First, I was astounded to learn that total energy independence (EI) could be attained with only a 5 square meter solar panel system per person!!! How expensive are panels today? Second, U.S. EI would require only 500 square miles, or only 10 square miles per State!!! Seems in both cases these are trivial.

It cannot; read the comments. It is appalling to leave such a gross error in place for so long. Joan, do better.

That everyone knows what they want right now. Back in the beginning, 2002, the polls said (I think) that people wanted the war - Did that make it right then?

Not the same situation. When people wanted the war, it was because they believed the lies from the administration. Now they want out even with the similar lies still coming from the administration.

I know it ain't the current course, but I feel that We (America) broke it, and so we bought it.

So having illegally invaded a country and killed hundreds of thousands, we are now the ones to unilaterally decide how to fix it? Bull shit. Almost nobody there or anywhere else in the world will accept that. The administration is trying to fix it to their supporters advantage, not for the good of Iraq or the ME in general.

but my assumption is that there will be more players at the table

The table cannot even be moved into the room until there is a reasonable time table to get the US out of Iraq.

But a collector station in a geosynchronous orbit can make a lot more sense. It's a good deal closer, and it will always see its target area in the same place. Also no dust, and it can always have a view of the sun.

How are you going to get the energy down to earth efficiently and safely? Why is the use of solar power on the ground so bad that the huge expense of putting the collectors in space makes any sense at all?

for haircuts, making it all up. And he will get away with it, unless a whole lot people can convince MSM to report on it. Why would Mky take the risk? Bigger lies have gone unnoticed until they did not matter, so perhaps he thought he had a license to lie.

Your material has been really bad lately. You can do better!

When al-Qaeda succeeds in 9/11 part II (perhaps even on 9/11/08), due to Democrats' aid and comfort....

If it does happen, it will be again one of those things that no one could have predicted, followed by a response that anyone can predict.

From OMX's quote of the journalist of the day: My error was in not recognizing that our strength is not the strength of ten merely because our heart is pure.

Let me see now, which of the long series of "real" reason's for invading Iraq was the actual motive and shows a pure heart? Rob Mac, I too admire how you have gone about this defense, but you are defending the wrong person.

writes:By collecting solar energy in space, then transmitting it to the earth's surface as microwaves, you not only escape the darkness problem, but also avoid covering acres of arable land with solar collectors. The process is safe, free of environmentally adverse consequences, and feasible. All it lacks is the political support needed to fund it.

Let's look at how the report you referred to would collect the energy safely on earth:

Because the microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies high, they can be beamed at densities substantially lower than that of sunlight and still deliver more energy per area of land usage than terrestrial solar energy. The peak density of the beam is likely to be significantly less than noon sunlight, and at the edge of the rectenna equivalent to the leakage allowed and accepted by hundreds of millions in their microwave ovens. This low energy density and choice of wavelength also means that biological effects are likely extremely small, comparable to the heating one might feel if sitting some distance from a campfire.

This says 1.) We transmit the energy to earth at a lower density (fewer kW per sq. m.) than the energy from the sun.

But 2.) We really do not need more area than collecting the energy from the sun directly because a. we do it 24 hours a day; b. the energy conversion efficiency can be higher for turning microwaves into electricity than sunlight into electricity.

But how much less? Who knows, the report does not say but let's look at some numbers:

Efficiency of microwave to electricity: about 70%

Efficiency of sunlight to electricity, with additional development: about 20%

OK, that is 3.5 times better.

Best land for solar power use gets about 6.5 kW hrs/m^2 out of 24. OK so that is about 3.7 times better for the micorwaves. The product of the two is about 13. So if we want to transmit microwaves to earth at the same power density as the sun we need 1/13 of the collecting area. If we want to transmit at 1/13 the power density, we need the same area.

Surely it is better to collect the energy from the sunlight directly on the earth's surface.

wrote:That solution uses, for the most part, existing technology. Throw in nanotech and the abilitity to develop super strong superconducting cables and efficiency approaches 100%. Putting the collectors out in space eliminates roughly 62 kilometers of atmosphere and gets you a lot more energy than terestrial collectors to start with.

Putting the collectors in space does not get you that much more energy, since the atmosphere does not take out very much. It is extremely expensive to put things in space, and the collection of the microwaves on earth is not easy either. Strong superconducting cables? If possible, how does that help? You want to run cables from geo orbit down to earth? This is not Larry Niven Sci Fi, it is the real world. Stick to things that work. Solar can be part of the solution. The technology discussed in this article works.

The atmosphere absorbs a lot of solar energy, one of the reasons we can live here. Putting collectors in space increases the amount of energy they can collect.

Baloney. The atmosphere absorbs the shorter wavelengths (higher energy photons, uv and beyond). This is why we do not have protection for these wavelengths. Most of the energy is in the visible; perhaps this is why we use those wavelengths for vision: lots of energy there. (The sun is orange, peak energy in the visible. Why is it red when low to the horizon? Because the long distance of atmosphere it passes through scatters away most of the shorter wavelength visible. When it is overhead, most gets through. Why is the sky blue? Some of the shorter wavelength visible is always scattered and so we see it coming from the atmosphere.) Look at an intro atmospheric science book, and also learn some intro general physics.

Microwaves are inefficient. Energy diminishes as a product of distance from the source.

Not at all. The energy would be beamed as microwaves in such a way that the receiving area gathers nearly all the transmitted energy. Energy from a source small compared to a wavelength spreads, preserving the total energy. When the source is large compared to a wavelength, it can be directed into a small angle or beam, preserving both the total energy and keeping the size of the beam small. The inefficiency is in converting it into electric power (and at the transmission end, converting the solar energy into microwaves).