far you fail the quiz
>
> Do you even know the meaning of _duh_?
> . – Brad Guth
yes it is the typical response of students who are so limited in
background or cognitive ability that they cannot answer a question
Vince
Vincent Brannigan
> On May 12, 2:36 pm, Vincent Brannigan <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>> On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>>>> BradGuth wrote:
>>>>> If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
>>>>> 6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
>>>>> go, then do share and share alike.
>>>> O , who can argue with that
>>>> Just a question
>>>> how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?
>>>> 64 years ago was 1944.
>>>> For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see
>>>> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2006_fcvt_fotw426....
>>>> $2.28 in 2005 dollars
>>>> Vince
>>> What's the matter, isn't 6400% of fossil energy inflation in 64 years
>>> quit good enough?
>> I can inflate balloons or prices or currency
>>
>> But the laws of thermodynamics preclude inflating energy
>>
>
> You know exactly what I'd meant. Proves who you really are, doesn't
> it.
> . - BG
I've told you who I am
I'm a real person
you are either a bot or a 4th grader
Vince
Whata Fool
>On May 11, 10:07 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 11, 7:19 pm, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady)
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:05:39 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
>>
>> >> <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >"Richard Casady" <richardcas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:484fa5ae....@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> >> >>They still are about that, or were before
>> >> >> the butt fell off the dollar.
>>
>> >> >See? I told ya to save all them Canadian quarters!
>>
>> >> I like the dime, but then I built a plastic model of the Bluenose when
>> >> I was a kid.
>>
>> >> Casady
>>
>> >It's all a fun game, isn't it. Doesn't matter how much grief and
>> >death comes to others. Isn't Usenet/Groups so warm and fuzzy, and
>> >without every a speck of remorse.
>> >. -BradGuth
>>
>> Can you say just what the hell you are talking about, is there
>> anybody in the world that doesn't care what happens to others.
>
>Obviously you don't care.
I asked what you are talking about.
>What part of Usenet/newsgroups honestly cares about humanity, our
>frail environment and the truth about physics and science? (you
>certainly don't)
Frail environment your butt, obviously you do not try to keep
brush and weeds from taking over.
With stupid and unfair socialist ordinances threatening $500 fines
for weeds more than 12 inches, and the weeds growing an inch a day,
owning property a chore or very costly.
>These supposedly smart folks are off on some other planet, where being
>a liar and a born-again rusemaster is their status quo.
Instead of ranting, why not just say what you are talkin about.
>> But how many people can actually do anything to avoid or
>> prevent others from grief and death?
>
>Anyone can simply stop lying to themselves and others.
How does lying cause grief and death?
>Anyone can accept the regular laws of physics.
>
>Anyone can accept the best available science.
If real experience does not contradict it, sure.
>If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
>6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
>go, then do share and share alike.
Show where you get a number like 64 times as much fossil fuel
used, the US has only increased total energy use 3.5 times the 1950
level, so the rest of the world must be going wild using energy.
>> The terrorists could if they stopped killing people.
>
>I agree that our GW Bush and company of brown-nosed minions (plus
>those before his time in office) should stop causing the likes of cold
>wars and 911, and especially stop killing those mostly innocent
>Muslims, all because of his bogus wars that were intended to inflate
>the global cost of energy, and otherwise to control as much of that
>Muslim oil as he and his oily friends could muster.
Maybe there is something to "those before his time in office),
guess what might have made Bin Laden mad enough to plan and finance 911.
>I agree that we should stop allowing our AGW and natural GW process to
>be killing off innocent folks and otherwise causing so much collateral
>damage, because such has nearly always been technically doable.
And you know of a case where AGW and natural GW has caused
killing and damage?
>> People could be more aware of the weather and seek shelter
>> in time and be safe.
>
>You have to be minimal educated (I'm talking basic 5th grader), and of
>course your state and federal government has to actually give a
>tinkers damn.
People need to watch out for themselves and their family,
no government has the resources to play daddy to everybody.
All the governments can do is issue warnings, and pay for
part of the damage weeks later. That is what FEMA does.
