Re: Art, where's the buzz on nanotech saving America today?



On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, rrc wrote:

BMJ wrote:

Afterwards, that is if there's a world in the 23rd century, we'll have
innovate in the solar realm that is if they're not suffering from
another "S&E shortage" during that time.


One of the present drawbacks with photovoltaics is the relatively low
conversion efficiency of modules. This means that a PV installation
will require significant areas of land. In addition, renewable systems
require a large initial capital expenditure when compared with existing
systems. (I investigated the economic optimization of hybrid renewable
systems for my Ph. D.)

That's why I'd placed the 23rd century as a caveat. Present day
photovoltaics are pretty dead end.

You guys are not reading the newspapers. I don't have it handy, but there were about two WSJ articles where out in california quite a few new homes have solar panels built in (they get a tax break, I think) as a supplement
in case they have brownouts or rolling blackouts and everyone is happy with the direction this is going in. Its got a long way to go but the technology is already here and been here for 1-2 decades.

It would have to be a collection of
lunar or orbital systems which then "microwaves" the solar radiation
back to the surface for power.

Now that is a bad idea. Mis-sim the microwaves and you'll be frying people. What a hijack target. Don't put all your eggs in one high-tech basket.

So the cycle I see is Alberta/Siberian/Kazakh oil from here till 2030.

You don't know what exploratory ocean drilling is going to come up with.

Modern Fischer-Tropsch coal->to->petroleum synfuels from 2025 till
2200.

Too early to predict.

And then afterwards, a network of extraterrestrial solar stations
pooling energy for the surface along with limited fusion facilities.


.