In rec.arts.sf.science message <g09k7c$218$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Mon, 12
May 2008 14:29:00, Remus Shepherd <remus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> posted:
>
> But I think the biggest use will be in making the power grid obsolete.
>Every home and vehicle could be self-sufficient. We could colonize
>Antarctica and Greenland with domed cities. If global warming starts to
be
>a problem, hook the reactor up to carbon capture devices and drop one
every
>square mile throughout Siberia. We can re-terraform Earth.
Solar power incident on the Earth is about 20 MW per (human) capita.
One of those devices, running at 1 GW mean, per 50 people would double
that; on a simple T^4 basis, raising the temperature by 50 degrees (90
degrees in the USA).
CO2 in the atmosphere would become irrelevant; though, as capturing it
must be endothermic, it would use up a small fraction of that power.
But why Siberia? The Siberians are not to blame. The need, to reduce
atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels, is to capture of the order of
0.2 TT of atmospheric C. That could be stored as a diamond, covering
Wa****ngton DC, at a thickness of no more than about half a mile, if I've
controlled my decimal points. Or tip it into Lake Erie.
> How many of these things, hooked up to simple (but powerful) space
heaters
>would be needed to raise Mars to a comfortable temperature? I'd drop a
>million of them on the planet and see what happens.
Mars has a quarter of the surface area, so needs a quarter of the power
that Earth needs; it gets about half that. So about 3E16 W would be
needed; about 30 times what you suggest.
Check the figures.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Turnpike v6.05
MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/>
- FAQqish topics, acronyms &
links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm,
etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail
News.
|
