Re: ~e; energy policy & secrecy probes
human being <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:33:47 -0600
Well, if you're speaking about the 'moon base'
I myself hold great reservations to this 'beaming'
(talk about opening up the atmospheric layer,
that thing that Mars apparently has lost, which
supports life on Earth). there are mining interests
involved, and the reasons I've heard from those
most interested are to use the metals for data-
storage (in the moon? a big hard drive for data
storage? this is what a TV economics show had.)
then, also, rare elements to mine to bring back to
earth for advanced fusion projects (ummm...) and
that this is the real reason for needing to go back
to the moon-- not that the Chinese are going to
get there and the .US is trying to say 'we're back!!'
Like the 'freedom tower' (which is weird, i had a
dream last night that a certain affiliated tv-station
actually did get hit by lightning, spooky) is that,
while alternative energy can be great, it is easy
to use as a selling point, the economics of such
a thing may be very different, or even unrealistic
and yet it is the 'silver bullet' approach to earthly
problems- such as saying the future of earth is
mars, in a good way (no atmosphere, dead planet,
and that we use all our resources to make it our
home). this is not the argument, yet it is reasoning
for such things. I once wrote a mini-essay on how
social research and development, like that which
goes into NASA missions to mars with robots, is
the same type of commitment needed for earthly
issues (energy, education policy, electromagnetism,
learning the basics). I would stay grounded in the
reality that if something sounds too simple, at this
point, to be real, it probably is. That is, there are
no shortcuts and to sink the future into a scheme,
while being unable to do what can be done here,
now, is quite a trade-off. People can make up their
own minds as to what their values are, how they
relate to others. To me this is all very surreal and
shows how detached from reality on the ground
things are today, including .US policy initiatives.
it is simply absurd. that's how simply unreal it is.
quick, get the government a copy of SIM city or
Civilization, bring into the higher office, and ask
them to replicate all problems now with a space
program for solar energy on Mars. In those sims,
there would be massive protests, and overthrow.
It would not even be an option to go to the moon.
Unless one doesn't know we've been there already.
Or, maybe the mining companies wrote the policy.
In any case, solar, energy, is a surreal utopic ploy
to get buy-in. This is so warped it is hard to write
about without bursting into laughter. Sorry. Brian
On Tuesday, January 13, 2004, at 12:24 PM, Ronald Evitts wrote:
> yes, interesting, and to be even more optimistic, there was a very
> interesting (and buried) factoid in sunday's ny times about the
> of developing solar energy farms on the moon (the technology to "beam"
> energy back to earth apparently exists). the factoid was that it
> would be
> possible to generate enough electricity on the moon to satisfy the
> EARTH's electrical needs by the year 2050. is this true brian?? sign
> me up
> to the research and development teams to make this possible!
> and wouldn't this put a BIG dent in our perception of the middle east
> its oil reserves? (though i'm not sure how much of the oil is used for
> electricity production, versus gasoline for vehicles,
the electromagnetic internetwork-list
electromagnetism / infrastructure / civilization