[ExI] EP and Peak oil.
hkhenson at rogers.com
Sun Apr 6 23:11:05 UTC 2008
At 09:13 AM 4/6/2008, BillK wrote:
>That is not the only danger. It becomes a single point of failure for
>That is too big a risk.
How? It's a serious question. If you can make a solid case for the
whole constellation of a thousand or more of them being wiped out in
a single failure, then perhaps they are too much risk. The
consequences of not replacing carbon fuels is a really dire risk as
well. Consider that something like 3/4 of humans will die in the collapse.
>It would be like building one huge nuclear power station for the whole
>of the US. Too much centralisation is 'a bad thing'. You would have
>to shut the country down for weeks to repair a major fault.
>Distributed energy sources is the failsafe way to go. Future buildings
>covered with solar cells, etc. become self-sufficient, with power
>stations used to supply factories and big energy consumers.
Work out the numbers for a typical apartment building in NYC. Then
tell us how much energy each person gets. Re putting them on
buildings, remember that the amount of sunlight you get on earth is a
small part of what you can get out in space. If you have a square
mile of them, no matter how little they cost, where is the best place
to put them? If the cells are *free* you get the same answer.
NUMBERS people NUMBERS. You are engaged in useless flapping without
at least a rough engineering analysis of what you say. Ask for help
if you don't know how to do it, but please don't make statements of
an engineering nature without doing the damned numbers.
More information about the extropy-chat