Image: Tavis Coburn
More In This Article
-
Overview
The Science Of The Next 150 Years
-
Overview
The Flying Car Will Finally Fly—And Drive
The Science Of The Next 150 Years: 100 Years in the Future
The End of Nature: During the long economic boom ignited by the robotics revolution of the 2020s, the population became ever more concentrated in wealthy megacities, and vat-grown genetically modified foods became the norm. Most people lost any meaningful connection to nature: Who needs the real thing when you have a computer-generated sensory facsimile, complete with designer drugs to complete the experience? Interest in wild animals and outdoor activities were for purists—the kind of people who still opted for “flesh sex.” Among the perfumed, synthetic orchids of urban parks, the environmental movement of the mid-20th century seemed like an atavistic longing for the primitive. Carbon emissions soared.
This article was originally published with the title The Fate of an Engineered Planet.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentAn Orbital sunshade manufactured in space, with enough holes in it to allow for reduced cooling of the N. and S. Poles if doable....No we can't make it down here, and then take it up....but we could make one by ferrying raw materials to a space platform and weave one....Just sayin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets place an occluding disk at L1, an unstable Lagrange point between the earth and the sun. If this disk occluded say 2% of the sun's disk, and was capable of being steered here and there in L1, by the use of the solar wind, and obtained it's power to operate whatever steering means was used, from a solar array. This array could be maneuvered to occlude that 2% of the insolation to reduce the solar flux where desired. The fabrication could be quite thin, but would need a structure to maintain it's shape and by which it could be steered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA larger array could be made to cover a larger area, at greater cost, as needed. A array could be switched off by leaving L1 temporarily or changing the angle of occlusion.
This is quite a task, but it is within our concerted means and may be the only way to save us.
Yes a Sun Shield at L1 would be the best way to protect against a runaway Global Warming catastrophe. Especially since our politicians are so solidly in the pockets of Big Oil they won't even consider ACTUALLY seriously reducing Carbon Emissions. They love SPIN, pretend solutions like Wind & Solar power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBest plan would be factories building about 10 billion parasols located in Moon orbit, or at the L1 point, using Moon or Asteroid materials.
Many have falsely projected the various Sun Shield plans would be too costly because they have totally ignored the inevitable cost reductions that would occur due to the ALREADY underway plans to industrialize Space. The costs will be far lower when Moon and Space based industries are already in place. Indeed it would be an excellent way to give the much needed super-boost to space-based mining and manufacture. As well as tourism.
The true beauty of the Sun Shield plan is that it is immediately adjustable, even on a seasonal basis. And indeed can do MUCH MORE than alleviate Global Warming effects.
A perfect example is the massive & deadly drought that occurred in East Africa, which killed millions, due to the effect of particulate pollution in Europe causing a change in the natural shift in Trade Winds that bring rain to East Africa. By using the Sun Shield to adjust the temperature differential between the Northern & Southern Hemisphere slightly the trade winds can be shifted back into their natural oscillation. Massive drought & starvation averted.
All that is needed is improvement in Climate Modeling, which is happening at a rapid place, and will accelerate with the development of Quantum Computers and other advanced Computers. At that point adjusting the Sun Shield can not only counter Global Warming but adjust climate over large areas averting droughts, flooding and possibly even shift the path of hurricanes.
www.nss.org/adastra/volume18/angel.html
www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17184.full
Yes, sun shield can also turn to sun focus,with mirrored segments turned to warm via direct insolation to mitigate frost damage in fall and spring on unusually cold nights.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big problem is changing the mind set of people 'to this is possible'
Yes direct insolation would be very useful, excellent idea. The big problem is EVERY cost calculation I have seen assumes starting from scratch with no space based infrastructure. Many cost projections actually assume (believe it or not) launching all materials from Earth with NASA hi-cost launch vehicles. Ignoring SpaceX, Skylon & other new private low cost launch systems. And if you really, in an emergency, REALLY BADLY need low cost launch of VAST amounts of materials, use the Nuclear Cannon:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnextbigfuture.com/2010/12/sea-based-launch-option-for-nuclear.html
Already a company has been formed to mine asteroids, which should be highly profitable, and to supply water/rocket fuel for space applications. And the Russians are (finally) reviving space-based Nuclear propulsion.
nextbigfuture.com/2012/04/details-around-asteroid-retrieval-plans.html
And a similar idea to the sun shield, except used as you suggest for increased Solar insolation, could be constructed in Mars Orbit, using materials mined from Deimos, and used to cause large equatorial regions of Mars to be elevated to >20 degC making them much more suitable for Human colonization. And ultimately to Terraform Mars.
