Environment/Energy | Forum profile

Lace it, creates a nice reflective layer. Would have to be done round the clock and billions spent, but it's feasible.

Learning to not go off half cocked is a pretty big step.

...the buggers holding all the money at the moment aren't that interested in anything that happens beyond the next quarterly report.

Do you think its possible that Amory Lovins had something to do with the increased costs, making that a self fulfilling prophecy? Why is it that countries like Korea and France can build reactors much cheaper than we do?

there's some obvious problems with his conclusions.

Obviously, it's just some cobbled-together mess of numbers masquerading as some sort of "science". Hmmph!

I've downloaded the paper, and I'll comment after I've read it. However, his conclusions seem to broadly echo the things I've been thinking for the last for or five years.

After all,we spend billions pumping carbon into the air around the clock. If someone can figure out how to make tropospheric aerosols pay, I'm sure we'll find a way to get it done.

Edited on Mon Nov-23-09 11:55 PM by OKIsItJustMe However, if it's valid to worry about heating up the planet by beaming down space-based solar power, then heating up the planet with land-based solar panels would (logically) be worse. I agree that the heat (in either case) isn’t significant. I usually tell people that our problem is not that we’re generating heat, but that we’re preventing our planet from releasing heat into space.