Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8752 sci.misc:1248
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ucsd!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg
From: glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.misc
Subject: Re: greenhouse effect / solar power satellites
Message-ID: <2997@sfsup.UUCP>
Date: 1 Apr 88 22:40:12 GMT
References: <22678@bbn.COM> <5564@well.UUCP> <761@spdcc.COM> <4195@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <763@spdcc.COM>
Reply-To: glg@/guest4/glgUUCP (xt1112-G.Gleason)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Information Systems
Lines: 40

In article <763@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes:
>In article <4195@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>!In article <761@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes:

>!:     efficiency has nothing to do with the problem of thermal pollution.

>!Efficiency has everything to do with thermal pollution.  For a fixed power

>      you are wrong, here.  both the 'useful power' and the 'waste heat'
>      end up in the environment as heat.  

He is not wrong.  He stated this explicitly in his first article.

	Useful power = Total energy input * Efficiency
		and
	Waste heat = Total energy input - Useful power

The second equation isn't really relevant because it is the total energy
input that ends up in the environment.  The first equation says that for
a given power need (i.e. hold useful power constant), the energy added
to the environment is inversly proportional to efficiency.  It matters.

>!efficiency.  SPS are among the most efficient power generation systems

>      again:  efficiency doesn't matter.  SPS is the only power source
>      which uses energy which would not otherwise enter the earth's
>      atmosphere.  it is worse than most other power sources in this
>      respect.  why do you insist that efficiency is a factor?  all 
>      useful energy will turn up as heat in the environment.

I see you totally missed his analysis.  Passive solar also brings in
energy that would not otherwise remain the system (it shines in, but
normally it would be reflected off).  You must include this factor in
your analysis.

John's arguments are the most informative I have seen in this debate.
I would advise you to study them until you understand the points he
is making, you may learn something.  There is no point in your continuing
this debate until you have a better understanding of the issues.

Gerry Gleason