>> Other than that, just what the hell _are_ you talking about,
>> in a stupid newsgroup about a myth being used by scammers of all
>> kinds to make money and distort political views?
>
>99.9% of newsgroups is bogus, including most of what the likes of
>yourself and others think is the truth.
Name something that is bogus.
>How much of whatever is government infowar/infomercial hype is
>actually truth worthy?
There is a lot more to everyday life than reading opinions.
>The public via newsgroups is being continually lied to, as well as
>having evidence excluded on a fairly regular basis, and apparently you
>think that's perfectly OK.
Asshole, 99 percent of the public has no clue about newsgroups
even existing, and 80 percent of the one percent that know about newsgroups
don't read or participate.
You need to get out more and see the truth, you won't find it here.
>You do realize that our mutually perpetrated cold-war was also
>entirely bogus,
Where were you on 911?
Where were you when Bush told the world that any country
supporting terrorism would be considered the same as the terrorists?
Where were you when Saddam was paying $50,000 to the
surviving family of homicide terror bombers?
> and that we have not walked on our moon. (why of
>course you don't, because you are either an idiot or one of them)
>. - Brad Guth
No, we have not walked on the moon, only a few astronauts have,
but apparently you are as bizarre and goofy as Scott Nutts.
Totorkon
> Totorkon wrote:
> > Dubai.
>
> > One thing space solar power does have is a fairly good energy return
> > on energy investment. Even with losses of close to 60% from the
> > electrolysis and liquification of H2, a power satellite could put its
> > twin in orbit in under two years.
>
> We could make amazing strides in energy savings for transporting goods
> via electrically driven trains that ride on new, wider, tracks laid
> across the US.
> Are we going to do this?
> No, of course not.
> The initial investment would be too high - especially when it came to
> increasing the size of the railway tunnels that run through the
> mountains, and adding the the electrical power supply towers that the
> trains run under and draw their energy from.
Your talking gauge wars. Europe uses the standard 1435mm even with
its electric trains. It would be a big step just to transfer cargos
from trucks to trains, which are four times as efficient.
> In the case of SPS, kick that initial expense up via a order of
> magnitude or three, and you realize the initial investment this is going
> to require.
> There's no easy way for us to get from where we are to that wonder world
> in a incremental manner that a company or government could afford.
> For starters, you need _huge_ SSTO vehicles - that no one knows how to
> make yet - that can carry worthwhile payloads.
> Figuring out how to build those (assuming they are even possible with
> existing or near-term future technology) is going to eat up tens of
> billions of dollars by the time they are done.
Just getting 'to orbit' rates down to a magical $1K/lb would be enough
to launch a thousand proposals and perhaps endear the public. SSTO
isn't the way to go.
> Then there's the whole infrastructure cost for launching and servicing
> them; that's what really killed of the 1930's passenger dirigibles...the
> dirigibles themselves weren't all that expensive...but the hangers,
> mooring masts, and ground crew needed at anywhere they were going to
> operate from nailed the whole concept from a monetary point of view.
Airships offered the only prospect of nonstop transalantic air
travel. The '39 Futurerama modeled a hanger that floated to face any
direction. I still hope there is a place for an aircraft that can
stay aloft without the expenditure of energy.
> In the case of the SPS concept, you can launch them all up into GEO from
> the same place and have them return to it somewhere near the equator.
> But all the microwave antennas needed to get the power down, and use it
> in the US, are complex and expensive due to our limited ability to
> transmit power over very long distances without excessive losses during
> transmission.
Atleast this aspect can have hard numbers attached to it. If its
feasibility is limited, we can know ahead of time. Other grand
proposals, whether solar plants in the southwest or wind on the
plains, have the same electrical transmission downside.
>
> > A Gw year (Gwyr?) is worth about $1G, or will be soon. That works out
> > to about half the cost of delivery at the going rate, about $20000/Kg
> > for a 25yr lifespan, 25000 ton 5Gw sps. At $2000/Kg to leo the sps
> > option merits serious study.
