Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Toward a Type 1 civilization

Expand Messages
  • Julienne
    Toward a Type 1 civilization Along with energy policy, political and economic systems must also evolve. By Michael Shermer July 22, 2008 Our civilization is
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Toward a Type 1 civilization
      Along with energy policy, political and economic systems must also evolve.

      By Michael Shermer
      July 22, 2008

      Our civilization is fast approaching a tipping point. Humans will need to
      make the transition from nonrenewable fossil fuels as the primary source of
      our energy to renewable energy sources that will allow us to flourish into
      the future. Failure to make that transformation will doom us to the endless
      political machinations and economic conflicts that have plagued
      civilization for the last half-millennium.

      We need new technologies to be sure, but without evolved political and
      economic systems, we cannot become what we must. And what is that? A Type 1
      civilization. Let me explain.

      In a 1964 article on searching for extraterrestrial civilizations, the
      Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev suggested using radio telescopes to
      detect energy signals from other solar systems in which there might be
      civilizations of three levels of advancement: Type 1 can harness all of the
      energy of its home planet; Type 2 can harvest all of the power of its sun;
      and Type 3 can master the energy from its entire galaxy.

      Based on our energy efficiency at the time, in 1973 the astronomer Carl
      Sagan estimated that Earth represented a Type 0.7 civilization on a Type 0
      to Type 1 scale. (More current assessments put us at 0.72.) As the
      Kardashevian scale is logarithmic -- where any increase in power
      consumption requires a huge leap in power production -- we have a ways
      before 1.0.

      Fossil fuels won't get us there. Renewable sources such as solar, wind and
      geothermal are a good start, and coupled to nuclear power could eventually
      get us to Type 1.

      Yet the hurdles are not solely -- or even primarily -- technological ones.
      We have a proven track record of achieving remarkable scientific solutions
      to survival problems -- as long as there is the political will and economic
      opportunities that allow the solutions to flourish. In other words, we need
      a Type 1 polity and economy, along with the technology, in order to become
      a Type 1 civilization.

      We are close. If we use the Kardashevian scale to plot humankind's
      progress, it shows how far we've come in the long history of our species
      from Type 0, and it leads us to see what a Type 1 civilization might be like:



      Type 0.1: Fluid groups of hominids living in Africa. Technology consists of
      primitive stone tools. Intra-group conflicts are resolved through dominance
      hierarchy, and between-group violence is common.

      Type 0.2: Bands of roaming hunter-gatherers that form kinship groups, with
      a mostly horizontal political system and egalitarian economy.

      Type 0.3: Tribes of individuals linked through kinship but with a more
      settled and agrarian lifestyle. The beginnings of a political hierarchy and
      a primitive economic division of labor.

      Type 0.4: Chiefdoms consisting of a coalition of tribes into a single
      hierarchical political unit with a dominant leader at the top, and with the
      beginnings of significant economic inequalities and a division of labor in
      which lower-class members produce food and other products consumed by
      non-producing upper-class members.

      Type 0.5: The state as a political coalition with jurisdiction over a
      well-defined geographical territory and its corresponding inhabitants, with
      a mercantile economy that seeks a favorable balance of trade in a win-lose
      game against other states.

      Type 0.6: Empires extend their control over peoples who are not culturally,
      ethnically or geographically within their normal jurisdiction, with a goal
      of economic dominance over rival empires.

      Type 0.7: Democracies that divide power over several institutions, which
      are run by elected officials voted for by some citizens. The beginnings of
      a market economy.

      Type 0.8: Liberal democracies that give the vote to all citizens. Markets
      that begin to embrace a nonzero, win-win economic game through free trade
      with other states.

      Type 0.9: Democratic capitalism, the blending of liberal democracy and free
      markets, now spreading across the globe through democratic movements in
      developing nations and broad trading blocs such as the European Union.

      Type 1.0: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, with
      all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global
      economy with free markets in which anyone can trade with anyone else
      without interference from states or governments. A planet where all states
      are democracies in which everyone has the franchise.

