Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Sorry to double post...


Space based power, unless you are using that power in space, is a very very bad idea.

You see, the earth is an equilibrium engine. Energy in == energy out. (With exception of sequestered carbon energy)

That is to say, the energy that hits the earth from the sun + the energy from radiological decay in the mantle == the IR waste energy beamed out into space by our atmosphere.

Dumping large amounts of energy into the earth to power our civilization directly from outer space (such as with great big mirrors) will increase the rate of energy entering the system, skewing the equilibrium.

People talk about climate change now.... dumping space based power on the earth's atmosphere would be equivilent to moving the earth closer to the sun. I don't think I need to explain what the consequence would be.

You would need a very, very efficient blackbody emitter sticking out above the atmosphere to dump the extra entropic waste, or suffer extreme climate change if space based power ever caught on.

[yaklin]

and to everyone that is worried about radiation exposure from nuclear power plants I'll let you in on a little secret, you get less exposure on a 3 month deployment on a nuclear powered sub than you get from a single day at the beach, that's how little radiation is given off by nuclear reactors.

[WillowLuman]

Put a solar panel of every roof. If you don't get much sun, put a wind turbine, instead.

BTW, used to live with my uncle, the solar panels on his roof gave him a net profit on his energy bill. He lives in Washington (the state, not the city). To be fair, they're probably hard-gotten exceptionally crafted ≡solar panels≡. Still, with enough R&D, most panels could be like that and not cost nearly as much. After all, people used to prefer whale-oil to crude oil because it had more energy density, but then they learned how to refine it into gasoline.

[Ross Vernal]

Agreed with Hugo.

[smakemupagus]

You see, the earth is an equilibrium engine. Energy in == energy out. (With exception of sequestered carbon energy)

i think you're not wrong to think about this sort of thing, but also consider that

"The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

in other word, a new perfectly efficient technology that made energy appear from space could double our economic access to energy while only a 1e-4 impact on energy balance.  not that 1e-4 is negligible, just that it wouldn't require a miracle of engineering to compensate for.  Any large scale engineering can change important factors on a significant scale.  Large scale installation of terrestrial solar cells might also increase the net energy absorbed by the earth, for example, by changing the earth's albedo. 

From an energy balance argument you could say too:  Burning fossil fuels, or your nuclear fusion, obviously also converts previously sequestered energy into free energy.  All that free energy even if we use it to do something useful along the way ultimately is dissipated as heat, just like the the energy from the hypothetical space lasers.

[Kofthefens]

Solar and wind are DEFINITELY a good idea whether for earth or space. They may have a comparatively low energy density, yet they still produce energy.

Nuclear is certainly far better than fossil fuels; that I cannot deny. I feel that if we were to make all the designs up to date (I'm not sure how old they are) I would think better of them. They are definitely good, but that doesn't mean we can't do better.

What about transportation though? It is certainly consumes a large amount of energy, and energy storage is a large issue. The energy methods I have mentioned produce electricity. There are the three main ideas for transportation: hydrogen fuel cell, EVs, or biofuels.

Biofuels are more inefficient to produce, even algal ones (The technology for that IS improving though especially GE algae). It does have many of the benefits of fossil fuels however. I think that this could be very useful for planes.

HFC takes up a lot of space, just like electric. It does have the advantage of quick refueling. I think this would be good for large vehicles: buses, trains, ect.

Electric. The batteries are constantly getting better. It does take a while to recharge. However, as my family has a Leaf, they are really quite good. It has a decent range, and while it may not be good for road trips, it is perfect for commuting. Commuting is what uses the most gas. I think electric is a viable solution for most cars.

[wierd]

Biofuels could also work nicely in an EV. (Hint: combustion is the least efficient way to liberate chemical energy to do work.)

Direct ethanol fuel cells chemically decompose the ethanol into co2 and water vapor, producing electricity directly from the catalytic reaction. Ethanol has a very nice energy density. Less than petrolium fuel, but using an EV, you have much greater energy use efficiency. (Combustion engines suffer the carnot efficiency limit. EV engines do not.)

