Guest post by Dennis Ray Wingo
First I want to say thanks to Anthony for providing this forum for the discussion of climate in a different sense, that is to focus on Durban and what this conference means from the wider perspective of the direction of our global civilization.
When I was young and beginning in the world of technology I complained to my mentor, my company’s regional manager, about a bad performance review delivered to me by a boss who I and he thought was incompetent. His response was to say that “a performance review can be used as a tool or as a bludgeon”. The same thing is true about CO2 and its role on the global stage as providing a tool whereby the technocrats of the UN and its NGO’s seek to reorganize our planetary civilization In keeping with their desired future.
The fear of the negative consequences of the emission of CO2 is being used as a tool to bludgeon the developed world into economic and political suicide. We in the west are told that we must commit this suicide because we must commit to a “Fair and equitable allocation of the atmospheric space, taking into account the criteria of historic climate debt and population;” [bullet 33g of the FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/CRP.39 document]. We are told that the only just and equitable way to do this is to transfer large sums of money to the Non-Annex 1 world and that we must have peak CO2 emissions in Annex 1 (western civilization) immediately [bullet 33d, bullet 32].
There are two critical assumptions that underpin the entire Durban conference as well as previous efforts; the first assumption is that we live in a limited world and that this wealth transfer and the immediate cessation of CO2 emissions is the only possible path toward a “sustainable” future. The second is that technology cannot solve the problem but politics can. What are these assumptions built upon and are they valid? Is this the only path forward? Are we destined to leave our global posterity in a state of perpetual semi-poverty? Human nature rebels against this doom and gloom view of the future, and with good reason.
The Assumptions
I do not wish to seem overdramatic, but I can only conclude from the information that is available to me as Secretary-General, that the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems that I have mentioned will have reached staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.
Who said this? This statement could have very well have been the preamble to the Durban conference but it actually was uttered by UN Secretary General U Thant in 1969 and is included as the introduction to the book, Limits to Growth. The book “Limits to Growth” (LTG) is the touchstone of the environmental movement as well as the ultimate source of the two underpinning assumptions of the Durban conference.
The Limited Earth
The first assumption that the Earth is all we have and that our resources are limited to only what we have here. This is a patently false assumption. In 2005 I was invited to contribute a chapter to a book on “Spacepower Theory” which was commissioned by the defense department as an extension of Clauswitz’s classic “Landpower Theory”, Alfred Mahan’s “Seapower Theory”, and General Billy Mitchell’s “Airpower Theory”. In my chapter on the “Economic Development of the Solar System as the Heart of a Spacepower Theory”, a word was coined and defined.
“geocentric” is defined as a mindset that sees spacepower and its application as focused primarily on actions, actors, and influences on earthly powers, the earth itself, and its nearby orbital environs. (available online at the NDU press here)
The underpinning assumption that the Earth and its resources constitutes all the wealth that exists for humans to access and use is by definition a geocentric mindset and has been falsified by the last three decades of NASA, ESA, and other nations scientific probes sent to the Moon and beyond. Just in the last few years we have discovered billions of tons of water on the Moon to support propulsion, trillions of tons of aluminum, titanium, iron, Uranium, thorium and other rare Earth metals along with Platinum Group Metals, Cobalt, nickel and iron derived from asteroid impacts. In the asteroid belt are untold riches of water, metals and other resources yet to be identified. Just a single small metal asteroid, 3554 Amun, has tens of trillions of dollars worth of metals, and an asteroid of the same type, 216 Cleopatra, has a billion trillion times more resources of the same type. We now know that Mars has extensive water resources and the two rovers Spirit and Opportunity, found in just a few kilometers of driving, enough metallic asteroid fragments to kick start industry on Mars. It is absurd to think that the geocentric mindset of LTG and today in Durban is correct.
No Faith In Technology
The supposed inability of technology to solve our current problems is the other key assumption of LTG and today in Durban. To anyone who understands history and technology this is absurd but here is what the authors of LTG say about technology;
Applying technology to the natural pressures that the environment exerts against any growth process has been so successful in the past that a whole culture has evolved around the principle of fighting against limits rather than learning to live with them. This culture has been reinforced by the apparent immensity of the earth and its resources and by the relative smallness of man and his activities….