      The forces at work that could prevent us from making the great leap forward
      to a Type 1 civilization are primarily political and economic. The
      resistance by nondemocratic states to turning power over to the people is
      considerable, especially in theocracies whose leaders would prefer we all
      revert to Type 0.4 chiefdoms. The opposition toward a global economy is
      substantial, even in the industrialized West, where economic tribalism
      still dominates the thinking of most politicians, intellectuals and citizens.

      For thousands of years, we have existed in a zero-sum tribal world in which
      a gain for one tribe, state or nation meant a loss for another tribe, state
      or nation -- and our political and economic systems have been designed for
      use in that win-lose world. But we have the opportunity to live in a
      win-win world and become a Type 1 civilization by spreading liberal
      democracy and free trade, in which the scientific and technological
      benefits will flourish. I am optimistic because in the evolutionist's deep
      time and the historian's long view, the trend lines toward achieving Type 1
      status tick inexorably upward.

      That is change we can believe in.

      Michael Shermer is an adjunct professor in the School of Politics and
      Economics at Claremont Graduate University, the publisher of Skeptic
      magazine and a monthly columnist for Scientific American. His latest book
      is "The Mind of the Market."

      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer22-2008jul22,0,5301697.story


      "Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught
      falsehoods; And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once
      a lunatic and fool" - Plato.
      Join us at Chaos-stars@yahoogroups.com
      Julienne's Blog: www.myspace.com/youandthecosmos
      Radio: "You and the Cosmos"
    • Ronald C. Blue
      Mining helium 3 from the moon could supply us with energy for about 10,000 years assuming it is easy to use in fusion reactors. Collecting anti-matter from the
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 30, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Mining helium 3 from the moon could supply us with energy for about 10,000 years assuming it is easy to use in fusion reactors.
         
        Collecting anti-matter from the sun could supply most of our energy needs after that.
         

      • Steve Moxon
        The trouble is -- according to a physics brain I know -- that practical nuclear fusion will forever be at least 25 years away. He reckons the problems are
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 30, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          The trouble is -- according to a physics brain I know -- that practical nuclear fusion will forever be at least 25 years away. He reckons the problems are insurmountable.
          I had understood that the problems re instability of the plasma had been addressed and that the big problem of containment had been solved. So I assumed that the rest was relatively plain sailing. But there you go.
           
          Steve Moxon
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:09 AM
          Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization

          Mining helium 3 from the moon could supply us with energy for about 10,000 years assuming it is easy to use in fusion reactors.
           
          Collecting anti-matter from the sun could supply most of our energy needs after that.
           

        • Ronald C. Blue
          I agree traditional fusion is not likely to be successful. Helium 3 is a stable isotope of helium. If you add one more neutron you get regular helium plus
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 31, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree traditional fusion is not likely to be successful. Helium 3 is a
            stable isotope of helium. If you add one more neutron you get regular
            helium plus energy.
            Helium 3 is created in nuclear reactors and is not normally available on
            earth. The helium 3 stored on the moon was made by the sun.

            Using robots to mine it and blast it to earth to be caught by airplanes
            would be an achieveable goal now especially if the Chinese were hired to do
            it. Helium 3 would be worth about 42 million dollars per pound based on the
            energy of one $150 barrel of oil. There is about 16 trillion dollars worth
            of helium 3 on the moon.

            Helium 3 may be the power source on the earth for hot spots for geological
            activity and has been measured escaping volcanic vents.




            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Steve Moxon avA
            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:03 AM
            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization


            The trouble is -- according to a physics brain I know -- that practical
            nuclear fusion will forever be at least 25 years away. He reckons the
            problems are insurmountable.
            I had understood that the problems re instability of the plasma had been
            addressed and that the big problem of containment had been solved. So I
            assumed that the rest was relatively plain sailing. But there you go.

            Steve Moxon

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Ronald C. Blue
            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:09 AM
            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization


            Mining helium 3 from the moon could supply us with energy for about 10,000
            years assuming it is easy to use in fusion reactors.

