It sounded to me like it would be in an asynchronous orbit so they could maximize the amount of sunlight it gets. In a geo-synchronous orbit it would only get 12 hours of sunlight a day... and some of those hours it wouldn't be much.

Well Alison I somehow have faith in humans to make the right choice. It'll definitly take time for a change, maybe time we don't have. But somehow I think we'll finally figure it out and save ourselves before we waste everything on this planet (maybe guys like me and enviromentalist need to get together?). I'll start by getting a small compact car with some actual good mileage. Hint, hint RSX (Pretty good mileage, 1000 Km on one tank. Tank size is 50 liters).

Satelites have either Geo-Synchronus orbits or asynchronus orbits.

Geosynchonus only orbits on one point above a planet. If it is over a certain point like say over your house, it'll be over your house night and day. Think of the physics like swinging a ball at a end of a rope. The rope is gravity and the forward force is the inital release speed of the satelite. The ball will go around that one point of rotation as long as you hold on. And in real life the satelite will orbit over your house as long as gravity and speed are constant. Let go of the rope and the ball goes flying. In real life this only happens if gravity somehow stops (not likely, well with realistic situations) or the speed of the satelite is changed. If the speed is increased it goes into what we call a asynchronus orbit. This is when the satelite rotates at its own speed around a planet. It won't orbit over your house anymore. It'll travel in a "track" across the earth. Your doomsday scenario of that laser tracking across the face of the earth is realised. To prevent this from happening you have to maintain the orbit by occasionaly firing thrusters on the satelite. Or literally give it a push, by going up in the space shuttle and doing it.

Last scenario is when the satelite goes slower then it should. It'll basically fall towards earth, and depending on its size could make a pretty nice hole somewhere. Nothing to worry about Alison. We have tons of satelites up there already.

good points, Albert, and not too often said, especially by the environmentalists proposing the 'environmentally friendly alternative.' I never knew the actual chemicals/processes that were so harmful, but I knew that the tradeoffs - at least for the time being - for switching to solar and wind electricity generation were really huge... but we have to start somewhere. Change happens in time; change not only in what's being used, what's available on the market, but also what those things are made of... if demand for less harmful (or energy-demanding to make) photo-cells and turbines increased, they'd find a way to make them so. And yeah, solar power from your typical photovoltaic cell isn't the be-all end-all, but it sure could work on the small-scale, covering rooves all across cities (yes, difficult for a central power company to own, but, hey, why not be anarchic about this conversion?), and yes, wind farms are nasty things for bird migration routes (which coincidentally often are where the wind blows the strongest), but again, in small-scale planning, it's not such a bad thing.

Or maybe we just need to change back to a time of small-scale hydro power (e.g. grist mills) and wind power, and passive solar heating... (or maybe our current lifestyle will force us into that lifestyle eventually)

or maybe we do need to go the other way to those monstrously high-tech things like Taylor'd mentioned. Maybe that is our solution. Question though: do those satellites remain fixed above one place on the Earth's surface? How does orbit work for them? I've been confused about that for a while. All I can picture is this huge laser/microwave scar-belt around the Earth reflecting the satellite's orbital pathway, and I don't think that's what's going to happen, is it?

I dunno, I just get ranty reading about things like the Cheviot coal mine, and then driving through the areas that are and will be decimated by that kind of industrial extraction.

I'm also scared shitless of sour gas wells - because the minute anything goes wrong, you're fucking dead. Interesting stuff... we can smell it at 10-100 ppb, and it's deadly (within minutes of exposure) at 750 ppm, but we lose our sense of smell for it at about 50-100 ppm... And that's what we're releasing from the ground all over the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies... not exactly smart if you ask me. (and the wells always seem to be on higher ground than the surroundings, which worries me even more as H2S (the poisonous component of sour gas) is heavier than air.) but then again, that's just me. They seem to operate it pretty safely, except for the continuously open 'security' gates, and the leaving of all doors into critical areas (with all the well-controlling machinery) wide open for animals (or terrorists) to enter if they were to so choose. though, quite frankly, there are a lot better things to sabotage than those that, when sabotaged, will kill anyone else in the aproximate vicinity.

anyway, that's it. I'll stop here. I think I'm just a bit freaked because I have to work near these wells all day, and the only thing guaranteeing my safety is the skill of the rig workers.

