From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Rochester
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:32:18 GMT

In article <20DEC199222321742@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

> We have been through this little discussion here before. Mining, versus
> planetary geology is the study of the abundance of desirable minerals in
> concentration, not percentage of planetary mass. If you look at any
> statistical survey of the concentration, or in economic terms, economically
> justifiable available resources, you will find that there are very 
> few left. 

We have been through this before, but that's not the conclusion.  The
experts (some of whom I have quoted) are of the opinion that there
will be no near term exhaustion of any non-fuel mineral.  The minerals
we use in the largest quantities are available in essentially
unlimited amounts, and the opportunities for substitution on the rest
are pretty good.

 >in the US or Iron mines for that matter anymore. Even though Iron is one of
 >the most abundant metals known in the universe, the problems of extraction
 >from sulfer based ores make it unattractive to commercially mine.

This is completely nonsensical.  Most iron in the earth's crust is in
oxide or silicate form, and the lower grade taconites (of which there
are many thousands of years supply available) are iron oxide deposits.
Sulfur is rather rare in the crust, in comparison.

If we judge deposits on a commercial basis, we must, in all fairness,
compare putative space resources on the same basis.  The answer you
get is that space deposits are not competitive by multiple orders of
magnitude.  Now, if you assume massive technological change allowing
space mining, you must also (in all fairness) allow the much more
modest technological change here on earth that would allow mining of
lower grade ores (a factor of a few lower for iron).

 >Take a look around you my friend, read this very news group. Technology is
 >being sacrificed on the holy grail of defict reduction due to the fact that
 >the consitutancy is small relative to the bread and circuses that keep
 >Congress critters in office. Expect to see cuts also in medical research that
 >are disguised as "cost cutting" and "unnecessary expenditures".

You are confusing the private R&D that actually makes things go with
the government R&D that often has little commercial justification.

The world is getting richer, more productive and more competitive.
Globally, the world will innovate at a faster rate as large
populations (like China's) industrialize.

 >Ad hominum attacks aside, I submit that your thesis here is incorrect. I know
 >what fission is and one of the largest plants of that type are within a few
 >miles of my present location. Unfortunately the contractor scum that built
 >it for TVA's nuclear program did such a poor job that it took over a billion
 >dollars just to straighten out all of the defects (Browns Ferry).

Not ad hominem, just a simple taunt.  Anyway, your logic here is
bizarre.  Since when does one instance of a poorly managed project
prove the infeasibility of a technology?  Would you like the same
logic applied to, say, reusable launch vehicle technology?

The US nuclear industry has been hobbled by a poor regulatory
environment, and, more importantly, a fragmented utility industry.
The average utility in the US serves 1 million customers.  In Japan,
the figure is 10 million; in France, 50 million; in both countries
nuclear has worked much more smoothly.  US utilities got stuck near
the beginning of the learning curve.

Fortunately, things are changing here.  A new generation of
standardized, simplified reactors is being designed.  These reactors
are projected to have construction costs of < $1.5/W.  Utilities are
also learning to operate their reactors at higher capacity factors,
and with less exposure of workers to radiation.  It looks like nuclear
reactor availability approaching 80% will be achieved within a few
years.

> of living. Ever been to Taiwan Mr. Dietz? Well it is a wonderful place but
> it smells, pollution is terrible. The Taiwanese people are paying a price
> for their industrialization.

Sure, just like we did.  Pollution peaks at a per capita GNP of around
$5000.  It then declines, as countries find it worthwhile to invest in
cleaner technologies.  This breakpoint will likely be shifting
downward in the coming years, as pollution control technologies get
cheaper.

 >former Soviet Union. There are whole tracts of the breadbasket of Asia
 >where children learn of birds and trees from videos and books because the
 >radiation from your fission plants has rendered outside living impossible

There are regions where scandalously poor disposal practices of
military reprocessing waste have rendered areas uninhabitable.  This
has nothing to do with commercial use of nuclear power, nor is it
any reason to think fission power is unworkable.

 > leave a teaser like that to get a response. What if we in the US want
 > to increase our own energy consumption? Face it fossil fuels are not
 > going to last forever.  Pollution in many American cities is so bad
 > that the sky is brown for most of the year instead of blue, (Can you
 > say Los Angeles?) Governments are mandating that we begin to switch to
 > electrical power for our automobiles.

Well, we use cleaner methods.  Like nuclear, or fossil fuels reformed
to hydrogen with the CO2 sequestered in the oceans, or...  There are
lots of possibilities.

On the other hand, if you want to clean up cities in the next century,
expected space to have anything to do with it is rather silly.

  > [ 700 nuclear powerplants ]

You stuck in the bogus cost figures here.  Realize that if we build this
many, we'll be well down the learning curve.  We will also be able to
exploit economies of scale in regulation.  Using the $1.5/W figure
(although at this level, some sort of breeding would be required),
this would cost about a trillion dollars.  This seems like a lot, but
remember that reactors last 30 years or more.  The continuous
investment comes to some $35B/year.  A bit over 2 NASA budgets.

  > No there is no law of nature that says chemical pollution cannot be
  > reduced.  The law against this is one of economics.

Apparently a law of Wingo Economics is that technology is fixed
for "dirtball" technology, but orders of magnitude improvements in
the economics of space-based operations can be justified with a wave
of the hand.

In actuality, pollution control technology is constantly improving,
enabling us to reduce pollution to lower levels at less cost.  The
ultimate limits set by thermodynamics are surprisingly far away.

 > We have a so-called glut of energy today because Arabs have enough brains
 > not to repeat the mistakes of the 1970's oil shocks. All they have to
 > do is keep the marginal costs of oil slightly below the costs of alternative
 > energy sources and they keep us hooked on the habit of fossil fuels.