Yes, once there is enough infrastructure in orbit, we can look for asteroidal resources in the various trojan parking orbits around the earth and other major planets. The energy needed to bring them to L1 is a lot less than bringing them from any surface point. Even rocky ones can be mined for light metals, and aluminized/sodiumized thin mylar film would serve as a solar reflector for unlimited solar energy via thermal or voltaic methods - voltaic is close to 44% with multi layer cells at high intensity foci.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo people, robots, stuff and energy are at hand, we need to get going on using them in this manner.
Another 20 years should see this under way
Nuclear is still the best method of supplying energy in Space. 3.2kg of Americium 242 will supply 140kw for 3 months. With Nuclear power a continuous main supply ship can do loops from Mars to Earth orbit. 39 days direct to Mars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn theory, nuclear powered ion propulsion can work. I am not sure if they will ever do this once they have reaction mass to toss out by more conventional means mediated by large amounts of solar power. The use of low energy - long duration methods exchange time for high energy when materials need to be transferred. A weekly launch from point A to point B will in tile create a pipeline in space where these materials can be found and moved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Network
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaster methods are needed for people, but more and more capable robots will reduce the need for people, but people will remain more capable for many tasks. However, few people want to go on a 5 year transfer orbit. Radiation is also a problem that needs a substantial mass to shield the crew, an 100 meter asteroid (15 million tons +/-, maybe a smaller one to start?) makes a nice shield easy to make from a few meters of rock.
A few of a sun shields mirror faces could be directly at a nearby captured asteroid, imparting a slow spin by burning off reaction mass then melting the rock into slag soon separated into metals by centrifugal force.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould also be a great weapon for malevolent criminal or state sponsored hackers to get a hold off.
Solar power will not power the industrialization of space. Nuclear will be needed to supply the high concentrated energy required. Solar is good for low grade heat applications and the low power requirements of communications satellites. Great for warming up an area of Mars. But for a serious rover's propulsion they had to turn to a Nuclear battery. And if the USA continues to be hobbled with its anti-technology Greenie-type governments, they will replaced by China, India & Russia, whom are not so constrained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRadiation protection is not a major problem, the shielding used is actually quite compact. Cosmic radiation protection is a more difficult issue.
Fission Fragment propulsion:
"...A 10 year mission to the 550AU gravitational lens point would require only 180kg of nuclear fuel, and a
350MW reactor power, well within the calculated thermal limit of 1GW. A 30 year trip to the Oort cloud at
0.5 Ly is more strenuous, requiring a 5.6 GW reactor..."
www.rbsp.info/rbs/RbS/PDF/aiaa05.pdf
nextbigfuture.com/2012/03/proposal-for-concept-assessment-of.html
While this scenario & propositions for intervention are interesting, some of the proposals would also be interesting to consider as Earth heating strategies to forestall the next ice age. Contrary to alarmist claims, there is nothing in the geological record to indicate that warming poses a danger to life on Earth. Quite the contrary in fact. Another Ice Age on the other hand will definitely be catastrophic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the process energy needed for industrial processes consists of heat and electricity, both of which solar can supply cheaper than nuclear. Nuclear powered ion rockets are great for long distance travel, but a larger array is all that is needed to focus sunlight to higher levels. The solar devices are passive, requiring only aiming to stay at full output. There is a need for both modes of power production because each one has superior aspects to the other in differing situations. Nuclear has huge costs - have you seen how much Americium costs? In time, if fuel is found in the asteroids, you might build reactor there from local stuff, but that degree of infrastructure is ~200 years away, although that time could be shorted by China making a long push in that direction - as they seem to be doing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpace process industries are going to be dominated by, blasting, crushing, roasting, chemical separation, electrolysis, precipitation, etc, all of which are powered by heat(steam, resistance or focused sunlight) and motors to move stuff around in pipes. Blasting in micro-g needs a net to contain the blasted fragments or they would leave the area for ever.
Yew, we need a thermostat to control both hot and cold eras.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn time, that will come.
Your faith in solar energy is misplaced. Research how much energy it takes to produce a car, one ton of steel, a ship, then what area of solar collectors would be required & multiply it by millions. Remember, you can not shut smelting processes down over night or during bad weather. Solar has a role in space but for long haul, i.e. outer planets & beyond, solar does not work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no weather in space. The use of solar for process heat and derived electricity in space is superior in genesis, duration and in maintenance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear has niches. On Mars they use nuclear since a large solar array would have wind problems as well as weight, so they can not just make a large array to run the rovers.
