SpaceErnie- That was a very comprehensive link! And,and I'm always glad to hear the mention of increasing efficiency.

John L- I only mentioned the "real estate needed" because there are a few spots on the Moon which are ideal locations for nearly 24/365 illumination on the Moon, and Malapert mountain is one of them, it's always in line of sight of Earth, but the total area available is limited for beaming to power to Earth consistently. In the rest of the places, I guess there would have to be several sites.

And- That is an exceptional point!!!! I hadn't ever thought of that. And I guess the total heat would be less with solar from the moon because about 30% of the original energy content of fossil fuels is released as heat at the generating facilities, and that would be eliminated.

To throw in one more idea, in the Nuclear Fusion Topic Antoniseb said about solar panels So, what if we combine everybody's comments and think of doing the messy industrial process of making solar panels on the Moon, and then using that solar generated power to manufacture more solar panels which are dropped down the gravity well to consumers on earth? Then, by locating them within 30 feet of the homes and offices, they can produce the greatest amount of power. And, hopefully, those homes and offices will be energy efficient, passive solar homes.

__________________
Pre-Quote: 'To survive one has to experiment. When the environment changes, the traditional way of doing things doesn't work.'

Quote:
"It's the outriders, the organisms that seem to be maladjusted before the change, which are the only ones that survive these changes...in that way a species continues."

Carl Sagan

Astronaut getting bored. I found this story on space wire, where ever we are going, we should go soon.

__________________
My Webpage

Its a good point that John L. raised, regarding the reduction in Earth based energy waste but you are still adding energy to the system. Its just that, instead of adding it from fossil based sources, you are adding it from the Sun.
There would be far less green-house gas produced - and that may mean that the extra energy input is partially offset by a more transparent atmosphere. I wonder if anybody has ever looked at this quantitatively...

The improvement is likely to be quite dramatic although there is still some net gain in heat. Even if you completely removed all sources of gaseous emissions, you are then back in a 'nature only' environment, but still pumping in additional energy that would not have been there before. I'm pretty sure its better than what we've got though!

Increased efficiency on the Earth has got to be a key component of any long-term energy plan - or you need to harness Earth's solar power, which is heating the planet whether we make use of it or not.
Also, some level of hot-redundant Earth based generation must be retained, in order to avoid blackouts in case the link is lost.

Tom2Mars - I'm not sure about the idea of dropping solar panels down to Earth... I haven't done the maths but I'll bet that quite a lot of energy will be thrown into the atmosphere just by the re-entry process (aside from the sheer cost of transport). Every Kg of mass that you bring back from space has to dump Gigajoules of energy into the atmosphere as it descends.

John L. - Do I detect some scepticism regarding man's influence on global warming?

SpaceErnie,

I don't even believe in the Ozone Hole. I know there is a gap in the ozone layer at the poles, but I don't believe we caused it. At the poles there is the convergence of the magnetic field of Earth, and high energy ions go streaming down those magnetic field lines all day and all night. Since ozone is not the most stable form of oxygen it wouldn't surprise me if the holes had always been there and that it was a natural phenomenon. I'm just as skeptical about global warming in general. I don't think we have enough long term data to be able to accurately say that the world is getting warmer and ther we're to blame.

But I do want to be able to breath the air and drink the water. If we can get rid of the burning of fossile fuels, replaced with space based solar power and fusion power produciton, and move the most toxic industries to the Moon, then the world would be a better place. Everyone complains about gasoline prices, but have you ever noticed that bottled water costs more?

__________________
...and we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere; and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys...

That is particularly true in the US. In most of Europe, the price of fuel is far higher. In the UK, we pay about $6.50 per gallon. Its a lot of money, and most of it is tax, but I don't think its too much. I think the cost of fuel in the US is unjustifiably low. There is really no incentive to find other fuel sources.

I hope you are right on the global-warming/ozone front but I find it hard to beleive that we are NOT having a major effect on the environment. You just can't take millions of years' worth of energy storage and release it in a geological blink-of-the-eye, without upsetting the thermal balance.

SpaceErnie- You askedPart of the plan to bring materials back down to earth is to transport the materials, in this case, lunar manufactured solar panels, within an aeroshell, a big one. The aeroshell is also manufactured on the moon and has an extremely low density. It is has enough surface area to begin aerobreaking at about 125,000 meters altitude. Large, low density aeroshells do not heat up as much as smaller, dense capsules.

In addition, heat is normally dissapated through Conduction, Convection and Radiation. Since the atmosphere at 125,000 meters is not very dense, the heat cannot be Conducted away from the aeroshell. Convection of the molecules which do heat up moves them up and away from the direction of the earth. This leaves Radiation, and most of the heat radiates away from the lower surface of the aeroshell, which aerobrakes tangentally to the earth's surface. Since heat wants to radiate to the cooler black sky of space, rather than the warmer surface of the earth, the heat should not warm the atmosphere of the earth in any significant way. Whatever molecules of air are heated in the upper atmosphere will most likely convect upwards.

The aeroshell bodies are later reused as atmospheric vehicles. Because they are large and light, it is actually easier to manufacture them in the low-G environment of the moon, than on earth.

So, we make the panels and the shipping containers on the moon, send them to the earth, and then the panels can save on combusting the fossil fuels and the shipping containers become solar powered aircraft.

Regarding your comment to John L-
Last time I saw the numbers, it was something like 50,000 scientists who believe in the concept of Human Activity influencing Climate Change versus a handful of scientists who worked for the fossil-fuel companies who do not believe it. A handful plus 1 accountant now, it seems.

Logically, if we act as though it is happening, and stop the production of Greenhouse Gases, we will be reducing a variable from the overall climate equation. And, it will be a reduction in the direction of the more natural planetary state without human influence.

There are 4 outcomes:

1) If WE(climate change is our fault) are Right, and we reduce Greenhouse Gases, then we might reverse the negative effects of climate change, and the air will be cleaner.

2) If WE are Wrong, and still clean up the air anyway, and the negative effects of climate change are a natural cycle, at least the air will be cleaner and we are not exacerbating a natural phenomenon.

3) If THEY are Right, and convince everybody to conduct business as usual, then the negative effects of climate change will still be with us, the air is dirty, we use up the petroleum resources and then switch to dirtier coal, and choke and gasp a lot more.

4) If THEY are Wrong, and convince everybody do conduct business as usual, they may get us all killed.

I personally like #1.

__________________
Pre-Quote: 'To survive one has to experiment. When the environment changes, the traditional way of doing things doesn't work.'

Quote:
"It's the outriders, the organisms that seem to be maladjusted before the change, which are the only ones that survive these changes...in that way a species continues."

Carl Sagan