"Magical solar power plants in space and ridiculously cheap space elevators."

Thanks for the debate OrionsGambit. ==Definitions== From Princeton's Wordnet, viable means "feasible: capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are" [1] ==Burden of proof== As pro and instigator, my opponent has the burden of proving that both an orbital elevator and solar power plants in space can be built using current technology ("the means at hand") and under current cost constraints ("circumstances as they are"). Furthermore, my opponent must show that these two products could be provided by the free market. If a new technology needs massive government subsidies, it is, by definition, not commercially viable. ==My case== C1) Cost of a space elevator It costs approximately $11,000 per pound to launch something into space (try calculating how much it would cost to launch yourself into space). [2] My opponent's rendition of an orbital elevator ringing the Earth would be prohibitively expensive, accounting for its considerable mass. It would have to be launched on multiple different rockets and assembled in space, which creates a whole slew of other costs. Special astronauts would have to be trained for its construction and special construction machinery would have to be flown into space. Private companies would have to develop their own space shuttles to bring the astronauts into space. Due to its massive cost, a comprehensive analysis done by NASA concluded that an orbital elevator will not be viable for at least another 200 years. [3] C2) The Cable One of the greatest technological challenges for a space elevator is making a cable strong enough to lift heavy objects all the way into space, without snapping. The cable would need a tensile strength of 62 Giga-Pascals (according to NASA). [4] The only potential material that can achieve that enormous tensile strength is carbon nanotube (CNT). However, according to CNN Money, CNT is prohibitively expensive and there is not enough worldwide production capacity to produce large quantities of CNT. [5] The CNT would need to be 62,000 miles long to reach space. However, the largest carbon nanotube grown to date is only 18 cm long. [6] In addition, there is a great degree of debris in space, any of which could collide with the cable and cause it to tear. According to Tom Nugent, Research Director of Liftport Inc, "A potential show-stopper for construction of the space elevator has not yet been adequately addressed. The elastic energy stored in the ribbon is immense, and breakage of a single thread could lead to a cascading failure that would lead to a fatal cut across the entire ribbon width. Freeman Dyson opined that he was doubtful the space elevator could be constructed due to the threat of elastic energy, saying ‘If it tears in one place, it is likely to be a disaster.'" [7] C3) Cost of solar power plants in space Physicist Maury Markowitz calculates that it will cost $11 billion just to launch the power stations into space. It will likely cost billions more to assemble the space stations. Solar cells only last for 20 years. Over this time period, Markowitz calculates that a space solar plant would generate $1.75 billion worth of electricity. [8] The power plants don't pay for themselves! Not only do the space power plants need to start turning a profit, they need be at least as profitable as other options, like coal, nuclear, and ground-based solar plants in order for companies to pursue them. Since it will always be cheaper to build solar plants on the ground rather than in space, space power will never be cost competitive. C4) Transmission The problem is how to get the collected power from the space station to Earth. Scientists have tried to develop technology to beam power back and forth from space using lasers, but the technology is only 0.5% efficient, meaning 95.5% of the power is lost in transmission. [9] Jarret Lafleur of Georgia Tech writes, "One widely-examined method of wireless power transmission is microwave power beaming, and one popularized application in the aerospace world has been that of transmitting solar energy from space to fulfill Earth's power needs . . . studies have often found that this application is likely infeasible (and certainly economically unviable) with current technology." [10] ==My opponent's case== R1) US government should build it Responses: 1. My opponent says, "No single private entity has the ability to gather the necessary materials, capital, and personnel need for what amounts to as a civilization-level project." In his round 1 he has already conceded that an orbital elevator is not commercially viable. 2. He never proves that the U.S. could afford the project either. We're not exactly flush with cash right now. 3. We can't spend more government funds. According to the NY Times, the recent Obama-GOP deal to extend the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits will add $900 billion to the deficit, putting us over the debt limit of $14.3 trillion. The government is literally, by law, not allowed to spend any more money. 4. The GOP would never agree to pass a bill for a space elevator, so this point is moot. My opponent asserts, "unless the United States is able to reach this pinnacle first or at least at the same time as her rivals, she is going to find herself at a significant disadvantage." 1. The same argument was advanced for why we had to reach the moon – to catch up to the Russians. Space flight to the moon has yet to yield any economic benefits. 2. If other countries built a super-expensive space elevator first, they would be forced to let us use it to try to turn a profit from the ridiculous project. R2) space power plants My opponent says: "While used on Earth, solar energy we normally experience is heavily attenuated resulting in only one-thousandth of it actually reaching Earth's surface." Citation? One-thousandth is a ridiculous exaggeration. My Maury Markowitz evidence says that solar power in space would get roughly four times the power of solar panels on Earth, hardly making it worth the ridiculous cost of putting the panels in space. There is plenty of available land area in the U.S. desert. According to physicist Richard Muller, we could power the entire United States with a single large solar array in the Nevada desert. Smart grid technology is also allowing people to install solar panels on their roofs and sell the power into the local grid. We should focus on implementing cheap solar technology here on Earth rather than on putting ridiculous solar arrays into space. I look forward to my opponent's response. ==Citations== [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com...