(page 156, Limits to Growth)
… We have felt it necessary to dwell so long on an analysis of technology here because we have found that technological optimism is the most common and the most dangerous reaction to our findings from the world model. Technology can relieve the symptoms of a problem without affecting the underlying causes. Faith in technology as the ultimate solution to all fundamental problems can thus divert our attention from the most fundamental problem – the problem of growth in a finite system – and prevent us from taking effective action to solve it.
(Page 159, LTG)
If you think that this thought pattern is one of the 1970’s, here is what Al Gore said in his book, Earth in the Balance in 1992:
It is important, however, to remember that there is a great danger in seeing technology alone as the answer to the environmental crisis. In fact, the idea that new technology is the solution to all our problems is a central part of the faulty way of thinking that created the crisis in the first place.
Unless we come to a better understanding of both the potential and the danger of technology, the addition of more technological power simply ensures further degradation of the environment, and no matter what new technologies we discover, no matter how cleverly and efficiently we manage to get them into the hands of people throughout the world, the underlying crisis will worsen unless, at the same time, we redefine our relationship to the environment, stabilize human population, and use every possible means to bring the earth back into balance.
(Page 328, Earth in the Balance)
Technology and technological development, in the form of the industrial revolution (the faulty way of thinking according to Gore), has done more to lift mankind out of poverty than all of the political systems tried in the entire one hundred and seventy thousand year history of our species put together. It is amazing that this neo Luddite attitude could exist today, but it does, and as an example of how it influences the Durban conference, only 15% of the money from their massive wealth transfer would be applied to developing technology. That is less than their administrative overhead! At the end of the day, this a key divergence between the NGO’s and technocrats of the UN and those of us who see another way, one rooted in finding solutions to the problems that confront us today.
Developing an Alternative
Let us, for the sake of the hypothetical and to put us on the same page as the delegates in Durban, let us grant the following:
- The increase in CO2 and other IR absorbing gasses in the atmosphere are bad and we must do something about it or suffer the secular apocalypse.
- We apply the minimum financial resources of the $100 billion per year as set forth in Durban to the problem.
Let us set as the requirements the following as well:
- Whatever solution is found, it must in the end result in a more prosperous world for all mankind.
- Whatever solution is found, it must also preserve individual liberty and provide opportunity for the further advance of mankind.
Unfortunately the requirements of brevity in this forum preclude an advanced treatment of this but lets lay the groundwork and if the reader wants more it can be provided in the future.
Energy
The first area to attack is energy. At the end of the day, energy is the key to the future. Just think that if a megawatt of electrical power was as inexpensive as a kilowatt is today, how many things would be different. A trash compactor could atomize your trash and separate it into its basic constituents for recycling. You could easily create your own hydrogen at home for your fuel cell car. Mining on the Earth could extract metals from base rock with oxygen as the waste product.
Half of the $100 billion per year would be spent on a crash program to develop various fusion technologies, including advanced forms of the National Ignition Facility, Polywell Fusion, Thorium fission, and the “traditional” ITER type Tokomak fusion. Applying this much money to these energy technologies would do far more than all of the political world shaping of the wealth transfer of Durban. Providing advanced energy sources would do far more than solar panels or wind turbines to power a prosperous civilization. Both solar and wind are inherently low energy multiple technologies, meaning that the energy that you get out of either of these is only low multiples of the energy that it takes the make, install, and maintain them.
If we put the proper amount of resources into these energy technologies, then we would “solve” the CO2 problem as a side benefit and we could build a world energy grid that would do more than all the antipoverty programs in place today put together to improve life on Earth. In researching the history of the industrial revolution, human lifespan has been directly proportional to the amount of inexpensive energy available to us. human lifespans in the west went from 35 years of age in the year 1700 to almost 50 years of age at the peak of the age of coal in 1900. Today at the peak of the oil age that number has climbed to almost 80 years in Annex 1 countries. It is also in the advanced energy countries where population growth has dropped to replacement or even below. There is a direct correlation between wealth and population and it is far more fun to make everyone wealthy than to make everyone suffer in poverty as would be the ultimate result of Durban.