Well like I said eric, you'll always need assholes like me to work out "technical" issues.

interesting Al. very very interesting. i did not know those particular aspects of the manufacturing of solar pannels or windfarm blades.

SPS technology "showstopper": Money!

Where are you going to get this money? You need people to invest in it. Period. Plain and simple , you have the money you can do anything. Not saying the technology is bad or won't work but everything is ran with money. You need to set up buisness plans, financial forecast, alot of boring numbers I guess you guys wouldn't want to do, in order to get people to invest in it. Once again asshole like me can do this for you. Or you can wait for the government or some institution to develope it. It'll take time but be patient. Nothing is made and done just like that, or if it is, it's probally going to the scrap pile.

Problem with wind energy: Start up cost, maitenance cost, blocking migratory patterns of birds, and noise pollution. A typical wind turbine even of the most efficent design can not match a coal or gas powered plant either in "foot print" or power generated. The turbine blades would have to be huge (equivalent to a foot ball field in area)to even get any return in investments. A wind farm is a good idea but once again more turbines would have to be built to get any money back. This is the main reason we stay with our current energy technology, the technology is understood and the investment is usually returned in the first year of operation. The developement of wind energy must be subsidized at first in order for companies to take the first step towards making wind farms. After this hopefully industry will decide it is worth the cost and develope it. On a interesting note do any of you know how those turbine blades are fabricated? Not very enviromentally safe thats how! In order to withstand the fluxations of spinning at fast speed, and since the blades are long and slender (creating some very interesting engineering challenges) they must be made of alloyed metals, or epoxy glass which to say the least are not enviromentally friendly to make. You just can't take a chunk of metal and start to pound it into the shape you want! You have to either forge the blades or form the epoxies. Neither of which are safe to produce. So you are at a paradox, no known manufacturing technology we posses at this moment can produce a product with out some by product.

This is the case with developing solar panels. The by products of producing solar panels are harmful silicone derivatives or gallium arsenide. If you produce a whole bunch of solar panels, what are you going to do with these by products? The problem is not that companies don't want to change the ways they do things but the consequences of using a gas plant is known. With solar panels you need more "foot print" then a traditional power plant. How many people need to be displaced?

It is nice and all to have these motives to make this world a better place but we need to have the follow through to see where our choices will lead us. We can't use the ends to justify the means. We can't just jump onto a energy source and not see what the consequences could be. Granted it probally consumes less resources to produce wind turbines or solar panels but you still need a energy source to power this production (If you have never been in a manufacturing facility before then you don't really know how much energy is required to make something. How much energy do you think is required to melt metal down into a liquid form to form it into bars (for wind turbine supports, unless you can think of some other suitable substitute.)? or tubing (for pipes, once again unless you can think of another way to transport water)? ). So therefore you have to use fossil fuels at first to produce these technologies. Then after the new energy sources are up and running and providing enough energy then you can get rid of using fossil fuels. You need to do everything by kaizen as the japanes would say it. Little by little, day by day you can make a difference. Not all at once we couldn't support it. But slowly we can wean ourselves off using fossil fuels.

Well this is why the world will always need guys similar to me. We're the asshole industrialist turning your dreams into reality. We know what it takes to produce these technologies. So dream all you want but always consider the price you must pay to make your dreams reality... Sometimes the price isn't cheap.

Hey daggers: is it okay for you guys if practices get moved to Wednesdays instead of Thursdays? As in starting tomorrow?

haha, oh that weezl.

cadence gets gamegeared (from his blog)

" i'm opening for busdriver tonight at the back room. it's a favor to my dj, weez-l. i'm not getting paid but i'll probably get crunk as shit and i'll get to meet busdriver, which will be neat. he's a dope rapper. i can't see myself doing a lot more with this dj though, he's starting to take advantage and i'm finding that he always tries to sell me something whenever i talk to him. do you have friends who only want to talk to you if it benefits them in some way? "