As we are facing the loss of oil as a fuel source & since alternative power sources can only make up about 20% of a countries requirements as well as the problems of Global warming. Then there is a necessity to find an alternative to oil and to resolve the emission problems. One such idea is to put our industries into space. We can do this by using a Space Elevator, which is becoming feasible now. See http://www.elevator2010.org/site/primer.html for the feasability. This would enable us to build Nuclear/Solar Energy plants which would be more effective plus reduce the risks of a Nuclear incident and be able to supply the Earth with the resources required to keep our societies with the power requirements needed to maintain the lifestyles that we want to live. All the raw materials are out there to be mined and the cost compared to rockets and Space Shuttles just a fraction of the price. Otherwise the alternative is to regress to a Medieval way of life.
2007-04-30 02:41:12 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Wish as we might the technology is not quite there yet.
I beg to differ on the assertion that alternatives can only muster 20% of energy needs. Whoever spun you that story was not being honest. There is more than enough energy in renewables to power all the worlds ambitions for some time to come.
Wave power at 1kW per metre of coast line (Av) More in winter when you need more. Do the sums see how much that is in total. Then you can do the same again off shore and double dip.
Ocean thermal, the top of the worlds oceans are warmer than the depths, you can exploit that difference to extract energy. Enough there for every ones needs and then some. This was demonstrated almost 100 years ago in a prototype plant.
Tether a few mega turbines in the Gulf stream, heaps of energy there. Do the same in any of the other ocean currents.
About 1.5kW of sunlight falls on every square metre of the earth's surface, again do the sums, thats a lot of energy.
Then there wind, geothermal hot rocks, good old fashioned hydro, bio fuels, fuel gases from waste dumps, the list goes on.
OK so some of these may be a bit pricy. But all are on existing garden variety science and technology that is well understood.
The practice is less certain and improvements will come with increased production, just as it has with wind energy extraction. Now we can build 1megawatt and more single wind turbines, 30 years ago it was about 5kW.
The total renewables energy is huge. We only need to tap a small % of the total to get all we need.
And on top of that there is nuclear energy.
So yes to space elevators, but we need some major improvements in materials science to do it. And they will not be the short term solution to all out problems. (mght be worth building a space slingshot though, similar idea, but on a smaller scale, so needs less strength in the materials and just plain less of them.)
There are some other nice ways to get into space cheaper than we do that are worth exploring though.
2007-04-30 03:15:24 · answer #1 · answered by Walaka F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right now, it's not practical from a materials standpoint to build one. The technology just isn't there yet. Then you've got to establish some sort of settlement there to generate the power and to bring it down here; you would need transmission lines that are 25,000 miles long. There's no way you could move large amounts of power across that long a distance without huge losses. Also realize that going from the ground up the elevator is not like riding one in a building. It will take months to go up or come down. Recall, it's a 25,000 mile climb.
2007-04-30 02:57:13 · answer #2 · answered by Gene 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is NOT feasible now. We still have no way to make a cable strong enough. There is hope that carbon nanotubes could do that, but that is just a theory so far. It remains to be seen if we can really make a 30,000 mile long cable that is strong enough. And there is PLENTY of money going into carbon nanotube research, because strong materials are valuable for all sorts of things other than space elevators, so you can't complain we are wasting time or money on the wrong projects.
2007-04-30 02:47:07 · answer #3 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The space elevator is another quest for the perpetual motion machine.
Large amounts of power would be needed continually to keep the geo. anchor in orbit.
the technology with carbon nanotubes will be possible but the system will never be a free lunch.
I would like to see it happen but I don't think it ever will
2007-04-30 03:17:56 · answer #4 · answered by Billy Butthead 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because there are cheaper options.
BP and Shell etc present us with cheap fuel. Who would pay for this? It would cost billions. It might well be better in the long run, but when there's still quite a large plentiful supply of oil, then that's what people will pay for.
2007-04-30 02:48:09 · answer #5 · answered by Marky 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It isn't physically possible with today's materials. Even if possible it would cause havoc with satellites (especially geosynchronus) as well as the ISS and Shuttle Flights.
There are also significant roadblocks in regards to installation and safety.
2007-04-30 03:11:09 · answer #6 · answered by DT 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually we have yet to create an alloy that is sufficiently strong/light to create an elevator. Also if you think of the money and resources to create such a monumentally useless object not jsut to create but to maintain it, it seems kind of foolishe. No?
2007-04-30 02:47:36 · answer #7 · answered by a_talis_man 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
buy some magic beans and grow a beanstalk
2007-04-30 09:02:40 · answer #8 · answered by Spsipath 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wise up there still trying to build the star gate then we all can get off this ##### ing place
2007-04-30 03:04:01 · answer #9 · answered by bernie s 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