            Collecting anti-matter from the sun could supply most of our energy needs
            after that.
          • Steve Moxon
            Yes, I ve ciome acros this moon-mining notion. So what s the essential difference between nuclear fusion using deuterium/tritium and that using helium3? Is it
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 31, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, I've ciome acros this moon-mining notion. So what's the essential difference between nuclear fusion using deuterium/tritium and that using helium3? Is it at a much lower temperature that thereby makes it commercially developable?
               
              Steve Moxon
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:39 AM
              Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization

              I agree traditional fusion is not likely to be successful. Helium 3 is a
              stable isotope of helium. If you add one more neutron you get regular
              helium plus energy.
              Helium 3 is created in nuclear reactors and is not normally available on
              earth. The helium 3 stored on the moon was made by the sun.

              Using robots to mine it and blast it to earth to be caught by airplanes
              would be an achieveable goal now especially if the Chinese were hired to do
              it. Helium 3 would be worth about 42 million dollars per pound based on the
              energy of one $150 barrel of oil. There is about 16 trillion dollars worth
              of helium 3 on the moon.

              Helium 3 may be the power source on the earth for hot spots for geological
              activity and has been measured escaping volcanic vents.

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Steve Moxon avA
              To: evolutionary- psychology@ yahoogroups. com
              Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:03 AM
              Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization

              The trouble is -- according to a physics brain I know -- that practical
              nuclear fusion will forever be at least 25 years away. He reckons the
              problems are insurmountable.
              I had understood that the problems re instability of the plasma had been
              addressed and that the big problem of containment had been solved. So I
              assumed that the rest was relatively plain sailing. But there you go.

              Steve Moxon

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Ronald C. Blue
              To: evolutionary- psychology@ yahoogroups. com
              Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:09 AM
              Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization

              Mining helium 3 from the moon could supply us with energy for about 10,000
              years assuming it is easy to use in fusion reactors.

              Collecting anti-matter from the sun could supply most of our energy needs
              after that.

            • vquest95@aol.com
              How about collecting methane from Jupiter, or possibly Venus (I forget what the atmosphere is composed of) bringing it back into earth orbit, burning it using
              Message 6 of 16 , Jul 31, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                How about collecting methane from Jupiter, or possibly Venus (I forget what the atmosphere is composed of) bringing it back into earth orbit, burning it using oxygen collected from the far-upper atmosphere and then beaming the energy down to earth?  
                 
                Actually, orbiting solar collectors are much more feasible than any of the other energy sources discussed so far. 
                 
                Dave A.
                 
                In a message dated 7/31/2008 6:36:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, stevemoxon3@... writes:
                Yes, I've ciome acros this moon-mining notion. So what's the essential difference between nuclear fusion using deuterium/tritium and that using helium3? Is it at a much lower temperature that thereby makes it commercially developable?
                 
                Steve Moxon
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:39 AM
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization

                I agree traditional fusion is not likely to be successful. Helium 3 is a
                stable isotope of helium. If you add one more neutron you get regular
                helium plus energy.
                Helium 3 is created in nuclear reactors and is not normally available on
                earth. The helium 3 stored on the moon was made by the sun.

                Using robots to mine it and blast it to earth to be caught by airplanes
                would be an achieveable goal now especially if the Chinese were hired to do
                it. Helium 3 would be worth about 42 million dollars per pound based on the
                energy of one $150 barrel of oil. There is about 16 trillion dollars worth
                of helium 3 on the moon.

                Helium 3 may be the power source on the earth for hot spots for geological
                activity and has been measured escaping volcanic vents.

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Steve Moxon avA
                To: evolutionary- psychology@ yahoogroups. com
                Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:03 AM
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization

                The trouble is -- according to a physics brain I know -- that practical
                nuclear fusion will forever be at least 25 years away. He reckons the
                problems are insurmountable.
                I had understood that the problems re instability of the plasma had been
                addressed and that the big problem of containment had been solved. So I
                assumed that the rest was relatively plain sailing. But there you go.