[rtg593]

rapeseed oil became "canola oil" because nobody really wants to use rape as a cooking ingredient.

"can I help you?"

Yes, I'm looking for some rape oil?"

Lolololol...

TL, dr :p

[Lagslayer]

Electric cars are getting better and so are batteries (albeit slowly), but they are much more dangerous to handle and difficult to maintain. Car batteries, especially on a fully electric engine, have tons of amps, and one tiny misstep means you are fried. Electric engines also use much more complicated computers and systems. Even now, most automotive mechanics/technicians can barely fix the problems of an internal combustion engine. Even if more schooling becomes readily available, it becomes increasingly complex and unintuitive. Most people don't really have the capacity to properly deal with the problem.

I'm getting a bit tangential with this (sorry), but we are painting ourselves into a corner where hardly anyone is capable of understanding the things we use every day. I think some resources need to be diverted to trying to make the systems simpler (or at least more intuitive) so people can understand. At least for the short term, this should help.

[Mr. Palau]

Sorry to double post...


Space based power, unless you are using that power in space, is a very very bad idea.

You see, the earth is an equilibrium engine. Energy in == energy out. (With exception of sequestered carbon energy)

That is to say, the energy that hits the earth from the sun + the energy from radiological decay in the mantle == the IR waste energy beamed out into space by our atmosphere.

Dumping large amounts of energy into the earth to power our civilization directly from outer space (such as with great big mirrors) will increase the rate of energy entering the system, skewing the equilibrium.

People talk about climate change now.... dumping space based power on the earth's atmosphere would be equivilent to moving the earth closer to the sun. I don't think I need to explain what the consequence would be.

You would need a very, very efficient blackbody emitter sticking out above the atmosphere to dump the extra entropic waste, or suffer extreme climate change if space based power ever caught on.

I agree with your ideas on nuclear power but what they are talking about in regards to solar power in space is not directly blasting the atmosphere with it, rather they are talking about using space mounted solar panels to power a high energy laser in space. The laser would beam the energy back down to earth in the form of a coherent stream of particles that would be designed not to disrupt or be absorbed by the atmosphere in order to get more of it to earth. It would hardly impact global warming because it would only moderately heat very, very, small portions of the atmosphere relative to the total size of the earth, and most of the heat would dissipate harmlessly. The laser would then be absorbed by what would essentially be a photovoltaic cell on steroids. Instead of absorbing light from the sun it would be designed to absorb much more concentrated light from the space powered laser. It would also be done in short precisely calculated burst so you would be able to fly an airplane through the normal path of the laser without incident (not while it is firing though).

A spaced based laser could transmit power across almost half of the earths surface. Built that laser to power New York ut there is some crazy big party in L.A. tonight? No problem redirect one of the laser bursts to a receiving station setup near L.A. This allows much greater concentration of energy production than is possible with Nuclear, and makes for a much more dynamic electrical grid that would be able to respond to power demands on an hour to hour basis. A frequent problem in energy production is peak energy demand. By positioning a laser so peak demand occurred at different times within its range you would be able to take advantage of being able to deliver energy where it is needed when it is needed, instead of storing energy for peak times or wasting energy produced during non-peak hours.

 Currently this is uneconomical because they would degrade 10x as faster as solar panels on earth and risk being hit by large space debris. As other forms of cheaper energy production become more costly however space based solar becomes more viable. The 10x degrade rate for space bound solar panels mean they would need to be replaced almost every decade, which would necessitate a space station close by to perform repairs on the satellites.  If they could be launched through lower cost reusable launch systems, or manufactured in space they would be much more economical then they are now. Launching things off the moon is a lot less expensive than launching things off of earth, so manufacture and launch from a moon colony is likely the best option.

Not to sound like Newt Gingrich (whose name is apparently recognized by Microsoft word now.) but such a colony would cost much less the horrendous excuse for health care system that is that of the United States. Put in a single payer system use the money to pay for the moon colony, which sounds more expensive than it is but excessive health care cost add up to 17% of GDP compared to 9% of other countries. That leaves 8% for the space program, assuming you put none of the savings towards deficit reduction. Hell say we only can cut health care to 11% of GDP because the American public is so unhealthy, we still got 6% for the space program. For comparison as a percentage of  GDP the space program now has .1268% of it (based of it being .5% of the federal budget and that being 25.36% of GDP).  That would be 47x percent increase, likely enough to get a viable population on the moon or in a space station within the decade. So get healthcare for everyone, get a moon colony, and cheap abundant energy from space. Try to get the Republicans to vote for it. To some people no matter how good it would be the community or society as a whole, it is not worth one once of their personal effort in the end, even if it would better their lives. Not to mention that vast swaths of the population are ignorant of solution like this and if there is one thing that is reliable about humanity it is that the people by and large will never accept big ideas quickly enough, or have the foresight to agree to a plan such as this.
(I really should have out this effort towards my English HW, but it was so damn boring. Marriage customs in societies and how they relate to the taming of the shrew, AHH!!!)

[wierd]

Sorry to double post...


Space based power, unless you are using that power in space, is a very very bad idea.

You see, the earth is an equilibrium engine. Energy in == energy out. (With exception of sequestered carbon energy)

That is to say, the energy that hits the earth from the sun + the energy from radiological decay in the mantle == the IR waste energy beamed out into space by our atmosphere.

Dumping large amounts of energy into the earth to power our civilization directly from outer space (such as with great big mirrors) will increase the rate of energy entering the system, skewing the equilibrium.

People talk about climate change now.... dumping space based power on the earth's atmosphere would be equivilent to moving the earth closer to the sun. I don't think I need to explain what the consequence would be.

You would need a very, very efficient blackbody emitter sticking out above the atmosphere to dump the extra entropic waste, or suffer extreme climate change if space based power ever caught on.

I agree with your ideas on nuclear power but what they are talking about in regards to solar power in space is not directly blasting the atmosphere with it, rather they are talking about using space mounted solar panels to power a high energy laser in space. The laser would beam the energy back down to earth in the form of a coherent stream of particles that would be designed not to disrupt or be absorbed by the atmosphere in order to get more of it to earth. It would hardly impact global warming because it would only moderately heat very, very, small portions of the atmosphere relative to the total size of the earth, and most of the heat would dissipate harmlessly. The laser would then be absorbed by what would essentially be a photovoltaic cell on steroids. Instead of absorbing light from the sun it would be designed to absorb much more concentrated light from the space powered laser. It would also be done in short precisely calculated burst so you would be able to fly an airplane through the normal path of the laser without incident (not while it is firing though).

A spaced based laser could transmit power across almost half of the earths surface. Built that laser to power New York ut there is some crazy big party in L.A. tonight? No problem redirect one of the laser bursts to a receiving station setup near L.A. This allows much greater concentration of energy production than is possible with Nuclear, and makes for a much more dynamic electrical grid that would be able to respond to power demands on an hour to hour basis. A frequent problem in energy production is peak energy demand. By positioning a laser so peak demand occurred at different times within its range you would be able to take advantage of being able to deliver energy where it is needed when it is needed, instead of storing energy for peak times or wasting energy produced during non-peak hours.

 Currently this is uneconomical because they would degrade 10x as faster as solar panels on earth and risk being hit by large space debris. As other forms of cheaper energy production become more costly however space based solar becomes more viable. The 10x degrade rate for space bound solar panels mean they would need to be replaced almost every decade, which would necessitate a space station close by to perform repairs on the satellites.  If they could be launched through lower cost reusable launch systems, or manufactured in space they would be much more economical then they are now. Launching things off the moon is a lot less expensive than launching things off of earth, so manufacture and launch from a moon colony is likely the best option.

Not to sound like Newt Gingrich (whose name is apparently recognized by Microsoft word now.) but such a colony would cost much less the horrendous excuse for health care system that is that of the United States. Put in a single payer system use the money to pay for the moon colony, which sounds more expensive than it is but excessive health care cost add up to 17% of GDP compared to 9% of other countries. That leaves 8% for the space program, assuming you put none of the savings towards deficit reduction. Hell say we only can cut health care to 11% of GDP because the American public is so unhealthy, we still got 6% for the space program. For comparison as a percentage of  GDP the space program now has .1268% of it (based of it being .5% of the federal budget and that being 25.36% of GDP).  That would be 47x percent increase, likely enough to get a viable population on the moon or in a space station within the decade. So get healthcare for everyone, get a moon colony, and cheap abundant energy from space. Try to get the Republicans to vote for it. To some people no matter how good it would be the community or society as a whole, it is not worth one once of their personal effort in the end, even if it would better their lives. Not to mention that vast swaths of the population are ignorant of solution like this and if there is one thing that is reliable about humanity it is that the people by and large will never accept big ideas quickly enough, or have the foresight to agree to a plan such as this.
(I really should have out this effort towards my English HW, but it was so damn boring. Marriage customs in societies and how they relate to the taming of the shrew, AHH!!!)

Uhm? Weather you are shining a big mirror, or beaming concentrated photons doesn't matter. Once the energy gets used, it is not destroyed. It turns into thermal waste energy, via the second law. This energy has to be dissipated away from the earth by the atmosphere.

It was pointed out earlier in the thead that it would take obscene amounts of energy to upset the earth's equilibrium in a noticeable way, but that doesn't mean that it isn't happening/won't add up over time, and won't be a problem if energy use on earth greatly exceeds what the sun delivers.  The rate of energy demand growth over the past century (and yes I know that this kind of projection is a cardinal sin in statistics) indicates a very ferocious trend for ever more energy being required to advance human civilization. Eventually, fusion and nuclear will not be enough, and a more ambitious energy source will be needed, but before then those energy sources being heavily deployed will produce dangerous thermal waste.

This could be solved by actively removing greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere so the IR energy can bleed out faster (creating what would normally be an iceage, held back by the increased thermal output of human activity), or by moving most of the manufacturing off planet, or by using an orbital tether as a blackbody emitter.

Again, the problem is not that the laser heats the atmosphere. It is that the extra energy delivered to the earth has to leave the earth as passive IR radiation.

[Eddren]

Sorry to double post...


Space based power, unless you are using that power in space, is a very very bad idea.

You see, the earth is an equilibrium engine. Energy in == energy out. (With exception of sequestered carbon energy)

That is to say, the energy that hits the earth from the sun + the energy from radiological decay in the mantle == the IR waste energy beamed out into space by our atmosphere.

Dumping large amounts of energy into the earth to power our civilization directly from outer space (such as with great big mirrors) will increase the rate of energy entering the system, skewing the equilibrium.

People talk about climate change now.... dumping space based power on the earth's atmosphere would be equivilent to moving the earth closer to the sun. I don't think I need to explain what the consequence would be.

You would need a very, very efficient blackbody emitter sticking out above the atmosphere to dump the extra entropic waste, or suffer extreme climate change if space based power ever caught on.

I agree with your ideas on nuclear power but what they are talking about in regards to solar power in space is not directly blasting the atmosphere with it, rather they are talking about using space mounted solar panels to power a high energy laser in space. The laser would beam the energy back down to earth in the form of a coherent stream of particles that would be designed not to disrupt or be absorbed by the atmosphere in order to get more of it to earth. It would hardly impact global warming because it would only moderately heat very, very, small portions of the atmosphere relative to the total size of the earth, and most of the heat would dissipate harmlessly. The laser would then be absorbed by what would essentially be a photovoltaic cell on steroids. Instead of absorbing light from the sun it would be designed to absorb much more concentrated light from the space powered laser. It would also be done in short precisely calculated burst so you would be able to fly an airplane through the normal path of the laser without incident (not while it is firing though).

A spaced based laser could transmit power across almost half of the earths surface. Built that laser to power New York ut there is some crazy big party in L.A. tonight? No problem redirect one of the laser bursts to a receiving station setup near L.A. This allows much greater concentration of energy production than is possible with Nuclear, and makes for a much more dynamic electrical grid that would be able to respond to power demands on an hour to hour basis. A frequent problem in energy production is peak energy demand. By positioning a laser so peak demand occurred at different times within its range you would be able to take advantage of being able to deliver energy where it is needed when it is needed, instead of storing energy for peak times or wasting energy produced during non-peak hours.

 Currently this is uneconomical because they would degrade 10x as faster as solar panels on earth and risk being hit by large space debris. As other forms of cheaper energy production become more costly however space based solar becomes more viable. The 10x degrade rate for space bound solar panels mean they would need to be replaced almost every decade, which would necessitate a space station close by to perform repairs on the satellites.  If they could be launched through lower cost reusable launch systems, or manufactured in space they would be much more economical then they are now. Launching things off the moon is a lot less expensive than launching things off of earth, so manufacture and launch from a moon colony is likely the best option.

Not to sound like Newt Gingrich (whose name is apparently recognized by Microsoft word now.) but such a colony would cost much less the horrendous excuse for health care system that is that of the United States. Put in a single payer system use the money to pay for the moon colony, which sounds more expensive than it is but excessive health care cost add up to 17% of GDP compared to 9% of other countries. That leaves 8% for the space program, assuming you put none of the savings towards deficit reduction. Hell say we only can cut health care to 11% of GDP because the American public is so unhealthy, we still got 6% for the space program. For comparison as a percentage of  GDP the space program now has .1268% of it (based of it being .5% of the federal budget and that being 25.36% of GDP).  That would be 47x percent increase, likely enough to get a viable population on the moon or in a space station within the decade. So get healthcare for everyone, get a moon colony, and cheap abundant energy from space. Try to get the Republicans to vote for it. To some people no matter how good it would be the community or society as a whole, it is not worth one once of their personal effort in the end, even if it would better their lives. Not to mention that vast swaths of the population are ignorant of solution like this and if there is one thing that is reliable about humanity it is that the people by and large will never accept big ideas quickly enough, or have the foresight to agree to a plan such as this.
(I really should have out this effort towards my English HW, but it was so damn boring. Marriage customs in societies and how they relate to the taming of the shrew, AHH!!!)

Uhm? Weather you are shining a big mirror, or beaming concentrated photons doesn't matter. Once the energy gets used, it is not destroyed. It turns into thermal waste energy, via the second law. This energy has to be dissipated away from the earth by the atmosphere.

It was pointed out earlier in the thead that it would take obscene amounts of energy to upset the earth's equilibrium in a noticeable way, but that doesn't mean that it isn't happening/won't add up over time, and won't be a problem if energy use on earth greatly exceeds what the sun delivers.  The rate of energy demand growth over the past century (and yes I know that this kind of projection is a cardinal sin in statistics) indicates a very ferocious trend for ever more energy being required to advance human civilization. Eventually, fusion and nuclear will not be enough, and a more ambitious energy source will be needed, but before then those energy sources being heavily deployed will produce dangerous thermal waste.

This could be solved by actively removing greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere so the IR energy can bleed out faster (creating what would normally be an iceage, held back by the increased thermal output of human activity), or by moving most of the manufacturing off planet, or by using an orbital tether as a blackbody emitter.

Again, the problem is not that the laser heats the atmosphere. It is that the extra energy delivered to the earth has to leave the earth as passive IR radiation.

I find it interesting how we went from being on completely opposite sides of the spectrum, to being united on this.
You absolutely do NOT want to import energy. Think of Earth as a balloon; the more 'air,' or in this case, energy, you put into the Earth, the more full it becomes. Of course, some of this 'air' escapes, but that's replaced naturally, via the sun. But imagine if you suddenly hooked up to it several air pumps. Eventually, that balloon's gunna go 'pop.'

[Mr. Palau]

Sorry to double post...


Space based power, unless you are using that power in space, is a very very bad idea.

You see, the earth is an equilibrium engine. Energy in == energy out. (With exception of sequestered carbon energy)

That is to say, the energy that hits the earth from the sun + the energy from radiological decay in the mantle == the IR waste energy beamed out into space by our atmosphere.

Dumping large amounts of energy into the earth to power our civilization directly from outer space (such as with great big mirrors) will increase the rate of energy entering the system, skewing the equilibrium.

People talk about climate change now.... dumping space based power on the earth's atmosphere would be equivilent to moving the earth closer to the sun. I don't think I need to explain what the consequence would be.

You would need a very, very efficient blackbody emitter sticking out above the atmosphere to dump the extra entropic waste, or suffer extreme climate change if space based power ever caught on.

I agree with your ideas on nuclear power but what they are talking about in regards to solar power in space is not directly blasting the atmosphere with it, rather they are talking about using space mounted solar panels to power a high energy laser in space. The laser would beam the energy back down to earth in the form of a coherent stream of particles that would be designed not to disrupt or be absorbed by the atmosphere in order to get more of it to earth. It would hardly impact global warming because it would only moderately heat very, very, small portions of the atmosphere relative to the total size of the earth, and most of the heat would dissipate harmlessly. The laser would then be absorbed by what would essentially be a photovoltaic cell on steroids. Instead of absorbing light from the sun it would be designed to absorb much more concentrated light from the space powered laser. It would also be done in short precisely calculated burst so you would be able to fly an airplane through the normal path of the laser without incident (not while it is firing though).

A spaced based laser could transmit power across almost half of the earths surface. Built that laser to power New York ut there is some crazy big party in L.A. tonight? No problem redirect one of the laser bursts to a receiving station setup near L.A. This allows much greater concentration of energy production than is possible with Nuclear, and makes for a much more dynamic electrical grid that would be able to respond to power demands on an hour to hour basis. A frequent problem in energy production is peak energy demand. By positioning a laser so peak demand occurred at different times within its range you would be able to take advantage of being able to deliver energy where it is needed when it is needed, instead of storing energy for peak times or wasting energy produced during non-peak hours.

 Currently this is uneconomical because they would degrade 10x as faster as solar panels on earth and risk being hit by large space debris. As other forms of cheaper energy production become more costly however space based solar becomes more viable. The 10x degrade rate for space bound solar panels mean they would need to be replaced almost every decade, which would necessitate a space station close by to perform repairs on the satellites.  If they could be launched through lower cost reusable launch systems, or manufactured in space they would be much more economical then they are now. Launching things off the moon is a lot less expensive than launching things off of earth, so manufacture and launch from a moon colony is likely the best option.

Not to sound like Newt Gingrich (whose name is apparently recognized by Microsoft word now.) but such a colony would cost much less the horrendous excuse for health care system that is that of the United States. Put in a single payer system use the money to pay for the moon colony, which sounds more expensive than it is but excessive health care cost add up to 17% of GDP compared to 9% of other countries. That leaves 8% for the space program, assuming you put none of the savings towards deficit reduction. Hell say we only can cut health care to 11% of GDP because the American public is so unhealthy, we still got 6% for the space program. For comparison as a percentage of  GDP the space program now has .1268% of it (based of it being .5% of the federal budget and that being 25.36% of GDP).  That would be 47x percent increase, likely enough to get a viable population on the moon or in a space station within the decade. So get healthcare for everyone, get a moon colony, and cheap abundant energy from space. Try to get the Republicans to vote for it. To some people no matter how good it would be the community or society as a whole, it is not worth one once of their personal effort in the end, even if it would better their lives. Not to mention that vast swaths of the population are ignorant of solution like this and if there is one thing that is reliable about humanity it is that the people by and large will never accept big ideas quickly enough, or have the foresight to agree to a plan such as this.
(I really should have out this effort towards my English HW, but it was so damn boring. Marriage customs in societies and how they relate to the taming of the shrew, AHH!!!)

Uhm? Weather you are shining a big mirror, or beaming concentrated photons doesn't matter. Once the energy gets used, it is not destroyed. It turns into thermal waste energy, via the second law. This energy has to be dissipated away from the earth by the atmosphere.

