On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan <fire... at (no spam) firelaw.us> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.
O , who can argue with that

Just a question

how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?

64 years ago was 1944.

For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2006_fcvt_fotw426....

$2.28 in 2005 dollars

Vince

What's the matter, isn't 6400% of fossil energy inflation in 64 years
quit good enough?

The automation and technology of delivering fossil energy has more
than cut their man-hours/barrel to something far less than 10% of what
it used to take.

Even coal gasification is nearly all automated, at perhaps not 1% of
the original man-hours/barrel in the 1940's (such as what Germany had
to cope with).

By this time next year we'll be at or above the 64:1 inflation mark of
such energy cost, and most of everything else catching up by
unavoidably following suit at perhaps as great as 32:1 per 64 year
span.

In the 1940's the fossil fuel consumption average per individual
wasn't hardly anything to speak of (in many developing nations it was
nothing) and even next to nothing in China, so it's not exactly a fair
example of true global inflation, because if we'd been using as much
fossil energy per individual back in the 1940's would only make this
energy inflation seem much greater.

Playing games with words or numbers isn't making life any better or
more affordable, but then what our faith-based puppet government does
best is to snooker and dumbfound as many of us village idiots as they
can muster.
. - Brad Guth

On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan <fire... at (no spam) firelaw.us> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.
O , who can argue with that

Just a question

how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?

64 years ago was 1944.

For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2006_fcvt_fotw426....

$2.28 in 2005 dollars

Vince

If we all had the “USA inflation adjusted” income to go along with
your “USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline”, as such there
wouldn’t hardly any problem, whereas I too could manage to get by on
that USA inflation adjusted income of $10,000/month (same as $156.25/
mo as of 64 years ago).
. – Brad Guth

On May 12, 2:43 pm, Vincent Brannigan <fire... at (no spam) firelaw.us> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan <fire... at (no spam) firelaw.us> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.
O , who can argue with that
Just a question
how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?
64 years ago was 1944.
For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2006_fcvt_fotw426....
$2.28 in 2005 dollars
Vince
If we all had the “USA inflation adjusted” income to go along with
your “USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline”, as such there
wouldn’t hardly any problem, whereas I too could manage to get by on
that USA inflation adjusted income of $10,000/month (same as $156.25/
mo as of 64 years ago).
. – Brad Guth
We have established that you can't read
now you prove that you cant multiply

the inflation correction for 156.25 in 1944 is $1,840.38 at the present
time

http://www.aier.org/research/cost-of-living-calculator/

Vincent M Brannigan

U of Maryland Consumer Economics Program
Assistant Prof 1977-83
Associate Prof 1983-1991
Professor 1991-92

have a nice day

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-003.pdf
“i n 1946 and resided in nonfarm areas was about $2,100 as compared
with $1,000 for women”

Divide that average income roughly in half for the typical nonwhite or
farm worker (this only applies to the nonfamily employed worker
because, the bulk of whatever the local/farm family member received
was paid via room and board).

Since I would have been much higher paid than average, by at least
twice that average of $175/month, makes my 1946 earnings worth $350/
month. Now multiply that by 64 = $22,400/month.

Do you even know the meaning of _duh_?
. – Brad Guth

On May 12, 2:36 pm, Vincent Brannigan <fire... at (no spam) firelaw.us> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan <fire... at (no spam) firelaw.us> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.
O , who can argue with that
Just a question
how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?
64 years ago was 1944.
For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2006_fcvt_fotw426....
$2.28 in 2005 dollars
Vince
What's the matter, isn't 6400% of fossil energy inflation in 64 years
quit good enough?
I can inflate balloons or prices or currency

But the laws of thermodynamics preclude inflating energy



You know exactly what I'd meant. Proves who you really are, doesn't
it.
. - BG

Pat Flannery wrote:

The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the SOS
crosses the sky,

The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the _SPS_
crosses the sky,
Building a SOS would be a Titanic undertaking. ;-)

Pat

Totorkon wrote:

Your talking gauge wars.  Europe uses the standard 1435mm even with
its electric trains.  It would be a big step just to transfer cargos
from trucks to trains, which are four times as efficient.

I'm talking far larger trains than we are presently using running on far
wider tracks, real monsters with boxcars of around four times their
current capacity, with the other cars that have the ability to carry
around a couple of hundred passengers.
As fuel cost increase, simple economics may make this a necessary
development for moving freight...and as a alternative to air, bus, or
automobile transport to get people places over a long distance.

I used to daydream of a transcontinental rail system that could run

In the case of SPS, kick that initial expense up via a order of
magnitude or three, and you realize the initial investment this is going
to require.
There's no easy way for us to get from where we are to that wonder world
in a incremental manner that a company or government could afford.
For starters, you need _huge_ SSTO vehicles - that no one knows how to
make yet - that can carry worthwhile payloads.
Figuring out how to build those (assuming they are even possible with
existing or near-term future technology) is going to eat up tens of
billions of dollars by the time they are done.

