New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(2139 previous messages)
- 09:28am May 10, 2002 EST (#2140
GI states ' Energy issues : questions that pop to mind about the
giant floating solar array,
How would you transport energy back from your 460 km square
floating solar array to someplace it would be useful? Did you say
Would electricty produced by the array be used to to operate a
giant electolysis plant or plants, also floating with the array to
separate the hydrogen from seawater?
How would you desalinate the seawater as would be necessary prior
to that process?
What would be the end-to-end efficiency of that
desalinazation/hydorgen production process? Is the massive energy
required to do those process steps taken into account in your
calculation of array size with 5% efficent solar collectors? If not
the array would have to be larger.
Naturally the hydrogen would have to be liquified to be
transported efficiently...would that be by hydrogen supertankers?
How much energy is required to cool a ton of hydrogen to liquid
temperature and maintain it there? Is that taken into account in
your array size calculation? If not, the array will need to be
For every two atoms of hydrogen separated from the distilled
seawater, there will be one atom of oxygen released also. If I
recall correctly the atomic weight of oxygen is about 16 times that
of hydrogen. So for each ton of hydrogen produced there would also
be eight tons of oxygen. What would the oxygen be used for? Maybe an
increase in percentage of atmospheric oxygen that would occur over
time be a good thing? I doubt that environmentalists would go for
such tampering with good ol' gaia. :)
What impact would a 460 km square array blocking most sunlight to
the 211,000 square km of seawater beneath it have on the temperature
of the sea? Would a cold spot that size cause changes to the nautral
circulation of ocean currents?
How would marine life in the region be effected? Would it force
changes to their natural migration patterns? Would sea mammals that
swam too far under it just drown?
What would happen to the array when a typhoon hit it?
Would removal of 5% of the solar energy that would usually heat
the region cause changes to the local weather above the array? Could
a cooler spot that size cause clouds that might defeat the purpose
of the array?
I wonder how large an explosion a hundred thousand tons of liquid
hudrogen would make if a suicide bomber set itself off aboard a
liquid hydrogen super tanker or at a large land storage facility?
Who would want one of those in their harbor? Gotta wonder. Way safer
nuclear powerplants have been pretty much rejected here in the state
for fear of what might happen if things go wrong.
You're right about there being some serious problems to solve to
deveop a technology like that, Robert; but I think you're wrong in
saying they're easier than building a MD system. It would cost
trillions of dollars to do someting like that and build the
infrastructure to to support it. If money were spent at the same
rate as is now being spent on MD I'd geuess that energy project
would take hundreds of years to complete.
I think the better place for the array would be in a large desert
like in northwest Africa, the Austrailian outback or the
southwestern US. You could lose an array that size in the western
desert of the US and still be close enough to consumers to feed the
electricty almost directly into the existing power distribution grid
without all the weather dynamics, corrosion, conversion and
transportation problems posed by a seaborne array. There would also
be far less need of a massive new energy distribution infrastructure
that conversion to a liquid hydrogen energy economy would require.
Even so, such a gigantic object would still cause a huge impact
on the local weather, flora and fauna, don't you think?
- 09:33am May 10, 2002 EST (#2141
Suicide bombers: suicide bombers often fall into the late-teen
mentality grouping. Here they see the world as right/wrong
polarised. They don't have the wisdom to take the wider perspective.
What the Palestinian freedom fighter (bombers) really want is a
'fair go' for themselves and their families. Their personnal
sacrifice relates to hopelessness.
WRT hydrogen - if it was being used in positive manner then it
would be less likely to be subject to mal pracitise than if it were
being used within a power-play.
- 09:36am May 10, 2002 EST (#2142
'You're right about there being some serious problems to
solve to develop a technology like that, Robert; but I think
you're wrong in saying they're easier than building a MD system.
It would cost trillions of dollars to do someting like
that and build the infrastructure to to support it. If money were
spent at the same rate as is now being spent on MD I'd guess that
energy project would take hundreds of years to complete.'
What sayest Showalter?
- 09:41am May 10, 2002 EST (#2143
Bush looking for the big issues to go to the people with -
- 09:52am May 10, 2002 EST (#2144
Gas to Asia from Australia raised logistical questions: http://www.wa.gov.au/tiac/forum/99entries/cox/oil3.htm
- 10:07am May 10, 2002 EST (#2145
Australia to Huston isn't far (not necessarily a relationship) ..
from the site above .. HOUSTON May 2002
Seems Texas likes to be very much involved with the world POWER
game ... and as Alex noted - the POWER GAME has been/is the C20/21
WAR GAME !
New York Times on the Web Forums Science