New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators
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 Thursday.
(12734 previous messages)
rshow55
- 10:00am Jun 29, 2003 EST (#
12735 of 17697) Can we do a better job of finding
truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have
done and worked for on this thread.
I've been talking about large scale solutions to problems -
problems that might be thought of as "Eisenhower scale" - for
a long time. Two years ago I said this:
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/295
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6400.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/CaseyRel.html
"Here are things that I believe can be achieved --
Very large area solar cells on the
equatorial oceans. It should be possible to generate enough
hydrogen to serve all word energy needs, forever. Hydrogen
would interface well with existing energy sources and
capital installations, from early prototype stage to the
largest possible scale. This would be a practical and
permanent advance in the human condition, and would reduce
some major and chronic causes of war and conflict between
nations
The issue's been discussed on this board off and on since,
including some very good discussion with Gisterme , and
almarst , and now it seems sensible to get the idea
more focused. On the 27th 12717 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1132999@.f28e622/14385
I said I was working to block out a "briefing" that might be
given to someone with real power. That effort continues, and
I've been working with engineering details, getting more sure
of my ground. I find I'm rusty using some presentation
materials, but I'm confident of some KISS level answers to
what I wrote in http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1132999@.f28e622/14385
now:
If you wanted to permanently solve the world's energy
supply problem using a solar energy - hydrogen approach - what
would it take?
Say the "permanent solution" collects the
electrical energy equivalent of current oil production (75
million barrels/day - or 127 gigawatt/hrs/day.)
It would take a lot of area. For 30% solar
conversion efficiency near the equator - about half the area
of Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Va - a square 230 km on a side. If
collectors 1 km x 10 km were used - that would take 5,300
collectors. For 3% solar conversion efficiecy, ten times the
area and ten times the number of such collectors would be
needed. ( At 3%, - collector area would be about 75% the
area of Texas.)
It would take a lot of money, but it seems
likely that the cost could be justified. At a shadow
price of 10$/barrel energy equivalent, at the collector, a
30% efficiency collector would generate $5.15/square
meter/year - or 51.5 million dollars per "collector"/ year.
For 3% collector efficiency, values are 10 times smaller (
$.052/square meter/year ). My guess, which is only an
estimate, is that collectors with efficiencies well over 10%
and working lives longer than 10 years could be built for
between 2 and 3$/square meter.
Could this "permanent solution" to the world energy problem
be done from where we are - without any new research results -
but with competent engineering?
Yes. It seems likely that the job can
be done on a highly profitable basis - given organization.
Are there jobs to do that ought to be started now, or soon?
Yes.
Would action now involve any significant loss in ability to
accomodate opportunities from new photocell research?
No. Collection units could be built with the
collector efficiencies available - and improvements
incorporated as additional units were built.
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1132999@.f28e622/13371
makes the point that jobs happen in stages:
There's one problem getting really sure of
what needs to be done - and can actually work.
A second problem actually doing it at full
scale.
With different costs. Different procedures that have to be
applied. Different organizations needed. With interfaces that
have to work.
Stages have different costs. If a permanent solution to the
world energy problem was pretty certain after a few hundred
thousand bucks, nearly certain after a million or two - and
very certain a
rshow55
- 10:07am Jun 29, 2003 EST (#
12736 of 17697) Can we do a better job of finding
truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have
done and worked for on this thread.
Stages have different costs. If a permanent solution to
the world energy problem was pretty certain after a few
hundred thousand bucks, nearly certain after a million or two
- and very certain at all technical levels after a billion
dollars was spent - but then required a very large investment
(fully amortized in a few years) would it be worth doing?
And actually doable?
Perhaps the answer is "yes."
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1132999@.f28e622/13626
I'm working to get a presentation together that might
actually motivate action in the real world. Having some fun
working out the engineering details. My guess is that, if
someone with REAL power wanted this job done - we could be
CERTAIN that the job could be done within 12 months of today -
have hydrogen on line at significant volume in 3 years - and
have as much hydrogen as the market could reasonably absorb
within a decade. I'd like to see that done, and am working to
try.
I'm assuming that I'll be able to talk to anyone in the
world who'll see me, so far as security limitations go.
(4961 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense
|