Prev: Take that, banana sun!
Next: Solar-pumped laser power transmission, a way to dramaticallydecrease launch costs?
From: Jonathan on 17 Dec 2009 23:15

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0(a)hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4B2AE247.49183A7D(a)hate.spam.net...

> idiot
>>


Ah, now I see my error. You sure showed me!


>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm


From: Androcles on 18 Dec 2009 04:44

"Jonathan" <Home(a)Again.net> wrote in message
news:3ICdnSUliYxznLbWnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0(a)hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:4B2AE247.49183A7D(a)hate.spam.net...
>
>> idiot
>>>
>
>
> Ah, now I see my error. You sure showed me!
>

Good. Now shut up.




From: Jonathan on 23 Dec 2009 23:44

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:009eff7e$0$8205$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...

>
> Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Their web site says nothing about
> finances that I can see, but the resumes of the directors are interesting


Yes, with Middle East connections. That caught my eye.
But here's the official 'pitch' given to potential investors.
It's a pretty nice sales pitch! But I think unless the govt steps in
and provides some sort of protection for investors, it's
still an uphill battle to find the money. But the idea has
clearly taken a large step forward.
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation

A good point he makes is that it's more a matter
of time, not technology, until a business model becomes
viable. He claims the prototype will cost $300 million.
And that the first 1GW satellite will cost $16 billion.
Which he says is about the same $16 to $23 billion
total lifetime cost of a 1GW nuclear plant. And he
claims it'll take about 5 years to build the first one
once it's financed. Probably all optimistic, but getting
there.

And I like his point where he asks, which would you rather
live next to, nuclear power plant, coal power plant, or
a rectenna?





>
> http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Directors.htm
>
> It seems likely they'll know more about money, and how to get it, than about
> the technology.
>
> Sylvia.


From: Damon Hill on 24 Dec 2009 15:16
Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in
news:00a456ef$0$8082$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com:


>>
>> And I like his point where he asks, which would you rather
>> live next to, nuclear power plant, coal power plant, or
>> a rectenna?
>
> I might be inclined to go for the nuclear plant, actually. Better the
> devil you know.

My thoughts, exactly.


--Damon

From: Damon Hill on 24 Dec 2009 19:27
Pat Flannery <flanner(a)daktel.com> wrote in
news:d-GdnbnI2eJtQ67WnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d(a)posted.northdakotatelephone:

> Damon Hill wrote:
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in
>> news:00a456ef$0$8082$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com:
>>
>>
>>>> And I like his point where he asks, which would you rather
>>>> live next to, nuclear power plant, coal power plant, or
>>>> a rectenna?
>>> I might be inclined to go for the nuclear plant, actually. Better
>>> the devil you know.
>>
>> My thoughts, exactly.
>
> Things might be looked at differently if the wind had been from the
> north on the day Chernobyl blew up and the radiation cloud had floated
> over Kiev:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radi
> ation_map_1996.svg/568px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png

No one builds and operates reactors like Chernobyl, and with good
reason. They're built like Three Mile Island, with effective
containment.

I'd much rather live downwind of a reactor than an oil refinery;
those do occasionally blow up with noxious results.

--Damon

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Take that, banana sun!
Next: Solar-pumped laser power transmission, a way to dramaticallydecrease launch costs?