Space Resource Development
In just the past few years the Lunar Recon Orbiter, the LCROSS, and other missions have made a very preliminary map of the resources available on the surface of the Moon. It is inevitable that there are upside surprises waiting us there. Despite the problems of NASA in getting us back to the Moon, to the Moon is our first destination. Let us apply the other $50 billion a year to an effort to begin the industrialization of the Moon. In inflation adjusted terms, this is still only 40% of the budget spent per year at the peak of the Apollo program. If it is that important, then we can increase that budget to the full $100 billion a year (we are talking about building a sustainable global civilization) on a multi-pronged effort in this area.
This would not just be a NASA effort or a NASA, ESA, JAXA effort but an effort that would provide the means whereby private enterprise could contribute through their own efforts and funds. Tax relief, prizes, and other incentives. We begin with the industrialization of the Moon and the construction of a transportation infrastructure to allow humans to easily move about in the inner solar system. The resources of the Moon enable this. We move forward to build infrastructure in geosynch orbit that are many times larger than today, to enable communications and remote sensing infrastructure that would fundamentally transform our global society for the better.
These are not fantasies, these are not science fiction ideas, they are 100% doable today. The problem has been that the financial support has not been there, even considering the $18 billion dollar a year NASA. NASA is not designed to lead the economic development of the solar system, nor should it be, this is something that the American people and our fellows in western civilization are uniquely qualified to do. Dr. John Marburger, the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Bush administration had a marvelous speech on this subject at the Goddard symposium in 2006. In it he said:
The ultimate goal is not to impress others, or merely to explore our planetary system, but to use accessible space for the benefit of humankind. It is a goal that is not confined to a decade or a century. Nor is it confined to a single nearby destination, or to a fleeting dash to plant a flag. The idea is to begin preparing now for a future in which the material trapped in the Sun’s vicinity is available for incorporation into our way of life.
This is the alternative to the Durban failure that should be investigated and I submit that if we did this, our future would be far better in the year 2100 than even the most optimistic scenarios developed in any of these conferences that focus on how to split the existing pie up in a way that supports their political proclivities. We want to build a far bigger pie. Today the average welfare recipient in the United States lives a life style that Augustus Caesar or the greatest emperor of old China would think of as magic. Our goal should be to create a world in the year 2100 where the poor live a lifestyle that George Soros would envy.
Beyond Artificial Limits
For those of us who work in the space business and who develop new architectures for lunar development and beyond it seems absurd that these false assumptions should underpin serious global deliberations at crafting a better future for the citizens of our planetary civilization. This at the end of the day is my greatest objection to the role that climate scientists play in the arena of solutions to the “CO2 problem”. Whether or not you believe that CO2 is the secular apocalypse, one thing is certain, the people that are trained in the arcane science of climate proxies are inadequate in training and incompetent in execution of something as large as architecting a future for our civilization. We must open up the boundaries of the discussion to include energy development on the Earth and resource development off planet as serious and viable alternatives to plans such as the failed ones being drawn up in places like Durban.
There is a future out there, a glorious one, that while it may not solve all of our problems, it will certainly get us beyond these artificial limits to growth.
Dennis Ray Wingo: Bravo!
When I was a tyke I read the works of Robert A. Heinlein and Willy Ley (The Conquest of Space, with illustrations by Chesley Bonestell) and lay out on the lawn at night gazing up at the stars. I never doubted that by now, by the unimaginably distant 21st century, we’d be on our way to Alpha Centauri, at least. But here we are, struggling to find the wherewithal just to have a few adventurers buzz around in low Earth orbit, at the edge of the atmosphere. And lo and behold! a phalanx of black-robed naysayers cries “Hold!” and waves placards proclaiming the End of Days if we pursue the progress of civilization and the dream of new frontiers beyond the Earth.
Will they win out? Not if we can muster the will to challenge them and their political sycophants. The secret, as you point out so clearly, is energy. It must become ever cheaper and ever more abundant. Every leap forward has come from moving up the scale of energy usage. Energy makes possible the advances in technology that will be needed to bring the Solar System and ultimately the stars within our grasp. Is the cost of getting out of Earth’s gravity well too great? Then we will device new types of engines and launchers that will reduce that cost to a trivial amount; because the energy needed will be virtually free—if the Luddites and the ‘sustainability’ mavens do not succeed in returning us to the Dark Ages.