>
> > The developement of space solar to power ion drives and hall thrusters
> > for robotic missions and equipment transport would have independant
> > merit, but so much the better if this ties into what should be NASA's
> > ultimate pie pan in the sky purpose. Absurd, possibly; audacious...
> > well that was part of the job discription that resulted in tranquility
> > base.
>
> As I said, it's the initial capital investment needed to get it done
> that's going to be the killer.
> No company on the planet has that much money to throw at the project,
> despite the profits to be realized once it's completed.
> Therefore, it must be a project done by either one or more governments.
> And who gets the profits from it once it's completed at public expense?
> I frankly wouldn't want to throw hundreds or thousands of my tax dollars
> at it on a yearly basis over a decade or so ...so that Lockheed and
> Exxon can reap the profits from it as they sell the electrical power
> generated by it to me till the day I die.
> If you are going to do something like that, then make it publicly funded
> and owned...as well as run on a non-profit basis like the TVA's
> hydroelectric dams from the 1930's..
>
> Pat
For all the flack that comes from the rightwing, public ownership of
roads, aquaducts, dams and municipal utilities has a good record.
Regulated utilities have generally served the public interest as well.
Still, if someday private enterprise could launch, construct and
operate a power satellite for profit, it would begin a new age and the
human prospect of survival for as long as the sun shines.
BradGuth
That's odd, because I take care of roughly 5 acres, mostly by myself.
>
> >These supposedly smart folks are off on some other planet, where being
> >a liar and a born-again rusemaster is their status quo.
>
> Instead of ranting, why not just say what you are talkin about.
>
> >> But how many people can actually do anything to avoid or
> >> prevent others from grief and death?
>
> >Anyone can simply stop lying to themselves and others.
>
> How does lying cause grief and death?
Hitler, Bush and brown-nosed minions like yourself, that's how.
>
> >Anyone can accept the regular laws of physics.
>
> >Anyone can accept the best available science.
>
> If real experience does not contradict it, sure.
>
> >If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
> >6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
> >go, then do share and share alike.
>
> Show where you get a number like 64 times as much fossil fuel
> used, the US has only increased total energy use 3.5 times the 1950
> level, so the rest of the world must be going wild using energy.
>
> >> The terrorists could if they stopped killing people.
>
> >I agree that our GW Bush and company of brown-nosed minions (plus
> >those before his time in office) should stop causing the likes of cold
> >wars and 911, and especially stop killing those mostly innocent
> >Muslims, all because of his bogus wars that were intended to inflate
> >the global cost of energy, and otherwise to control as much of that
> >Muslim oil as he and his oily friends could muster.
>
> Maybe there is something to "those before his time in office),
> guess what might have made Bin Laden mad enough to plan and finance 911.
GW Bush directly financed OBL, and did a fine job of placing that last
straw upon that camel's back.
>
> >I agree that we should stop allowing our AGW and natural GW process to
> >be killing off innocent folks and otherwise causing so much collateral
> >damage, because such has nearly always been technically doable.
>
> And you know of a case where AGW and natural GW has caused
> killing and damage?
That's so typically pathetic of your bigoted self.
>
> >> People could be more aware of the weather and seek shelter
> >> in time and be safe.
>
> >You have to be minimal educated (I'm talking basic 5th grader), and of
> >course your state and federal government has to actually give a
> >tinkers damn.
>
> People need to watch out for themselves and their family,
> no government has the resources to play daddy to everybody.
> All the governments can do is issue warnings, and pay for
> part of the damage weeks later. That is what FEMA does.
Our FEMA is worth less than a fart. Most Americans don't have a 5th
grade education that means anything by international standards, and
perhaps that's why you suck.
>
> >> Other than that, just what the hell _are_ you talking about,
> >> in a stupid newsgroup about a myth being used by scammers of all
> >> kinds to make money and distort political views?
>
> >99.9% of newsgroups is bogus, including most of what the likes of
> >yourself and others think is the truth.
>
> Name something that is bogus.
I just did, and it includes the inforwar/infomercial spewing likes of
yourself.
