clv101 wrote:The space industry is one of the most energy intensive, energy expensive things we do.
It's not something to promote when facing a lower energy future.
At best it will provide a source of energy... so human civilisation will just hit the next buffer be it pollution, water, dieses etc.
A techno solution is not and can not be a long term solution. It just delays the inevitable, delays the point when growth has to stop.
The longer we manage to patch up the existing system the bigger the problems will be in the future.
Massively complex technology based endeavours are not the future!
This coming from an engineer with a masters degree in computational physics - I'm no technophobe.
Not legislation to prevent the development of techno solutions but legislation to prevent the continued growth of a fundamentally unsustainable system. For the last few centuries technology has propelled human civilisation to where it is today, consuming the resources and filling the pollution sinks of the world at almost three times the sustainable rate, causing species to become extinct at the faster rate than has ever occurred before, causing changes to the atmosphere which have the possibility to make life on this planet all but imposable.JohnDenver wrote:I asked John Markos, but I'll ask you too. Would you be in favor of legislation to prevent the development of techno solutions? You seem to be saying that technology is the gun that civilization is going to shoot itself with.
JohnDenver wrote: Why not light them up all night with mirrors?
clv101 wrote:Not legislation to prevent the development of techno solutions but legislation to prevent the continued growth of a fundamentally unsustainable system.
Anything that somehow mitigates the effect of peak oil allowing us to carry on the status quo is a bad thing because the status quo is a bad thing.
JohnDenver wrote:I asked John Markos, but I'll ask you too. Would you be in favor of legislation to prevent the development of techno solutions? You seem to be saying that technology is the gun that civilization is going to shoot itself with. Wouldn't it be immoral to stand by and let that happen? Shouldn't you prevent the worse outcome by halting the development of techno energy solutions, as quickly as possible? That would seem to be a logical way to achieve powerdown: illegalize the development of new energy technology.
JohnDenver wrote:clv101 wrote:The space industry is one of the most energy intensive, energy expensive things we do.
Actually, its energy use is quite modest. Fuel costs are a neglible part of overall launch costs, and space equipment generates its own energy.
Devil wrote:JohnDenver wrote: Why not light them up all night with mirrors?
Prithee, how are you going to stock the light for use on a cloudy night?
Frank wrote:Space mirrors?
We've already got more than enough sunlight falling on the planet every day to meet all our needs -
why in the world would we need space mirrors?
TrueKaiser wrote:*falls out of his chair laughing at this suggestion*
this is a really really dumb idea. not only are you going to screw up the local plant life, you are going to do the same to the animals. most of all the extra sunlight in what ever area you focus this on will really screw with the weather, you /do/ know that the heat from the sunlight help regulate the weather? by artificially increasing the amount of sunlight a area gets you not only warm it up, you will also dry it out.
JohnDenver wrote:There are many places on the earth, such as Alaska, where the SUN shines 24 hours a day for months at a time. The plants there do just fine. In fact, they grow faster and larger. Same for the animals. They're as healthy and normal as anywhere else, even though they live in cycles of perpetual night vs. perpetual day. Animals are adaptable. Furthermore, there aren't many animals in urban areas in the first place.
Liamj wrote:Actually, its energy use is phenomenal. As you'd expect, getting anything from 2 (small satlt) 2000 (space shuttle) tonnes up to a speed 27,000km/hr (orbital velocity). The acoustic energy alone released by a space shuttle launch = 8 million stereo's, to absorb which 300,000 gallons of water are pumped onto the launch pad during liftoff.
Space equipment generates most of its operational energy IN space (definitively offgrid , but i'll bet they go up with batteries charged) , but certainly nothing like that reqd to create its parts, grow astros food etc. Want an unmanned network of satellites in space? you'll need space shuttle to service em.
Check out above link for some of the other massive capital infrastructure reqd just at SS launch:
"Crawler Transporters – Marvels of engineering ingenuity, the Space Center’s two crawlers – Hercules and Hermes – have been transporting vehicles to launch pads since the Apollo moon missions. Weighing in at six million pounds each, the Crawler Transporters are serious gas guzzlers, getting 35 feet per gallon of diesel fuel. "
'Quite modest'?!?
Liamj wrote:The plants & animals in THE VERY LIMITED areas with continuous sunlight for PART of year are not the same plants & animals we know in more temperate latitudes, have adapted to burst of growth & long stagnation.
Not quite what we want from a crop. You ever hear of arctic wheat? arctic apples? alaskan mangos? No, no & no.
All organisms usually use multiple signals for growth & reproduction, not just light, so e.g. having more daylight but still cold will cause stress & higher mortality, not higher production.
Do you have any references or evidence for "In fact, they grow faster and larger"
JohnDenver wrote:TrueKaiser wrote:*falls out of his chair laughing at this suggestion*
this is a really really dumb idea. not only are you going to screw up the local plant life, you are going to do the same to the animals. most of all the extra sunlight in what ever area you focus this on will really screw with the weather, you /do/ know that the heat from the sunlight help regulate the weather? by artificially increasing the amount of sunlight a area gets you not only warm it up, you will also dry it out.
There are many places on the earth, such as Alaska, where the SUN shines 24 hours a day for months at a time. The plants there do just fine. In fact, they grow faster and larger. Same for the animals. They're as healthy and normal as anywhere else, even though they live in cycles of perpetual night vs. perpetual day. Animals are adaptable. Furthermore, there aren't many animals in urban areas in the first place.
As for the weather -- I haven't heard of any deadly weather phenomena due to the endless summer up north.
As for drying -- I don't think illuminating cities to the level of ordinary streetlights would cause any significant drying (at least not anymore than the streetlights themselves). For that matter, have we sufficiently considered the morbid effects of streetlamps on urban wildlife? How many innocent moths have been lured to their death already by the ugly artificial "moons" we call streetlights?
TrueKaiser wrote:*laughs again* the very fact that you used the arctic as a example of how this would not harm anything
JohnDenver wrote:... Sure space solar power may cause some serious screwups, just like nuclear power, but I can't imagine any of those screwups being anywhere near as bad as a few billion people croaking in a "die-off". We're trying to save lives here. Suboptimal measures may be necessary.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests