Xref: utzoo sci.research:857 sci.space:10453 misc.headlines:7612 sci.misc:3383
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!shelby!csli!cphoenix
From: cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.space,misc.headlines,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported
Message-ID: <8358@csli.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 2 Apr 89 19:01:20 GMT
References: <18213@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <3451@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU> <291@fylz.UUCP>
Sender: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Reply-To: cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix)
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Lines: 43

In article <291@fylz.UUCP> fyl@fylz.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes:
>In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes:
>| In other words, we could compensate for all the energy 
>| we use by covering a relatively small part of the earth's surface with
>| mirrors to reflect all the heat back out into space.  
>
>The way I read this, you said we should build cheap fusion reactors to
>supply our energy needs and they build mirrors to reflect an equal amount
>of energy back into space to keep the earth from heating up.  Richt?
>
>Might I suggest that it would be easier and cost less if you just built
>the mirrors to reflect the energy into a collection system and used that
>energy.  Or is this too low tech?
>
This is a lot harder to do.
For one thing, for a collection system the mirrors have to track the sun,
and reflect all the energy to one point.   With a reflective system they 
just have to get it anywhere above the horizon.
A collection system may not put the energy where we want it, and will require
storage facilities.

Assuming fusion reactors are easy enough to build to be useful at all, it
will be a lot easier to put a reactor where we want the power and the
simple mirrors where there's a lot of sun and unused land, than to try to
build and use a solar power plant.

In response to some earlier questions:  The greenhouse effect would not 
reflect the light back down to earth.  It reflects heat generated when 
light is absorbed by the earth.  If light hits mirrors, it will be broadcast
as light instead of heat.  This is the crucial difference.

Obviously, there would be environmental problems with coating a lot of the 
earth with mirrors.  But I don't see how they could be worse than those 
caused by our present fossil-fuel system.  We probably wouldn't need to 
coat all that much to make the difference--almost certainly less land area
than would be covered by water if the ice caps melted.

I'm not saying that this would necessarily be a good idea to do, just that
it would be a good idea to consider.  If I actually propose doing it, then
you can flame me for destroying the environment.

Chris Phoenix
cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu