Global Warming - how much does it matter? What should be done?

[eclipsenow]

That reminds me of the pandemic movie on n*tflix. The assumption was the govt would be on the ball. Nothing ever turns out as it seems.

Sorry mate, my writing was a bit clunky and I just re-wrote stacks of the post. But I hear you! This discussion doesn't assume the government survives the collapse. I'm talking about local individual survivors knitting together solutions from the ground up, and how that could occur a lot faster than my favourite apocalyptic movies imagine. (EG: Being Aussie, I'm a fan of Mad Max movies, especially that last crazy one Fury Road. Was it even a movie, or some sort of contemporary art experience? I'm not sure!)

 

[timothyu]

Being Aussie, I'm a fan of Mad Max movies, especially that last crazy one Fury Road. Was it even a movie, or some sort of contemporary art experience? I'm not sure!)

Yes MM was a closer reality than a little band living happily ever after with rainbows over their log cabins. But even in MM the badies still formed an alliance and the world goes back to the way it always was since the Garden.

 

[eclipsenow]

Once the first few weeks of grabbing food and ammo and resources were over, people would start trying to find out who and survived and what was going on. I think sheer self-interest would see educated middle class types immediately long for the order of the past. They would push for some sort of stripped back simplified local law and order at first, as decisions would have to be at the local village level, fast and flexible. This is where the risk of psycho war lords can take over – with their militias scaring everyone into submission. But even in this worst-case scenario there is at least a kind of order, and progress can continue. As long as the psycho has his harem and food and vanity needs met, there is some sort of order. Even crude Despots want their power systems on with hot food and cold beer and even some TV showing whatever shows they can salvage from hard drives.

But I would bet on Democracy making a quick comeback. First world nations have experienced it – and would want it back. Local citizens would vote on things, organise things, get things done. Before the year was out I’d bet that even if the national government had completely collapsed in the nuclear holocaust, that local people would have set up their own local systems of democratic law. Local mayors would start to negotiate trade deals with other village mayors. Within a few years, enough mayors might have formed together to reinstitute State laws and have a State police force and army to protect them from warlords!

 

[Francis Drake]

Moon base first
Not so fast! While my signature gives away that I'm a fan of nuclear power, and I think that's the best way to go for the next few hundred years (unless we actually crack fusion, then all bets are off as to which will be the cheapest safest and most reliable energy source), what about in 200 years or 500 years if there's a decent sized city on the moon - capable of manufacturing solar panels and firing them down a big maglev train like a giant rail gun into orbit around the earth? The moon has 1/6 the gravity and so (experts tell us) that means 1/24th the energy to launch: and all that energy would be abundant solar electricity on the moon, not fuels. Indeed, for that matter, what if it's not a city but just a village of VR operated robots from humans back here on earth? We just don't know.

Then PowerSats
Now, once those solar panels are in orbit around the earth they're in 24/7 sunshine. In space. Without an atmosphere mucking up how many photons hit the panels. The energy efficiency is much higher. Then the fact that they can now work almost 24/7 makes up for other inefficiencies in the system. Isaac Arthur (below) says every solar panel would generate about 7 times more power than here on earth.

7 times!

Basically, if Isaac Arthur says PowerSats are nearly economical now, then I'm with him! And if they're nearly economical now, then maybe they'll be ridiculously cheap if we ever build the moon base described above.

Yup, you've proved it, fairy dust!

 

[eclipsenow]

Yup, you've proved it, fairy dust!

That is not a valid argument, it's just repeated ad hom.
It's like chanting "If man were meant to fly he'd gave grown wings."

 

[Francis Drake]

That is not a valid argument, it's just repeated ad hom.
It's like chanting "If man were meant to fly he'd gave grown wings."

Oops, obviously I've hurt your feelings!
Nevertheless your argument was still plain daft.

 

[eclipsenow]

Oops, obviously I've hurt your feelings!
Nevertheless your argument was still plain daft.

(fingers in ears)
Nyeah nyeah, not listeeeeningg.

BTW, the physics of the whole thing checks out, Powersats are nearly economic now, some visualise not just PowerSats but a Luna Ring, you haven't made a valid engineering or economic argument in the last few posts and the sad reality you seem to have a limited imagination for future industries. But you don't even need an imagination - you just need to be broadly read.

Gerard O'Neill, noting the problem of high launch costs in the early 1970s, proposed building the SPS's in orbit with materials from the Moon.[68] Launch costs from the Moon are potentially much lower than from Earth, due to the lower gravity and lack of atmospheric drag. This 1970s proposal assumed the then-advertised future launch costing of NASA's space shuttle. This approach would require substantial up front capital investment to establish mass drivers on the Moon.[69] Nevertheless, on 30 April 1979, the Final Report ("Lunar Resources Utilization for Space Construction") by General Dynamics' Convair Division, under NASA contract NAS9-15560, concluded that use of lunar resources would be cheaper than Earth-based materials for a system of as few as thirty Solar Power Satellites of 10GW capacity each.[70]

In 1980, when it became obvious NASA's launch cost estimates for the space shuttle were grossly optimistic, O'Neill et al. published another route to manufacturing using lunar materials with much lower startup costs.[71] This 1980s SPS concept relied less on human presence in space and more on partially self-replicating systems on the lunar surface under remote control of workers stationed on Earth. The high net energy gain of this proposal derives from the Moon's much shallower gravitational well.

Having a relatively cheap per pound source of raw materials from space would lessen the concern for low mass designs and result in a different sort of SPS being built. The low cost per pound of lunar materials in O'Neill's vision would be supported by using lunar material to manufacture more facilities in orbit than just solar power satellites. Advanced techniques for launching from the Moon may reduce the cost of building a solar power satellite from lunar materials. Some proposed techniques include the lunar mass driver and the lunar space elevator, first described by Jerome Pearson.[72] It would require establishing silicon mining and solar cell manufacturing facilities on the Moon.[citation needed]

On the Moon[edit]
Physicist Dr David Criswell suggests the Moon is the optimum location for solar power stations, and promotes lunar-based solar power.[73][74][75] The main advantage he envisions is construction largely from locally available lunar materials, using in-situ resource utilization, with a teleoperated mobile factory and crane to assemble the microwave reflectors, and rovers to assemble and pave solar cells,[76] which would significantly reduce launch costs compared to SBSP designs. Power relay satellites orbiting around earth and the Moon reflecting the microwave beam are also part of the project. A demo project of 1 GW starts at $50 billion.[77] The Shimizu Corporation use combination of lasers and microwave for the Luna Ring concept, along with power relay satellites.[78][79]

Space-based solar power - Wikipedia​