Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!spdcc!eli
From: eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias)
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: greenhouse effect / solar power satellites
Message-ID: <858@spdcc.COM>
Date: 14 Apr 88 12:47:36 GMT
References: <789@spdcc.COM> <758@xyzzy.UUCP> <806@spdcc.COM> <774@xyzzy.UUCP>
Reply-To: eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Lines: 33

In article <774@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
>> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias)
>> 	     i understand that even hundreds of times present needs would not
>> 	     be more than a few percent of solar flux.
>
>Not quite.  Even from 1 to 10 thousand (not hundred) times our present
>needs is only one percent of the solar flux.

	mine weren't the only back of the envelope calculations which showed
	that around 10^5 times our present needs equals the solar flux which
	hits the atmosphere (not all is absorbed).  even your statement above
	says that 1000 times our present needs approaches the solar flux.
	if one takes into account albedo and other flux reducing factors,
	we're down to 'hundreds of times present needs' being on the order
	of a percent of the 'absorbed' solar flux...

>> 	     humankind has got to learn to leave less of a footprint on the
>> 	     planet,

>SPS seems a delightful way to do this, since the investment in them need
>not be wasted as industrial capacity is moved towards space.  
	
	interesting point.  i wouldn't consider SPS delightful unless we
	used them only to power space platforms, though.

	what do you think of the possibility that we are already 
	being affected by thermal runaway, and that it may continue 
	even if we stop all heat & CO2 generation ?