Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!daemon From: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Powersats Message-ID: <3918@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Nov-83 14:33:53 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.3918 Posted: Fri Nov 4 14:33:53 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 7-Nov-83 01:18:39 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Western Research Lab, Los Altos, CA Lines: 34 From: Ed Featherston HL01-1/P06 225-5241 Begin Forwarded Message: ------------------------------------------- Newsgroup : net.space >From : DVINCI::FISHER Organization : Digital Equipment Corp. Subj: Re: powersats The heat pollution problem is not really an argument against powersats. It is an argument against increased energy usage in general. Let us ignore the efficiency of power generation for the moment and consider only heat pollution caused AFTER electricity has entered the distribution network. If total energy usage is the same, it does not matter whether that energy comes from atoms, from solar energy which fell on the earth eons ago and was incorporated into fossil fuels, or from current solar energy which is collected by a powersat, and would not have otherwise touched the earth. Now if you add back in the waste energy caused by the power generation process, (as has been stated before) powersats have a clear heat advantage. I therefore contend that the heat pollution argument is valid against powersats only if you say "Powersats will cause increased power usage compared to terrestrially generated power, and therefore..." Personally, I feel that that we will use what power we think we need no matter what the source, and that powersats are the most environmentally sound method of supplying that power. Burns Mail address : ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher ------------------------------------------- End Forwarded Message