Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8775 sci.misc:1267
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!udel!gatech!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw
From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.misc
Subject: Re: efficiency / greenhouse effect / solar power satellites
Message-ID: <748@xyzzy.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 88 20:02:14 GMT
References: <22678@bbn.COM> <5564@well.UUCP> <761@spdcc.COM> <4195@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <763@spdcc.COM> <2997@sfsup.UUCP> <768@spdcc.COM> <774@spdcc.COM>
Organization: Data General, RTP NC.
Lines: 26

> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias)
> 	heat engines which use energy already present in the atmosphere
> 	or elsewhere on earth would not add net heat to the environment...
> 	agreed?

Not agreed.  Slightly modify it and I'll agree:  Heat engines which use
*heat* energy (or energy already destined to become heat) already
present in the atmosphere or elsewhere on earth would not add net heat
to the environment... but that would rule out petrochemical, nuclear,
and essentially all ground-based solar power schemes (including biomass)
as well as space-based solar power schemes.  It would leave wind, tide,
thermocline, perhaps some restricted forms of geothermal power and the
like.  But EVEN SO, the use of these forms of power to the point where
thermal pollution is a significant worldwide threat would imply a vast,
vast increase in industrial activity on earth, which would have deadly
effects far before the thermal effects of the competition would be
dangerous.

Basically, thermal pollution is the wrong thing to worry about first.
(Not that it shouldn't be worried about at all, mind you...)

--
You can lead a yak to water but you can't teach an old dog to make a
silk purse out of a pig in a poke.
                                                --- Opus
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw