You were alarmed by heating due to additional power.
I still contend it's TOTAL power, not the additional 'solar energy'. If you produce 3Tw of beam power and shut down 3Tw of ground based power production, the net heat gain is even.
Hmm... I didn't think calling someone smarty in a semi-sarcastic tone of voice was a mortal insult - and prefacing your correction with 'Duh', weren't really polite now either was it now?;)
Still - let water under the bridge lay where Jesus flang it...;)
-----------
As for agreeing - I'm saying that the wattage produced and dumped into the grid produces the same heat REGARDLESS of it's source. Adding solar collectors isn't any worse than adding more coal fire plants. REPLACING coal fire plants with collectors actually REDUCES the thermal load on the environment, because you eliminate most of the secondary environmental effects.
The original poster was worried about added surface area as a measure of added heat. I'm saying it's the wattage produced, not the surface area that matters. True, one is proportional to the other I guess;)
My EXTENDED point was, however, that there is no concern about global warming with beamed power OTHER than the fact that you're producing power. Beamed is AT LEAST as good as current production - and most likely better.
Ok - smarty. Start doing some Math. It STILL is the net wattage, and not the net AREA that matters.
The same amount of global heating will occur with beamed power as is caused by current power consumption - not more.
Justification
All energy 'produced' today eventually ends up as 'waste heat'. Some of this is due to inefficiencies in production, but most of it is simply the laws of thermodynamics (feel a Television/Computer/Lightbulb - it's putting out heat. So do transmission lines, etc). Current power production is based on liberating stored chemical/nuclear/potential energy and freeing it in a usable form which eventually ends up as 'waste heat'. It does not currently exist free in the environment. At BEST, it is stored solar energy from the PAST.
This means that the amount of 'heat' that current power production is dumping into the environment is equal to current power production, PLUS the by-products of production. I think the figure tossed out was ~75% efficiency with modern production. I'll accept that as given, without proof.
This means that the amount of heat being dumped into the environement is ~1.333... times the global energy output.
Current global energy production is ~10 Terrawatts. This means that we are dumping ~13.333... Terrawatts of thermal energy into the environment. Eventaully. It all trickles down into heat eventually, remember.
You can subtract, from this, the amount of power derived from solar energy. We would get this waste heat ANYWAY, we're just using it - so it's 'thermally free' energy. However, I think that the %age of power being produced by solar is quite low.
In essence - it's the amount of energy being released into the environment - irregardless of the production means (but the efficiency of the means of production is important).
It could also be pointed out, however, that there are no secondary effects of beamed power, such as greenhouse gas production, which inhibit the release of waste heat.
Beamed power is at least as 'thermally efficient' as current power production, and possibly more.
However, if you are simply ADDING beamed power to the mix, you don't get any real benifit - as the total net 'wattage' being dumped into the environment goes up. You only get a benifit if you replace power production.
It's still based on net energy production, trickling down through the laws of thermodynamics.
Ah - but put the generation panels in Earth orbit, with the plane of the orbit being the same as the night/day terminator, and you DO have 24/7 direct sunlight. Ok - you have to set the orbit up to 'precess' over time with the Earth's orbit around the sun, but it's doable.
Now, someone will point out (correctly), that this makes the generator really move around in the night sky (as seen from the ground). Not really good when you're beaming Terrawats of power at the ground! No problem. We just need a Geo-synchronous relay point. It adds a level of inefficiency in converting beam-electricity-beam, but it's safer:)
The generator still has to hit a moving target - but it's moving slowly, and predictably, and if you MISS it just beams off into space.
Heating is NOT dependant on the area of the antenna! A HUGE antenna with LOW wattage/square meter is the same as a SMALL antenna with HIGH wattage/square meter (or it can be - you know what I mean). It's total wattage, not total square meters, that matter.
First of all - anyone who has done any reading into the research about this idea knows that the 'flash cooking a stray bird' is nonsense.
Most REASONALBLE plans for beamed microwave power involve ACRES of antenna with MINISCULE power beam densities. Might give the birds sunburn if they stay in the beam all day - or cancer if they stay in it for months, but the idea of 'flap flap flap BZZZZT! Thud!' is silly - UNLESS you purposely want to build small, tight power beams. Which you don't, as you WOULD get thermal blooming in the atmosphere along the path of the beam, and defocusing a high energy beam is BAD.
Your concern about overall average thermal heating of the atmosphere is interesting. However, I think that some hard DATA is required here - the amount of atmospheric heating/gigwatt of beamed power - and the CURRENT levels of heating caused by power production plants that would be phased out. Is the NET heating less?
Or....
Imagine some bright lab boy dropping a decimal place in designing a nano-replicator! *glub glub glub* Grey Goo!
or Black Goo(tm) (Grey Goo someone did on purpose).
NOT so Utopian.
Ok, ok - you can make arguments that PURE 'gray goo' scenerio being implausible, but much damage can still be done by rouge, or badly designed NanoReplicators (Replicator.NET).
Nanotechnology, like all technology, is not an unconditional good.
It's interesting to note that here in Toronto, the RCMP are already complaining about 'throw down' cell phones - like the pay-as-you-go phones - making it extremely difficult to track/find drug dealers and other criminals (although I believe the interviewee mostly stressed drug traffickers).
They will just LOVE these if they hit the shelves!
Or course, as other people have noted, there are perfectly legal uses for being nameless on the grid.
Back to the old chestnut - do we trample on rights to gain absolute security, or do we accept some insecurity as the price of individual rights.
Slashdot Mirror
You were alarmed by heating due to additional power.
I still contend it's TOTAL power, not the additional 'solar energy'. If you produce 3Tw of beam power and shut down 3Tw of ground based power production, the net heat gain is even.
Hmm... I didn't think calling someone smarty in a semi-sarcastic tone of voice was a mortal insult - and prefacing your correction with 'Duh', weren't really polite now either was it now?
Still - let water under the bridge lay where Jesus flang it...
-----------
As for agreeing - I'm saying that the wattage produced and dumped into the grid produces the same heat REGARDLESS of it's source. Adding solar collectors isn't any worse than adding more coal fire plants. REPLACING coal fire plants with collectors actually REDUCES the thermal load on the environment, because you eliminate most of the secondary environmental effects.
The original poster was worried about added surface area as a measure of added heat. I'm saying it's the wattage produced, not the surface area that matters. True, one is proportional to the other I guess
My EXTENDED point was, however, that there is no concern about global warming with beamed power OTHER than the fact that you're producing power. Beamed is AT LEAST as good as current production - and most likely better.
The same amount of global heating will occur with beamed power as is caused by current power consumption - not more.
Justification
In essence - it's the amount of energy being released into the environment - irregardless of the production means (but the efficiency of the means of production is important).
It could also be pointed out, however, that there are no secondary effects of beamed power, such as greenhouse gas production, which inhibit the release of waste heat.
Beamed power is at least as 'thermally efficient' as current power production, and possibly more.
However, if you are simply ADDING beamed power to the mix, you don't get any real benifit - as the total net 'wattage' being dumped into the environment goes up. You only get a benifit if you replace power production.
It's still based on net energy production, trickling down through the laws of thermodynamics.
Ah - but put the generation panels in Earth orbit, with the plane of the orbit being the same as the night/day terminator, and you DO have 24/7 direct sunlight. Ok - you have to set the orbit up to 'precess' over time with the Earth's orbit around the sun, but it's doable.
:)
Now, someone will point out (correctly), that this makes the generator really move around in the night sky (as seen from the ground). Not really good when you're beaming Terrawats of power at the ground! No problem. We just need a Geo-synchronous relay point. It adds a level of inefficiency in converting beam-electricity-beam, but it's safer
The generator still has to hit a moving target - but it's moving slowly, and predictably, and if you MISS it just beams off into space.
Heating is NOT dependant on the area of the antenna! A HUGE antenna with LOW wattage/square meter is the same as a SMALL antenna with HIGH wattage/square meter (or it can be - you know what I mean). It's total wattage, not total square meters, that matter.
First of all - anyone who has done any reading into the research about this idea knows that the 'flash cooking a stray bird' is nonsense.
Most REASONALBLE plans for beamed microwave power involve ACRES of antenna with MINISCULE power beam densities. Might give the birds sunburn if they stay in the beam all day - or cancer if they stay in it for months, but the idea of 'flap flap flap BZZZZT! Thud!' is silly - UNLESS you purposely want to build small, tight power beams. Which you don't, as you WOULD get thermal blooming in the atmosphere along the path of the beam, and defocusing a high energy beam is BAD.
Your concern about overall average thermal heating of the atmosphere is interesting. However, I think that some hard DATA is required here - the amount of atmospheric heating/gigwatt of beamed power - and the CURRENT levels of heating caused by power production plants that would be phased out. Is the NET heating less?
Or.... Imagine some bright lab boy dropping a decimal place in designing a nano-replicator! *glub glub glub* Grey Goo!
or Black Goo(tm) (Grey Goo someone did on purpose).
NOT so Utopian.
Ok, ok - you can make arguments that PURE 'gray goo' scenerio being implausible, but much damage can still be done by rouge, or badly designed NanoReplicators (Replicator.NET).
Nanotechnology, like all technology, is not an unconditional good.
It's interesting to note that here in Toronto, the RCMP are already complaining about 'throw down' cell phones - like the pay-as-you-go phones - making it extremely difficult to track/find drug dealers and other criminals (although I believe the interviewee mostly stressed drug traffickers). They will just LOVE these if they hit the shelves! Or course, as other people have noted, there are perfectly legal uses for being nameless on the grid. Back to the old chestnut - do we trample on rights to gain absolute security, or do we accept some insecurity as the price of individual rights.