Very Interesting!  So you are admitting that the alternatives do
exist, and at prices only slightly above that of today's fossil fuels.

Now, as for renewables...

  > Geothermal is of limited use and very polluting.

Wrong.  The potential for geothermal is enormous, and it need not be
especially polluting.  You are confusing open-cycle steam sources like
at The Geysers -- which are rather limited -- and "flash" hot water
plants (dirty), with other forms, in which deeper and larger deposits
are tapped to drive closed cycle generators (the fluids being
reinjected.)

Geopressued brines in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, are estimated
to contain some 11,000 exajoules of thermal energy (in sandstones),
with some ten times that in shales.  Total US primary energy use is <
100 EJ/year.  Accessible hot dry rock with temperature > 125 C within
6 km of the surface of the US is estimated to contain about 1 million
EJ of thermal energy.  Accessible magma resources in the US are
estimated to contain between 100,000 and 1 million EJ of high grade
thermal energy.

  >Wind power also is of limited use
  >and confined to areas with high wind velocity.

With turbines on 50 meter towers, and with the most recent turbines,
wind becomes competitive over a surprisingly large part of the US.  It
is limited more by power storage, but the increasing move to
combustion turbines opens the possibility of integrated compressed air
energy storage with these turbines.

 >Alcohol production for
 >energy consumption is more expensive and energy intensive than simply 
 >using more oil.

Alcohol production from corn starch, yes (although most of the energy
input there is coal, not oil), but other sources, such as single-step
fermentation of lignocellulose, are estimated to have an energy
payback ratio of up to 5.  Hybrid systems aimed at producing methanol,
using auxiliary heat input (say, from a nuclear thermal source), would
produce still more fuel per unit biomass.

 >Well let me inform
 >you that there are no solar R&D efforts outside the aerospace industry.
 >Those are faring badly at this time as well. Boeing has halted work on the
 >37% efficiency concentrator cell. We are the only ones, at this time, keeping
 >the 26% efficient planar technolgy alive, and we are doing for space 
 >applications!

Wrong.  There are a dozen or more commercial PV module makers in the
US, and all are working to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost
of their products.  High efficiency, high cost cells, so beloved of
satellite makers, are not the only, or even the best, way to use solar
energy on earth.  Lower efficiency, low cost panels are more advanced,
and have sales growing 20-30%/year.

Do you classify DOE as part of the aerospace community?  EPRI?
Electric utilities?  All are funding work on PV and solar-thermal
projects.

  >>The most important driver of wealth creation is accumulation
  >>of *knowledge*.  Economies can and do grow, and people get
  >>wealthier, in the absence of increases in resource exploitation.

  > [ long section deleted ]

The part deleted there ended by saying the US is falling behind
because it is not creating new technology.

Yippy!  Right, Wingo.  Lack of resources has *little* to do with it.
Creation of new technology -- i.e., creation of knowledge about how to
manipulate and organize matter -- is what we need.  This doesn't
have much to do with space, except insofar as space is an arena where
new technology is needed.  But this doesn't imply that space technology
is essential, or would even be particularly valuable.


 > The answer that a third world person would give you to that is that
 > the west does not provide the right type of help. It is ok to feed
 > people overseas. It does much to make Westerners feel good about
 > themselves and how they are helping the starving masses. What is
 > lacking is teaching those people how to help themeselves. There is no
 > way to accumulate capital if it is being exported by the corporations
 > that exploit the countries natural resoruces.

This is muddle-headed nonsense.  The main form of exploitation in
the third world is of people by their own governments.  Corporations
are a convenient scapegoat.  In countries where the government is
not a kleptocracy, foreign corporations can do what comes naturally:
make mutually beneficial arrangements that leave all parties better off.

For example, consider Botswana.  It has rich diamond deposits that are
being mined and marketed in cooperation with DeBeers.  Sounds like
exploitation, no?  No -- because Botswana has an unusually responsible
government for Africa, with little corruption.  Over the eighties,
Botswana had the fastest (relative) growth rate of any country in the
world.

On the subject of specific resources...

 > What about copper? Yes yes I know that we can substitute aluminum for
 > copper in most cases but aluminum is only 90 as efficient as copper at
 > carrying electricty This translates into a 10% decrease in the net
 > efficiency in most of our power generating and distribution system. If
 > copper were cheaper (more abundant) then we could save billions per
 > year just in this area.

Copper has a higher conductance than aluminum, yes, but this only
matters in places where volume is restricted, like in generators and
motors.  These use a relatively small amount of copper, compared to
other uses like (say) pipes.

For most of the distribution system, aluminum is actually superior, as
it has a higher conductivity/density ratio than copper.  The one drawback
was for use of aluminum wire in buildings, where corrosion caused
hot spots and fires.  This is hardly an insurmountable problem, though.

 >What about stainless steel? This has been commented on here before but I'm
 >gonna bring it back up. If the cost of stainless were 1/100 of what it is 
 >today, we could build bridges with it that would last for centuries rather
 >than for decades.

Stainless steel 1/100 the cost of what it is today.  What are we going
to do, have aliens deliver it to us by telekinesis??  Of course if you
can posit arbitrarily large cost reductions in space activities, then
those space activities can reduce costs.  Are such large reductions
reasonable?  I think not -- your figure there would amount to
stainless steel at a few pennies per pound, vs. a transportation cost
(today) from the asteroids of perhaps 7 orders magnitude higher (give
or take a few orders of magnitude).  This is even more outrageous than
your lunar titanium mines.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu






Newsgroups: talk.politics.space