>
> >How much of whatever is government infowar/infomercial hype is
> >actually truth worthy?
>
> There is a lot more to everyday life than reading opinions.
Those "opinions" (like those of yours) that are wrong as hell, are
getting published and accepted as the one and only word of God.
>
> >The public via newsgroups is being continually lied to, as well as
> >having evidence excluded on a fairly regular basis, and apparently you
> >think that's perfectly OK.
>
> Asshole, 99 percent of the public has no clue about newsgroups
> even existing, and 80 percent of the one percent that know about newsgroups
> don't read or participate.
>
> You need to get out more and see the truth, you won't find it here.
Now you are talking my kind of truth: "you won't find it here".
>
> >You do realize that our mutually perpetrated cold-war was also
> >entirely bogus,
>
> Where were you on 911?
Why did you avoid our "mutually perpetrated cold-war"?
>
> Where were you when Bush told the world that any country
> supporting terrorism would be considered the same as the terrorists?
>
> Where were you when Saddam was paying $50,000 to the
> surviving family of homicide terror bombers?
Right here, being a darn good American that wouldn't so much a hurt a
Muslim flea. I didn't believe the Bush crapolla back then, and I do
not believe it now, and that's obviously where we're entirely
different, in that you see nothing wrong with a million plus of those
mostly innocent Muslims as having paid the ultimate price for
sustaining the likes of yourself. Way to go, Mr. Bigot and Mr. Pro
WWIII.
BTW, how much have the Rothschilds, Bacardi and DARPA paid you and
others of your kind? (you have been government employed, haven't
you?)
>
> > and that we have not walked on our moon. (why of
> >course you don't, because you are either an idiot or one of them)
> >. -BradGuth
>
> No, we have not walked on the moon, only a few astronauts have,
> but apparently you are as bizarre and goofy as Scott Nutts.
I've said what I'm talking about far too many times, and it's the
brown-nosed minions and clowns like yourself that are clearly in
charge or simply too snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no
return, that refuse to accept anything outside of your NASA/Apollo
Qur'an.
Why don't you try being a little human instead of a born-again liar,
as well as that of an intellectual bigot.
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
The Rothschilds as German Zionist/Nazi definitely had control of the
past, in much the same way as DARPA and Bacardi maintain their more
recent grip on their past.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
You're simply amazing, what a total all American bigot and bipolar
freak that you are.
Pay me 64 times as much as 64 years ago and I'll call it good, you
fossil oil sucking asshole.
Of course, in many other places in this world that you obviously do
not care about, that would be like getting paid 256 fold more than 64
years ago.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Just a nice honest guy that worked damn hard for what little I've
got. Sorry about that. Unlike yourself, I appreciate what little
others have, especially when they are taking care of their own kind
(that is until we came along).
. - Brad Guth
Vincent Brannigan
you simply cannot do math can you?
prices have not inflated by "64 times" in 64 years
When you get to 4th grade you will start doing decimals
Since 1944 the CPI conversion factor is 11.7784
from the cite ntoed above
Conversion Factor: 11.7784
Percent Change: 1,077.84
now run along and do your homework
Vince
Richard Casady
<aert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Your talking gauge wars. Europe uses the standard 1435mm even with
>its electric trains
Give or take Spain and Russia, both of which are wider.
Casady
BradGuth
I thought them fat Rothschilds did a way better job of educating their
brown-nosed minions. In your case, guess not.
. - Brad Guth
Vincent Brannigan
>> you simply cannot do math can you?
>>
>> prices have not inflated by "64 times" in 64 years
>>
>> When you get to 4th grade you will start doing decimals
>>
>> Since 1944 the CPI conversion factor is 11.7784
>> from the cite ntoed above
>>
>> Conversion Factor: 11.7784
>> Percent Change: 1,077.84
>>
>> now run along and do your homework
>>
>> Vince
>
> I thought them fat Rothschilds did a way better job of educating their
> brown-nosed minions. In your case, guess not.