It was pointed out earlier in the thead that it would take obscene amounts of energy to upset the earth's equilibrium in a noticeable way, but that doesn't mean that it isn't happening/won't add up over time, and won't be a problem if energy use on earth greatly exceeds what the sun delivers.  The rate of energy demand growth over the past century (and yes I know that this kind of projection is a cardinal sin in statistics) indicates a very ferocious trend for ever more energy being required to advance human civilization. Eventually, fusion and nuclear will not be enough, and a more ambitious energy source will be needed, but before then those energy sources being heavily deployed will produce dangerous thermal waste.

This could be solved by actively removing greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere so the IR energy can bleed out faster (creating what would normally be an iceage, held back by the increased thermal output of human activity), or by moving most of the manufacturing off planet, or by using an orbital tether as a blackbody emitter.

Again, the problem is not that the laser heats the atmosphere. It is that the extra energy delivered to the earth has to leave the earth as passive IR radiation.

I find it interesting how we went from being on completely opposite sides of the spectrum, to being united on this.
You absolutely do NOT want to import energy. Think of Earth as a balloon; the more 'air,' or in this case, energy, you put into the Earth, the more full it becomes. Of course, some of this 'air' escapes, but that's replaced naturally, via the sun. But imagine if you suddenly hooked up to it several air pumps. Eventually, that balloon's gunna go 'pop.'

I admit that as a high school student who has not taken Physics yet i did not consider the relationship of the second law of thermodyamics in this case. Which is actually intresting because that is t what the first post was about... I just toke it as a dismissal of space based solar energy as unviable. However the energy transmited to earth via the laser (or other device) could be diverted from other areas of the earth's surface, leaving the net amount of energy delivered to earth the same but just having it concentrated in space and transmited to earth for use. No more air would be pumped into the ballon, it would merely go to some areas of the ballon before it goes to others. In retro-spect this thread probably should have been in the off-topic forum for the last five pages, but it would get less attention there so who cares...

[wierd]

Lol! (Has never really taken physics either, but loves all things science and engineering. Despite what the song says, the internet is for more than just porn.)

What really needs to happen is an efficiency boom.  We went through a tech boom, which has increased our energy demands.  One of the rules concerning entropic energy in a system, is that it always requires more energy to overcome that entropy. (Eg, the AC unit you run in the summer creates more heat than it removes from your house, to satisfy this law. The unit is simply designed to spew that heat along with the concentrated heat it pulled from the inside of your house, outside.)

The same is true for electronic devices. This is why overclocking a cpu requires far more power, and far better cooling.  The harder you drive the circuit, the more energy is required to overcome thermal noise, and as a result, more and more entropic heat is created, and more energy to transport that heat away is required.

The same would eventually be true for the earth-sun system.  Humans have a demand for more and more energy, which is directly tied to the ammount of entropy already in the system at some level. Adding more energy to overcome the entropy will creating more entropy, requirng ever greater ammounts of energy, until the earth cooks like a christmas goose.

Increasing the efficiency of our existing technology will reduce the rate that the energy is converted into entropic waste. Things like superconducting powerlines would radically change the way we think about energy, for instance. (Right now, more than half the energy produced by any given power plant of any technology is bled out as passive emissions of entropic energy of one form or another before being used to do work.)

When we start really requiring more energy to be in the system, we need to also create a means for that extra energy to leave the system, or suffer being cooked.

Removing greenhouse gasses is one way. Another is using an orbital tether (aka, a space elevator) as not only a convenient launch system, but also as a direct blackbody emitter. (You concentrate the heat energy in the transfer station, and beam the heat as IR directly into space. Being near the emitter surface would cook you. )

The safest way is to realize that the earth has a fixed energy equilibrium, and advance within those means, and move energy expensive operations off planet where there isn't an insulating atmosphere, or where the increased thermal output would be highly beneficial (say, some other celestial body, like the moon.)

It is important to understand that nature is already a very efficient exploiter of local maxima. This means that the "natural" state of the earth has already reached a very efficient system to deal with all the ins and outs of energy use. Human activities often consider nature to be too constraining, and seek to puncture the equilibrium.  It is important to realize that there are very real complications associated with doing that.

[WillowLuman]

To the OP:
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

Not that I mind though...