Those of you who are tempted to pessimism about mankind’s future, who fear we will run out of resources, and destroy the planet: you need to do some reading. Take a look at John Lewis’s Mining the Sky,, Robert Zubrin’s The Case for Mars, and Gerard K. O’Neill’s seminal work on space colonies, The High Frontier for starters. They will open your eyes and your minds. And for resources, E. M. Smith’s terrific posts on his website are essential:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
To quote the indefatigable Mr. Smith: “There is no shortage of stuff, and there never will be.”
/Mr Lynn
Ditto! Newt is sometimes wrong, and often too enamored of statist ‘solutions’, but he’s the only one in either party at that level with any imagination. And Mitt fell even further in my estimation with that blinkered critique: Of course we should be aiming at mining and manufacturing on the Moon!
/Mr Lynn
Yes indeed! Let’s all send him a copy! And while we’re at it, encourage him to read Watts Up With That. He needs a little schoolin’ himself on where the self-proclaimed ‘climate scientists’ went wrong, and why.
/Mr Lynn
Have read most of the comments, not all. Apologies if this has been already stated.
Locating and bringing to Earth an ore-rich asteroid is not only not as easy as some would portray it, but the economics are not good. This is a classic case of mineral exploration: with astronomically high costs (literally), one must obtain a high quantity of good quality mineral to justify the expenditure and time. However, the high quantity of the mineral brought to Earth will collapse the market price, making the entire venture worthless.
One could, of course, mine only a portion of the asteroid and bring back small quantities to Earth, thus maintaining the high price. That doesn’t do much to help the masses, even if it does line the pocketbook of the miners.
Or, one could bring the asteroid back to Earth orbit, then send down as much or little as desired to meet the need. This is much what OPEC did from 1980 onward, although they had lots of competition from other oil fields (Alaska, North Sea, as examples).
Finally, all the hype about nuclear power is worthless. Nuclear power is not the savior some paint it to be. Even if nuclear-based electricity were cheap and abundant, that is not the major power source for bettering the world. Sure, it turns on the lights and runs the electric motors, but it won’t move the ships, cars, trains, and especially the trucks. It won’t produce petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, plastics, and the myriad of other vital products for our consumption. And yes, I am aware of electric trains. They work in limited services, but not for long-haul freight.
Economics is the key. Space-based mining is not economic, and not likely ever to be so.
A further point: if the Earth is too small, has too few mineral resources, it does little good to go to the asteroids to obtain more. There are a finite number of asteroids. The solar system is also finite.
Using the same (idiotic) logic as those who say We Are Running Out of Stuff Here On Earth, then we will also run out of stuff in the solar system.
There is no shortage of stuff here on Earth. Never has been and never will be. Every atom that was ever placed on this Earth from the beginning is still here (absent a few tons of stuff that was sent up in rockets and won’t return, and even fewer pounds of stuff transmuted in nuclear fission reactions). The atoms didn’t go anywhere: all the iron, copper, and everything else is still here. Some is inaccessible with current technology (too deep in the crust), and some is too expensive to extract with current technology and current prices (dissolved minerals in the ocean water). Plentiful and cheap energy will go a long, long way in providing all the mineral resources we will ever need.
And, for those who discount solar energy, I suggest you consider the production of hydrogen via enzymes. This is synthetic photosynthesis, whereby water is split at ambient temperature and pressure into hydrogen and oxygen, using only sunlight as the energy source. The hydrogen then can be compressed, stored, transported, and used where and as needed. The seminal discovery was several years ago by British scientists.
Locating and bringing to Earth an ore-rich asteroid is not only not as easy as some would portray it, but the economics are not good. This is a classic case of mineral exploration: with astronomically high costs (literally), one must obtain a high quantity of good quality mineral to justify the expenditure and time. However, the high quantity of the mineral brought to Earth will collapse the market price, making the entire venture worthless.
This argument has been used before, and it is a fallacy. In the year 1865 Queen Victoria was given a place setting of a very valuable metal, worth more than gold. It was placed in the crown jewels. 75 years later it was down to a dollar or two per pound. That metal was Aluminum.