> . - Brad Guth
Your mommy is calling
go home
Vince
Pat Flannery
Totorkon wrote:
>
> Your talking gauge wars. Europe uses the standard 1435mm even with
> its electric trains. It would be a big step just to transfer cargos
> from trucks to trains, which are four times as efficient.
>
I'm talking far larger trains than we are presently using running on far
wider tracks, real monsters with boxcars of around four times their
current capacity, with the other cars that have the ability to carry
around a couple of hundred passengers.
As fuel cost increase, simple economics may make this a necessary
development for moving freight...and as a alternative to air, bus, or
automobile transport to get people places over a long distance.
>
>> In the case of SPS, kick that initial expense up via a order of
>> magnitude or three, and you realize the initial investment this is going
>> to require.
>> There's no easy way for us to get from where we are to that wonder world
>> in a incremental manner that a company or government could afford.
>> For starters, you need _huge_ SSTO vehicles - that no one knows how to
>> make yet - that can carry worthwhile payloads.
>> Figuring out how to build those (assuming they are even possible with
>> existing or near-term future technology) is going to eat up tens of
>> billions of dollars by the time they are done.
>>
>
> Just getting 'to orbit' rates down to a magical $1K/lb would be enough
> to launch a thousand proposals and perhaps endear the public. SSTO
> isn't the way to go.
>
It's the simple way to go, and simplicity may pay off in the long run
over sophisticated two or more component vehicles.
The other possibility is a giant and cheap disposable booster.
One advantage that would simplify things greatly is to build the SPS
satellites in LEO (far more benign than GEO as far as radiation goes,
and a lot easier to reach) then attach ion engines to them and let them
use their electrical generating capacity to slowly work themselves out
to their intended final orbit in GEO.
By turning the solar array full-on or edge-on to the sun as it orbits
during ascent into GEO, the array could also be used as a large solar sail.
(snip)
>
> Still, if someday private enterprise could launch, construct and
> operate a power satellite for profit, it would begin a new age and the
> human prospect of survival for as long as the sun shines.
>
Don't forget the solar wind; that's going to degrade the solar arrays
over time, so that there will be maintenance needed.
There's another big downside here:
A company that could build the SPS constellation and owns its output can
hold the countries that use that energy over a barrel.
Either you pay what they want or your country goes into a electrical
blackout.
Pat
Andrew Robert Breen
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>Don't forget the solar wind; that's going to degrade the solar arrays
>over time, so that there will be maintenance needed.
WTF would you be putting arrays outside 6-odd Earth radii geocentric distance?
Inside that, you're in the magnetosphere - that is, sheltered from the
solar wind, even at the sub-solar point in your orbit.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
BradGuth
Pay anyone 64 times whatever take-home loot they were getting as of 64
years ago, and as such I bet they'll not bitch about having to pay $5/
gallon.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> In article <O4SdnWy0EuNrZrTVnZ2dnUVZ_trin...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Don't forget the solar wind; that's going to degrade the solar arrays
> >over time, so that there will be maintenance needed.
>
> WTF would you be putting arrays outside 6-odd Earth radii geocentric distance?
> Inside that, you're in the magnetosphere - that is, sheltered from the
> solar wind, even at the sub-solar point in your orbit.
I could give you folks a rather nifty 2r platform as tethered away
from my LSE-CM/ISS that's tethered into the moon. I had plans of
providing 1.2 TW worth of laser cannon power, as to do whatever
with.
. - Brad Guth
Vincent Brannigan
as I said
study your homework
learn to do some libray work and you will stop saying such stupid things
Vince
Pat Flannery
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>
> WTF would you be putting arrays outside 6-odd Earth radii geocentric distance?
> Inside that, you're in the magnetosphere - that is, sheltered from the
> solar wind, even at the sub-solar point in your orbit.
>
Huh? Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) is at 22,233 miles up.
You hit the inner Van Allen belt at a altitude of around 430 miles.
If you aren't going to have your workers getting fried by radiation,
that means you have to have the power satellites assembled below that
altitude.
You clear the outer Van Allen belt at around 6,200 miles up, but once
you are above that altitude you still have the radiation from solar
storms to contend with.