                Steve Moxon

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Ronald C. Blue
                To: evolutionary- psychology@ yahoogroups. com
                Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:09 AM
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization

                Mining helium 3 from the moon could supply us with energy for about 10,000
                years assuming it is easy to use in fusion reactors.

                Collecting anti-matter from the sun could supply most of our energy needs
                after that.





                Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
              • Ronald C. Blue
                The energy requirements to get helium 3 to fusion is very low and in principle could be used to supply heat or power for your car assuming you were using
                Message 7 of 16 , Jul 31, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  The energy requirements to get helium 3 to fusion is very low and in
                  principle could be used to supply heat or power for your car assuming you were using batteries and a sterling engine to charge them.

                  It may be possible to use deuterium/tritium fusion by using ultra low
                  pressure containment systems which is probably how Jupiter does it. But such a system would probably not give as much energy as would be hoped for considering the cost of producing it..

                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  Yes, I've come across this moon-mining notion. So what's the essential
                  difference between nuclear fusion using deuterium/tritium and that using helium3? Is it at a much lower temperature that thereby makes it
                  commercially developable?

                  Steve Moxon
                • Ronald C. Blue
                  It cost alot of money to send one pound of anything into outer space. To illustrate let say $100,000 dollars per pound to send empty gas cans to Jupiter and
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jul 31, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It cost alot of money to send one pound of anything into outer space. To
                    illustrate let say $100,000 dollars per pound to send empty gas cans to
                    Jupiter and $100,000 dollars per pound to bring back gasoline or methane
                    from Titian to earth. Then a gallon of gasoline would then cost you about
                    $200,000. It would be cheaper to give everyone a bicycle or a computer.
                    Also adding mass to the earth and green house gases by burning methane would
                    push us into an earth with the average daily temperature of about 750
                    degrees F.

                    For the same money you could get the helium 3 from the moon or mining
                    anti-matter from the sun. With helium 3 your only worry is heating the
                    planet up. With anti-matter your big worry would be blowing the earth up.

                    Orbiting solar collectors beaming microwave energy to earth has problems.
                    It would kill anyone or anything that flew into the beam. The beam would
                    heat the earth up. Highly efficient solar collectors on the earth would be
                    better.

                    >>>>>>>>>>>
                    From: vquest95@...
                    How about collecting methane from Jupiter, or possibly Venus (I forget what
                    the atmosphere is composed of) bringing it back into earth orbit, burning it
                    using oxygen collected from the far-upper atmosphere and then beaming the
                    energy down to earth?

                    Actually, orbiting solar collectors are much more feasible than any of the
                    other energy sources discussed so far.

                    Dave A.
                  • bowmanthebard
                    How about just aim to increase the flexibility of fission reactors so that they can deal with a much wider range of fissile material than they can at the
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 31, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      How about just aim to increase the flexibility of fission reactors so
                      that they can deal with a much wider range of fissile material than
                      they can at the present time?

                      It would be a bit like the internal combustion engine's progression
                      from only working with highly refined petroleum to diesel engines that
                      can deal with all sorts of oils (as they can today).

                      It wouldn't require any huge risky investment either. Just allow the
                      building of lots of new nuclear power plants, much the same way as the
                      Victorians built lots of new steam engines. Let the rival technologies
                      compete, and evolve more or less "naturally".

                      In the meantime, we'd have a reasonably reliable source of energy.

                      I'm all for nuclear power. Atomkraft? -- Ja, bitte!