Also, these types of analysis always assume astronomical prices for transportation. As soon as we are obtaining large amounts of water from the Moon and then asteroids, transportation costs will fall dramatically as we shift over to reusable space systems. The reason that space is expensive today is the same reason that air travel would be expensive if we threw the 747 that brought us from London to LA away after every flight.
It will be an incredible boon to humanity if we can bring the price of Platinum down from $1500 an ounce to a dollar a pound. These types of metals are fabulously useful and that type of decrease in price will explode demand due to the amazing uses that the PGM’s have.
Finally, all the hype about nuclear power is worthless. Nuclear power is not the savior some paint it to be. Even if nuclear-based electricity were cheap and abundant, that is not the major power source for bettering the world. Sure, it turns on the lights and runs the electric motors, but it won’t move the ships, cars, trains, and especially the trucks. It won’t produce petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, plastics, and the myriad of other vital products for our consumption. And yes, I am aware of electric trains. They work in limited services, but not for long-haul freight.
Yes, it will move the ships, the cars, the trucks and the trains. This is coupled to the PGM argument. When the price of Platinum and other PGM’s fall, the cost of a fuel cell will fall to much less than the cost of an internal combustion engine. Since a fuel cell is typically 50-90% more efficient than the internal combustion engine in turning stored energy (hydrogen) into work, the massive generation of electrical power will enable local production of hydrogen at fueling stations, which will the power cars, ships, trucks and trains with the only emission being potable water.
Your arguments are those of the last century, come join us in the 21st century.
Yes indeed! Let’s all send him a copy! And while we’re at it, encourage him to read Watts Up With That. He needs a little schoolin’ himself on where the self-proclaimed ‘climate scientists’ went wrong, and why.
I would encourage everyone to do so. I have contributed to the American Solutions section at http://www.newt.org but there is much value in more than one person doing this.
As a shameless plug, I also have a book on this subject, available at Amazon.com and I will have it in e reader form soon.
woops, book name is Moonrush.
Roger Sowell says:
December 11, 2011 at 8:42 pm
“And, for those who discount solar energy, I suggest you consider the production of hydrogen via enzymes.”
I agree with most of what you wrote. But, this part is moot. No matter how you slice it, instantaneous solar energy (as opposed to the kind that has been stored in oil deposits over eons of time) will never be more than a bit player on Earth because of the prohibitive surface area required to extract significant amounts of energy. No matter how efficient the process is, it can only extract something less than 100% of the intercepted radiant energy over half of the day, and reduced by another half if unless you can steer the unobstructed surface to track the Sun, and reduced further by cloudy days, etc… When you total it all up, you will find that impractical amounts of materials for the substructure and environmentally devastating sprawl would be required to make a significant dent in our energy appetite.
Let me add my stance clearly so there is no confusion: nuclear power is the only practical process with enough energy density to supplant fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. Nothing else can or will ever be more than a bit player. Energy density is the whole ball game. Fossil fuels have it, because of the aforementioned eons of time over which it was stored. Nuclear has it, because of E = mc^2. Nothing else does. Nothing.
Mr Lynn says:
December 11, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Dave Springer says:
December 11, 2011 at 5:15 am
“…but he’s the only one in either party at that level with any imagination.”
Mr. Gingrich went a long way toward winning my vote with that exchange.
Dennis, don’t worry about Roger Sowell. He’s an anti nuke kook . It appears to be his religion.
Stephen Skinnner December 11, 2011 at 9:46 am
Smoking Frog says:
December 11, 2011 at 6:15 am
“…Life expectancy at later ages has improved since the 19th century, but not nearly by as much.
Example: For American white males: life expectancy at birth for those born in 2004 is 75.7 years, while life expectancy at age 60 for those born in 1850 was 15.6 years; i.e., the average 60-year old white male born in 1850 lived to be 75.6 years old.”
Stephen Skinnner says:
Yes, but that was for those that made it that far. And the average 60 year old was not the average. Thanks for the link by the way.
Yes, of course, it was for those that made it that far. My point was that the vast improvement has been in survival at young ages. Many people don’t know it, and that’s why I pointed it out. For example, a person may imagine that the average 10-year old or 20-year old born in 1850 only lived to be 38. In fact, the average 10-year old lived to be 58, and the average 20-year old lived to be 60.