A SPS constellation in GEO kills two birds with one stone:
The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the SOS
crosses the sky, and the receiver antennae on Earth's surface doesn't
have to be switching from one SPS to another as they rise above and fall
below the horizon (even that would be problematical for the big flat
receiver array that's generally proposed, as you want the SPS power beam
to hit it at a ninety-degree angle or close to it.)
The SPS constellation doesn't spend much time being eclipsed by the
Earth coming between it and the Sun, like at lower altitudes where
satellites go into Earth's shadow as they orbit - so power can be
generated and transmitted down pretty much 24/7 except near the spring
and fall equinoxes.
Pat
Andrew Robert Breen
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>
>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>>
>> WTF would you be putting arrays outside 6-odd Earth radii geocentric distance?
>> Inside that, you're in the magnetosphere - that is, sheltered from the
>> solar wind, even at the sub-solar point in your orbit.
>>
>
>Huh? Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) is at 22,233 miles up.
Yes..
>You hit the inner Van Allen belt at a altitude of around 430 miles.
.. which isn't the solar wind. That's out beyond the magnetopause.
Pat Flannery
Pat Flannery wrote:
>
> The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the SOS
> crosses the sky,
The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the _SPS_
crosses the sky,
Building a SOS would be a Titanic undertaking. ;-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>> You hit the inner Van Allen belt at a altitude of around 430 miles.
>>
>
> .. which isn't the solar wind. That's out beyond the magnetopause.
>
The belt's radiation is caused by the solar wind hitting the Earth's
magnetosphere; no solar wind = no radiation in the Earth's magnetosphere.
Pat
Pat
Totorkon
The face of the SPS would always be orthagonal to the sun, it would
rotate 360 deg in 365.25 days. The transmitter would rotate 360 deg
every 24hrs. Still much simpler than the 'retargeting' every ten
miniutes or so that would be required in low orbit.
Totorkon
> Totorkon wrote:
>
> > Your talking gauge wars. Europe uses the standard 1435mm even with
> > its electric trains. It would be a big step just to transfer cargos
> > from trucks to trains, which are four times as efficient.
>
> I'm talking far larger trains than we are presently using running on far
> wider tracks, real monsters with boxcars of around four times their
> current capacity, with the other cars that have the ability to carry
> around a couple of hundred passengers.
> As fuel cost increase, simple economics may make this a necessary
> development for moving freight...and as a alternative to air, bus, or
> automobile transport to get people places over a long distance.
>
flatcars four times the area, 20x 100ft, that might carry factory
housing that would be carried the last 50 miles by airship. A
subdivision in a day. At 30mph it could transport motor homes and
cars, whose owners would stay in a rolling hotel, at an efficiency of
perhaps 500mpg per ton. Instead of going through tunnels it would
have a leveling bed and assistant engines for getting over mountains.
>
>
>
> >> In the case of SPS, kick that initial expense up via a order of
> >> magnitude or three, and you realize the initial investment this is going
> >> to require.
> >> There's no easy way for us to get from where we are to that wonder world
> >> in a incremental manner that a company or government could afford.
> >> For starters, you need _huge_ SSTO vehicles - that no one knows how to
> >> make yet - that can carry worthwhile payloads.
> >> Figuring out how to build those (assuming they are even possible with
> >> existing or near-term future technology) is going to eat up tens of
> >> billions of dollars by the time they are done.
>
> > Just getting 'to orbit' rates down to a magical $1K/lb would be enough
> > to launch a thousand proposals and perhaps endear the public. SSTO
> > isn't the way to go.
>
> It's the simple way to go, and simplicity may pay off in the long run
> over sophisticated two or more component vehicles.
> The other possibility is a giant and cheap disposable booster.
I'm with Tsiolkovsky on this one. His rocket squadron was what today
would be called crossfeed or propellant transfer. It can be clunky
and cheap without bleeding edge technology.