                      Jeremy

                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, vquest95@... wrote:
                      >
                      > How about collecting methane from Jupiter, or possibly Venus (I
                      forget what
                      > the atmosphere is composed of) bringing it back into earth orbit,
                      burning it
                      > using oxygen collected from the far-upper atmosphere and then
                      beaming the
                      > energy down to earth?
                      >
                      > Actually, orbiting solar collectors are much more feasible than any
                      of the
                      > other energy sources discussed so far.
                      >
                      > Dave A.
                      >
                      >
                      > In a message dated 7/31/2008 6:36:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                      > stevemoxon3@... writes:
                      >
                      > Yes, I've ciome acros this moon-mining notion. So what's the essential
                      > difference between nuclear fusion using deuterium/tritium and that
                      using helium3?
                      > Is it at a much lower temperature that thereby makes it commercially
                      > developable?
                      >
                      > Steve Moxon
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: _Ronald C. Blue_ (mailto:ronblue2@...)
                      > To: _evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com_
                      > (mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com)
                      > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:39 AM
                      > Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      <Snip>
                    • Roy Anderson
                      The below has nothing to do with energy production so I m a little confused why it s labeled as Type 1 civilization. In terms of its potential as a future ,
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 31, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The below has nothing to do with energy production so I'm a little
                        confused why it's labeled as "Type 1" civilization.

                        In terms of its potential as a "future", it's as realistic as the
                        communist dream of everyone holding hands and governments withering
                        away. Which is to say, not very realistic at all.

                        A true "free" market, unhindered by government, can never exist
                        because it's basis is greed and accumulation of resources, and with no
                        oversight that spells disaster. Same holds true for communism. Humans
                        may always need a babysitter (barring genetic modification).


                        On 7/30/08, Julienne <julienne@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Type 1.0: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, with
                        > all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global
                        > economy with free markets in which anyone can trade with anyone else
                        > without interference from states or governments. A planet where all states
                        > are democracies in which everyone has the franchise.
                      • Eric S. Harris
                        Such chronic pessimism. People have been saying that we re just 25 years away from fusion power for 20, 30 years. But this time, we re just one breakthrough
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jul 31, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Such chronic pessimism.  People have been saying that we're just 25 years away from fusion power for 20, 30 years.  But this time, we're just one breakthrough away ...

                          On the other side of the misplaced and chronic optimism coin is pessimism: we're about 13 years away from running out of petroleum ... and have been for decades.  Sometimes a bit more than 13 years, sometimes a bit less.  It's always imminent, less than two decades away.

                          But, whenever things start to look a bit more dire than usual, prices rise and new extraction technologies, or refining methods, or new oil fields turn up, and things head towards the "more" end of "thirteen years, more or less".

                          True, someday we really will run out.  No doubt about it.  ("For real, this time.")  And maybe that day will in 2031.  But I'm not so egotistical to think it has to happen during my lifetime ... or that it has to happen when petroleum is important.

                          And I'm not so ignorant of economics to believe that prices won't rise rather steadily as the amount of petroleum production declines annually.  Nor do I believe that alternatives to gasoline and kerosene and diesel oil and paraffin and asphalt will not be considered, and the more suitable ones will not replace their petroleum-based counterparts.  (People don't want petroleum, after all, they want fuel.  (And paraffin, and asphalt.  And ...)  Or rather, they want transportation.  And warmth.  And candles.  And pavement.)

                          But apparently a lot of people are that egotistical, and that ignorant.   -Eric


                          Steve Moxon wrote:
                          The trouble is -- according to a physics brain I know -- that practical nuclear fusion will forever be at least 25 years away. He reckons the problems are insurmountable.
                          I had understood that the problems re instability of the plasma had been addressed and that the big problem of containment had been solved. So I assumed that the rest was relatively plain sailing. But there you go.
                           
                          Steve Moxon
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:09 AM
                          Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization

                          Mining helium 3 from the moon could supply us with energy for about 10,000 years assuming it is easy to use in fusion reactors.
                           
                          Collecting anti-matter from the sun could supply most of our energy needs after that.
                           



                          -- 
                          If eric_harris_76@... or eric_harris_76@... ever fail,
                          you can reach me at my new addr using http://ecoa.returnpath.net/finder
                          or http://www.freshaddress.com/stayintouch.cfm.
                          May 2008: The yahoo.com address is having technical difficulties.
                        • Eric S. Harris
                          (Sorry for the top-posting. I didn t start it.) The global warming crowd would go nuts over that one. At least the carbon from fossil fuels is from this
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jul 31, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            (Sorry for the top-posting.  I didn't start it.)