It’s true that the average 60-year old was not the average, but neither was the average zero-year old. The average lifespan of white males born in 1900 was not 50; it was greater than 50. So the average 60-year old wasn’t far from the average.
In te fifties I read tons of ScFi. Hyperdrive, Dirac transmitters, moon bases. You name it. Asimov, Arthur C. Clark. All of them. I simply knew that I would live the day they landed on the moon. I will never forget that day. July 20 1969. Watching it live on televison. Whats my point? Everything I had read missed an important point by miles. The whole world could see it live on television. So why would it be impossible to mine the asteroid? It might and it might not. The point is we should definitely not rule it out! That would be stupid.
A little addon
An estimated 500 million people watched the moonlanding live on television.
TBear (Sydney, where it has finally warmed up, but just a bit …) says:
December 11, 2011 at 12:12 am
`… the emission of CO2 is being used as a tool to bludgeon the developed world into economic and political suicide’
Stopped reading at that point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then start reading again!
This is the best article I have seen on the internet in a LONG LONG time.
First to Dennis Wingo,
You made my day. I too grew up thinking the universe was out there for us.
Next to Roger Sowell,
Your statement that nuclear power can’t be used to power ships probably will come as a great surprise to the US Navy.
Otter says:
December 11, 2011 at 6:48 am
Robert E. Phelan says:
December 11, 2011 at 7:03 am
—
My apologies, I should have added /sarc to my post. I agree it is highly unlikely that global population will reach 32 billion by 2100, but only 6 billion? Well, the greenies are working on that. My point was based on the CURRENT population growth rate of a doubling every 40 years. This is one of the drivers for “global governance”, like AGW. Melting ice and sea level rises are frighteners to bring the mindless into the lager. A check of the energy requirements for a 1 metre sea level rise by 2100 would need extreme warming. Again unlikely, hence my use of the term “drivel” in relation to the lack of applied science in the doomsday scenarios
Dave Huntsman says: @ur momisugly December 11, 2011 at 9:54 am
….It is, simply stated, that there are problems with unlimited growth of carbon emissions in our biosphere that further drives increase in another potent greenhouse ‘gas’, water vapor; and these need to be recognized and their effects mitigated. The solution will involve a mix of better technological solutions and political will. To imply that ‘limits to growth’ and ‘transfer from wealth to poor’ nations are the main objects of the problem are ludicrous.
…. It will almost always be cheaper- and quicker – to get more efficient on Earth, to recycle more materials, to capture more wasted energy, etc.
The climate problem is real; the solutions are within our grasp -if we discuss and act intelligently. I honestly don’t feel this post fits into that description.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excellent Article, Mr. Wingo. It takes me back to my enthusiasm when reading Science fiction in the 1960’s.
……
An interesting comment by Dave Huntsman who from his comment I assume is the
“…Dave Huntsman [who] has 35 years with NASA, including 10 years as a Senior Executive, and is with the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA HQ in Washington, D.C….”
http://21stcenturywaves.com/2011/01/07/nasa-comments-on-phobos-and-space-sustainability/
One can understand why NASA fizzled if Huntsman is the type of leader we now have at NASA.
His stating “To imply that ‘limits to growth’ and ‘transfer from wealth to poor’ nations are the main objects of the problem are ludicrous.” is a typical politician’s lie that is easily proved.
Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren, the person now in control of science policy in the United States, published a book describing the “De-development of the USA”
http://grendelreport.posterous.com/obamas-science-czar-advocates-de-developing-t
Holdren on forced sterilization, it is not against the constitution: “…Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution…” http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Nice Try Dave but we are not the dumbed down serfs that “Progressive Education” has been trying so hard to create.
The question that hits between the eyes is WHY the anti-technology crowd exists in the first place. Their existence is not by chance but by design.
The answer is that a group of humans scrambling for a living is a lot easier to rule than a group of well educated individualists with leisure to think. Career politicians are not interested in the welfare of anyone but themselves. This is why John Dewey, father of “Modern Education” experimented to see how individualists and good little socialists are produced through our schools systems.
The international bankers and transnational corporations are also interested in killing off the competition and getting rid of impediments like national borders, differing national laws and tariffs. Therefore the politicians, bankers and corporations all have the same goal, maintaining the status quo, killing competition and promoting a global government that they not we control.