Just getting 'to orbit' rates down to a magical $1K/lb would be enough
to launch a thousand proposals and perhaps endear the public.  SSTO
isn't the way to go.

It's the simple way to go, and simplicity may pay off in the long run
over sophisticated two or more component vehicles.
The other possibility is a giant and cheap disposable booster.

One advantage that would simplify things greatly is to build the SPS
satellites in LEO (far more benign than GEO as far as radiation goes,
and a lot easier to reach) then attach ion engines to them and let them

use their electrical generating capacity to slowly work themselves out
to their intended final orbit in GEO.
By turning the solar array full-on or edge-on to the sun as it orbits
during ascent into GEO, the array could also be used as a large solar sail..

(snip)



Still, if someday private enterprise could launch, construct and
operate a power satellite for profit, it would begin a new age and the
human prospect of survival for as long as the sun shines.

Don't forget the solar wind; that's going to degrade the solar arrays
over time, so that there will be maintenance needed.
There's another big downside here:
A company that could build the SPS constellation and owns its output can
hold the countries that use that energy over a barrel.
Either you pay what they want or your country goes into a electrical
blackout.

Pat- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BradGuth wrote:
On May 13, 11:56 am, Vincent Brannigan <fire... at (no spam) firelaw.us> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
you simply cannot do math can you?
prices have not inflated by "64 times" in 64 years
When you get to 4th grade you will start doing decimals
Since 1944 the CPI conversion factor is 11.7784
from the cite ntoed above
Conversion Factor: 11.7784
Percent Change: 1,077.84
now run along and do your homework
Vince
I thought them fat Rothschilds did a way better job of educating their
brown-nosed minions. In your case, guess not.
. - Brad Guth
Your mommy is calling

go home

Vince

Pay anyone 64 times whatever take-home loot they were getting as of 64
years ago, and as such I bet they'll not bitch about having to pay $5/
gallon.
. - Brad Guth

as I said

study your homework

learn to do some libray work and you will stop saying such stupid things

Vince

WTF would you be putting arrays outside 6-odd Earth radii geocentric distance?
Inside that, you're in the magnetosphere - that is, sheltered from the
solar wind, even at the sub-solar point in your orbit.

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

WTF would you be putting arrays outside 6-odd Earth radii geocentric distance?
Inside that, you're in the magnetosphere - that is, sheltered from the
solar wind, even at the sub-solar point in your orbit.


Huh? Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) is at 22,233 miles up.

You hit the inner Van Allen belt at a altitude of around 430 miles.

The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the SOS
crosses the sky,

You hit the inner Van Allen belt at a altitude of around 430 miles.


.. which isn't the solar wind. That's out beyond the magnetopause.

On May 13, 3:03 pm, Vincent Brannigan <fire... at (no spam) firelaw.us> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 13, 11:56 am, Vincent Brannigan <fire... at (no spam) firelaw.us> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
you simply cannot do math can you?
prices have not inflated by "64 times" in 64 years
When you get to 4th grade you will start doing decimals
Since 1944 the CPI conversion factor is 11.7784
from the cite ntoed above
Conversion Factor: 11.7784
Percent Change: 1,077.84
now run along and do your homework
Vince
I thought them fat Rothschilds did a way better job of educating their
brown-nosed minions. In your case, guess not.
. - Brad Guth
Your mommy is calling
go home
Vince
Pay anyone 64 times whatever take-home loot they were getting as of 64
years ago, and as such I bet they'll not bitch about having to pay $5/
gallon.
. - Brad Guth
as I said

study your homework

learn to do some libray work and you will stop saying such stupid things

Vince

As I and others with half a brain would say; start paying us 64 times
as much in take-home pay as 64 years ago and we’ll stop bitching about
the end-user cost of fossil fuel.

BTW, make that a retroactive scale, as a back-pay scale linked to the
retail+tax cost of fossil fuel. In that case you folks seriously owe
us big-time, especially if including interest.
. – Brad Guth

Totorkon <aertr... at (no spam) gmail.com>  wrote:
On May 13, 4:20?pm, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the SOS
crosses the sky,

The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the _SPS_
crosses the sky,
Building a SOS would be a Titanic undertaking. ;-)

Pat

The face of the SPS would always be orthagonal to the sun, it would
rotate 360 deg in 365.25 days.  The transmitter would rotate 360 deg
every 24hrs.  Still much simpler than the 'retargeting' every ten
miniutes or so that would be required in low orbit.

        How about taking this thread to a science fiction newsgroup,
there isn't enough money in the whole world to put up 500 megawatt
system at 22,300 miles.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are we going to do this?
No, of course not.

The initial investment would be too high -