                            The "global warming" crowd would go nuts over that one.  At least the carbon from fossil fuels is from this planet, and we're on balance not getting more of it.  But you're talking about importing it from a huge planet, which has a STORM bigger than Earth!  There'd be so much new carbon in the atmosphere, it'd be disastrophic!! (tm)

                            And capturing solar energy to beam down (as microwaves, I suppose) would warm things further, even though no chemistry is involved.   -Eric

                            P.S.  I didn't say they would be right, just that they would be livid.  When it comes to politics, plausibility matters, reality doesn't.   -ESH


                            vquest95@... wrote:
                            How about collecting methane from Jupiter, or possibly Venus (I forget what the atmosphere is composed of) bringing it back into earth orbit, burning it using oxygen collected from the far-upper atmosphere and then beaming the energy down to earth?  
                             
                            Actually, orbiting solar collectors are much more feasible than any of the other energy sources discussed so far. 
                             
                            Dave A.
                             
                            In a message dated 7/31/2008 6:36:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, stevemoxon3@... writes:
                            Yes, I've ciome acros this moon-mining notion. So what's the essential difference between nuclear fusion using deuterium/tritium and that using helium3? Is it at a much lower temperature that thereby makes it commercially developable?
                             
                            Steve Moxon
                             
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:39 AM
                            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization

                            I agree traditional fusion is not likely to be successful. Helium 3 is a
                            stable isotope of helium. If you add one more neutron you get regular
                            helium plus energy.
                            Helium 3 is created in nuclear reactors and is not normally available on
                            earth. The helium 3 stored on the moon was made by the sun.

                            Using robots to mine it and blast it to earth to be caught by airplanes
                            would be an achieveable goal now especially if the Chinese were hired to do
                            it. Helium 3 would be worth about 42 million dollars per pound based on the
                            energy of one $150 barrel of oil. There is about 16 trillion dollars worth
                            of helium 3 on the moon.

                            Helium 3 may be the power source on the earth for hot spots for geological
                            activity and has been measured escaping volcanic vents.

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Steve Moxon avA
                            To: evolutionary- psychology@ yahoogroups. com
                            Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:03 AM
                            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization

                            The trouble is -- according to a physics brain I know -- that practical
                            nuclear fusion will forever be at least 25 years away. He reckons the
                            problems are insurmountable.
                            I had understood that the problems re instability of the plasma had been
                            addressed and that the big problem of containment had been solved. So I
                            assumed that the rest was relatively plain sailing. But there you go.

                            Steve Moxon

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Ronald C. Blue
                            To: evolutionary- psychology@ yahoogroups. com
                            Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:09 AM
                            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Toward a Type 1 civilization

                            Mining helium 3 from the moon could supply us with energy for about 10,000
                            years assuming it is easy to use in fusion reactors.

                            Collecting anti-matter from the sun could supply most of our energy needs
                            after that.





                            Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.


                            -- 
                            If eric_harris_76@... or eric_harris_76@... ever fail,
                            you can reach me at my new addr using http://ecoa.returnpath.net/finder
                            or http://www.freshaddress.com/stayintouch.cfm.
                            May 2008: The yahoo.com address is having technical difficulties.
                          • Edgar Owen
                            Steve and Ronald, If Helium 3 fusion is such a great idea don t you think there would be pilot projects for that already ongoing? The reality is not nearly so
                            Message 13 of 16 , Aug 1, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Steve and Ronald,

                              If Helium 3 fusion is such a great idea don't you think there would be pilot projects for that already ongoing? The reality is not nearly so promising. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 down at the bottom under Power Generation for the real prospects.