> One advantage that would simplify things greatly is to build the SPS
> satellites in LEO (far more benign than GEO as far as radiation goes,
> and a lot easier to reach) then attach ion engines to them and let them
That's a given. There would certainly be a surplus of power on the
way to geo. Maybe an ion drive with an isp of 10000s could be
developed to do 5Gwatts justice.
> use their electrical generating capacity to slowly work themselves out
> to their intended final orbit in GEO.
> By turning the solar array full-on or edge-on to the sun as it orbits
> during ascent into GEO, the array could also be used as a large solar sail.
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > Still, if someday private enterprise could launch, construct and
> > operate a power satellite for profit, it would begin a new age and the
> > human prospect of survival for as long as the sun shines.
>
> Don't forget the solar wind; that's going to degrade the solar arrays
> over time, so that there will be maintenance needed.
> There's another big downside here:
> A company that could build the SPS constellation and owns its output can
> hold the countries that use that energy over a barrel.
> Either you pay what they want or your country goes into a electrical
> blackout.
>
> Pat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't see why the present model would change. A utility pays a
contractor to build a power plant and takes ownership at completion.
We could begin today it electricity were $1.00/Kwh.
BradGuth
As I and others with half a brain would say; start paying us 64 times
as much in take-home pay as 64 years ago and we’ll stop bitching about
the end-user cost of fossil fuel.
BTW, make that a retroactive scale, as a back-pay scale linked to the
retail+tax cost of fossil fuel. In that case you folks seriously owe
us big-time, especially if including interest.
. – Brad Guth
Vincent Brannigan
When you get to junior High they will explain it to you
your 64 times is from a comic book
Mommy is calling
Vince
BradGuth
As I'd said, by this time next year it could become 64:1
For right now I'll accept my original formula of 32:1
. - Brad Guth
Andrew Robert Breen
And, more iportantly, sotrm-time perturbations of the magenotosphere's
particle population are driven (pretty directly) by transients or
interaction structures in the solar wind (incidently, it's a /long/
time since I heard anyone refer to the high-energy particle populations
in the magnetosphere as "radiation", reserving that for emission, though
I'll admit I don't go to every magnetospheric session at every meeting
I attend - the solar wind ones are the ones I need to be at..).
If you'd said that the arrays could/would be degraded by high-energy
particles from the magnetosphere, I'd have had no arguement with
that - but saying that they'd be degraded by the solar wind is a bit
like saying that narrow chennels between islands are scoured by the
Moon (yay! And /almost/ on topic, finally, though it needed a bit
of creativity to get there!).
Yes, I'm being pedantic, but I'm in correcting someone's PhD mode.
--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales
"The internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact
with things that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with
dental floss.." (Charlie Stross)
Pat Flannery
Totorkon wrote:
> The face of the SPS would always be orthagonal to the sun, it would
> rotate 360 deg in 365.25 days. The transmitter would rotate 360 deg
> every 24hrs. Still much simpler than the 'retargeting' every ten
> miniutes or so that would be required in low orbit.
>
The low orbit one presents all sorts of problems; the receiver antenna
(or receiver antennas) would have to track it across the sky, then
switch to another SPS as the first one went below the horizon or is
eclipsed by the Earth's shadow; that's going to cause a power dip as it
re-targets itself.
Besides that problem, the satellite wont be passing over the same
orbital track on it's next orbit assuming it's in anything other than a
equatorial orbit. And at low altitude it won't rise above the horizon
over the United States in a orbit like that, so the receivers won't be
able to see it and get power from it.
This means you end up with a whole pile of SPS in inclined orbits, and
the receiver antennas swing all over the place trying to follow them.
The only disadvantage of the GEO one (other than the danger posed to it
via solar storms) is the fact that the microwave beam will spread out
further on reaching the Earth's surface, meaning a larger antenna is
needed to receive it.
but the antenna can be very simple in design and laid out flat on the
surface at low cost.
(Something along the lines of the HAARP antenna array up in
Alaska:http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/images/ovhead.jpg
....scaled up to huge size, more than a super VLA with hundreds of
receiver antennas swiveling all over the place to follow the SPS's as
they rise and set.)
Pat