The choice is reaching for the stars or a collectivist society. To politicians, bureaucrats and more importantly bankers it is not even a choice. An easy to control collectivist society wins hands down.
@timg56 on December 12, 2011 at 1:31 pm
“Your statement that nuclear power can’t be used to power ships probably will come as a great surprise to the US Navy.”
I doubt the US Navy will be surprised. However, how many commercial ships use nuclear power? Very, very few, if any. It’s a matter of economics, as I wrote above. Nuclear power for propulsion is fine for a Navy (and even then it’s only used on a select few ships). Ever wonder why cruisers, and destroyers, and the smaller craft don’t run on nuclear power? I’ll stand by my statement, modified if you like, to allow for selected and very few uses in a Navy application. But the vast majority of ships will not ever be using nuclear power for steam or electricity.
@Bart on December 12, 2011 at 12:44 am
“When you total it all up, you will find that impractical amounts of materials for the substructure and environmentally devastating sprawl would be required to make a significant dent in our energy appetite.” – referring to solar-based hydrogen from enzymes.
Even if your point were true, it is irrelevant. The primary concern is economics. Where sun is abundant, and fresh water can be found, and the economics allow for this source of hydrogen to displace coal or natural gas or nuclear, it will. It should, too.
Wanting all our energy to be from one source is not a good idea. Competition drives down prices, spurs innovation, and improves the overall prosperity. That is another reason why all-nuclear for power generation is a bad idea.
@Dennis Ray Wingo
“Yes, it will move the ships, the cars, the trucks and the trains. This is coupled to the PGM argument. When the price of Platinum and other PGM’s fall, the cost of a fuel cell will fall to much less than the cost of an internal combustion engine. Since a fuel cell is typically 50-90% more efficient than the internal combustion engine in turning stored energy (hydrogen) into work, the massive generation of electrical power will enable local production of hydrogen at fueling stations, which will the power cars, ships, trucks and trains with the only emission being potable water.
Your arguments are those of the last century, come join us in the 21st century.”
Mr. Wingo, you stated in your post that you wrote a chapter on Economics in a book on space exploitation. Presumably, then, you have at least a basic knowledge of economics.
To quote your own words, “When the price of Platinum and other PGM’s fall,” do you really believe that space-mining of asteroids will occur? Our society is driven by economics – unless government mandates interfere. As I wrote above, and you conveniently ignored, no asteroid miner will go into business to bring back to Earth various minerals, only to watch the price collapse. If you truly believe the price won’t collapse, I invite you to pilot a spaceship and show us.
You also apparently are unaware of the Achilles heel of space-mined minerals and returning same to Earth: the cost is prohibitive to run a shuttle or similar Earth-to-orbit spacecraft. Bringing the scarce minerals to Earth orbit is but one part of the problem. Bringing it to Earth cost-effectively is the bigger problem. This is well-known in space-literate circles. NASA and others are trying to develop a spaceplane but without success. Perhaps you can show them the way.
And yes, this is the 21st century, but the physics of gravity, orbital velocity, density and depth of Earth’s atmosphere (all those silly 20th century problems that Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo wrestled with) continue to exist. No arm-waving or excited stuttering will change those problems.
You have written a captivating story above, and to some, it may indeed seem plausible and inspire some to dream big dreams. However, there is no getting around the two problems I stated: 1) Earth’s gravity and its atmosphere, and 2) economic collapse when too much of a commodity is brought to market.
Finally, your example of the price of aluminum completely misses the point. On the Earth, technology brought down the costs of not just aluminum, but most other materials and commodities. Exploiting large mineral reserves decreases the raw material cost, as the oil industry has demonstrated many times. Improved manufacturing, and larger factories also brings down the product’s price. Larger or more efficient shipping also brings down the price. These are well-known and very basic economic concepts.
Even if a mineral asteroid was very large, that would decrease the raw material cost from having to prospect in space for multiple asteroids. Mining in space could be made efficient with sufficient experience and ingenuity, if the deaths in space are not a deterrent. Where the system fails, though, is as I stated already: economic collapse and getting the minerals onto the Earth’s surface.
Mining the asteroids is simply pie-in-the-sky.
But the vast majority of ships will not ever be using nuclear power for steam or electricity.
Two words, Thorium Batteries.