                              Edgar



                              On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:44 PM, Ronald C. Blue wrote:

                              The energy requirements to get helium 3 to fusion is very low and in 
                              principle could be used to supply heat or power for your car assuming you were using batteries and a sterling engine to charge them.

                              It may be possible to use deuterium/tritium fusion by using ultra low 
                              pressure containment systems which is probably how Jupiter does it. But such a system would probably not give as much energy as would be hoped for considering the cost of producing it..

                              >>>>>>>>>>>>
                              Yes, I've come across this moon-mining notion. So what's the essential 
                              difference between nuclear fusion using deuterium/tritium and that using helium3? Is it at a much lower temperature that thereby makes it 
                              commercially developable?

                              Steve Moxon


                            • vquest95@aol.com
                              Eric I think you missed the point about building the power plants in orbit; I meant them to be far enough above earth s atmosphere so that the CO2 would
                              Message 14 of 16 , Aug 1, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Eric
                                 
                                I think you missed the point about building the power plants in orbit; I meant them to be far enough above earth's atmosphere so that the CO2 would dissipate into intersteller space.  (Whether enough oxygen could be collected at this distance to make this feasible is another question; lack of O could well kill the whole idea.  Oh well. 
                                 
                                Dave A
                                 
                                 
                                In a message dated 8/1/2008 1:48:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, eric_harris_76@... writes:
                                The "global warming" crowd would go nuts over that one.  At least the carbon from fossil fuels is from this planet, and we're on balance not getting more of it.  But you're talking about importing it from a huge planet, which has a STORM bigger than Earth!  There'd be so much new carbon in the atmosphere, it'd be disastrophic!! (tm)

                                And capturing solar energy to beam down (as microwaves, I suppose) would warm things further, even though no chemistry is involved.   -Eric

                                P.S.  I didn't say they would be right, just that they would be livid.  When it comes to politics, plausibility matters, reality doesn't.   -ESH


                                vquest95@... wrote:
                                How about collecting methane from Jupiter, or possibly Venus (I forget what the atmosphere is composed of) bringing it back into earth orbit, burning it using oxygen collected from the far-upper atmosphere and then beaming the energy down to earth?  
                                 
                                Actually, orbiting solar collectors are much more feasible than any of the other energy sources discussed so far. 
                                 
                                Dave A.




                                Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
                              • Ronald C. Blue
                                If Helium 3 fusion is such a great idea don t you think there would be pilot projects for that already ongoing? The reality is not nearly so promising. Check
                                Message 15 of 16 , Aug 1, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  If Helium 3 fusion is such a great idea don't you think there would be pilot
                                  projects for that already ongoing? The reality is not nearly so promising.
                                  Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 down at the bottom under Power
                                  Generation for the real prospects.
                                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                                  They are us. How much money do you personally have invested in this
                                  project. Zero. So THEY are not doing anything until the last minute.
                                  First off there are no cheap supplies of Helium-3 on earth. If you had one
                                  pound of it, the FBI would arrest you for possibly building an atomic bomb.
                                  So THEY can not be doing research.

                                  The government could be building huge geothermal power plants in Yellowstone
                                  national part to slow down when it blows up and killing 2 billion people
                                  world wide.

                                  The government could fund research on asteroids which could wipe out all
                                  life on the planet instead we are shutting down the only radio radar
                                  telescope capable off tell us that an asteroid will hit soon coming from the
                                  direction of the sun. You personally are more likely to die from an
                                  asteroid impact than a car accident.

                                  Next time you put a CD in your disk drive understand that it was invented in
                                  America but THEY did not think it was such a great idea, but the Japanese
                                  did.

                                  Next time you use your phone understand that THEY did not think such a
                                  child's toy had any practical value.

                                  THEY are not friends of change.
                                • Ronald C. Blue
                                  There is the possibility that orbiting energy collector tubes filled with CO2 could become masers to send energy to the Earth, Moon, or Mars.
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Aug 1, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    There is the possibility that orbiting energy collector tubes filled with
                                    CO2 could become masers to send energy to the Earth, Moon, or Mars.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.