In space, there is no wind or weight or decay (although solar cells do decline with time - much like decay) and maintenance is far lower. Why do they use solar for the ISS if nuclear is better?
get further away and the equation changes, but even in the asteroid belt solar wins, being ~~twice as far from the sun it has 1/4 of the solar radiance per square meter, which works out to be 1.366 kilowatts per square meter divided by 4 = 342 Watts of hear per square meter. A 100 meter square array = 3.4 megawatts of heat, or about
one megawatt of electricity ( various conversion methods range from 750,000 to 1,500,000 varying with cost, complexity and reliability). Solar does work, even for ion rockets, you just need a greater area of solar reflectors to concentrate it, albeit at Pluto you need 2500 times the area of Earth orbit for the same power, mirror area is cheap compared to Americium, but even so, the economics favor nuclear out there and for interstellar, nuclear is the way, unless they figure out how to create a way to make a laser with ~~zero divergence
and use infra-red into a rectifying antenna (rectenna which can convert almost 75% of incoming it gets into electricity, this tech is advancing, and is now in the sub millimeter range and approaching far infra-red. At sub millimeter, the divergence is still too great. A laser also works, but again, divergence is a problem, but if they can intercept 1% of the beam, all they need to do is add more coal on earth to compensate. The problem with lasers is the dimensions of the resonant cavity fix the divergence. A longer cavity = less divergence, and a smaller cross sectional area = less divergence, until you reach the optical limitations governed by the wavelength of the light you are sending = intractable limit, so at a light year, even 1% interception is hard to do with a reasonable reflector size(1 million square meters = quite big, and hard to get 1% to hit that at one light year with current technology. Radio waves are even worse, wavelength is larger, so the dishes needed are too large to consider.
"..process energy..solar can supply cheaper than nuclear.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're kidding right? Just this latest gargantuan Bright Source Solar Thermal project in California is $33k per kwavg output. That's > 10X the cost of Nuclear. Even without mass production of Nuclear, and with onerous regulation that won't exist in space.
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=california-agency-raises-issues-ove
Americium is scarcely used today, and just what it would cost made in larger quantities is unknown, but presumably economical for its intended use in Nuclear batteries for certain applications like Cassini. Solar would not be feasible in these applications, as it wasn't for the larger Mars Rover. Or for a Mars Colony.
"..Nuclear has niches..."
Nope, wrong. Solar has niches. Nuclear can be used EVERYWHERE. Deep under the sea, underground, Dark side of the moon, anywhere in Space, in the Arctic. Two big new mines opening in the Arctic. Try powering those with Solar. Tell us how, give costs. Good luck on that. Nuclear IDEAL for that application & more economical than any other method.
"..Why do they use solar for the ISS if nuclear is better?.."
Why, because Nuclear hasn't been developed for space applications yet, or much on Earth due to Onerous opposition from Vested Interests. Small Modular reactors, of the type under development for Earth applications, many of which would be readily adaptable to Space Applications. They aren't that complicated, you know. They made one in three years ready to power an aircraft, that was way back in the 50's when they didn't know zip, didn't even have decent computers. Remove the roadblocks and you would have a dozen different SMR's ready to send to space, once space industrialization is underway, manufacture in space is simple minded. Fuel resource is trivial. Even ancient LWR's on Earth, were built for under $800 per kwel in $2012, until the onerous, ratcheting regulatory impediments and non-stop lawsuits were begun. In space the regulatory roadblocks will be eliminated. Cheapest Solar is still well over $13k per kwel, and that has all kinds of problems.
It's all very fun to invent all these fanciful ways you could theoretically utilize Solar Energy to power industry in Space, but the economics just isn't there, not even close. It hasn't even been economical here on Earth in sunny areas.
Nope, space will be powered by Nuclear, that is a given. Solar has some applications, where low grade heat is required, or small electricity loads are required inside of Mars orbit.
We are poles apart, the Californian solar plant will be economical in operation, with zero fuel costs. I would have to see the detailed cost budget to make a comment. It seems to be like the Solandra model, use up all the government money - then fail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there was not regulatory impediments, and tech shortcuts were taken, the nuclear becomes a candidate near and far, right now only very far.
We will have to see how they actually do it, pontification by either side solves nothing.
Fuel costs are trivial for Nuclear, < 1/2 cent per kwh including fabrication. High burn reactors much lower fuel costs than that. O&M cost on Solar is about the same as Nuclear. But Capital cost is much higher, lifespan much shorter & solar not mobile, not dispatchable, not reliable. Still space based Solar supplying low grade heat to large areas on the Earth, Moon or Mars with mirrors, is one thing Solar could do economically, which would be much more costly with Nuclear. That could indeed warrant widespread development of Space-based Solar. And Nuclear propulsion & Nuclear powered factories in space will make the economics of the Space-based Solar heating much better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this