Fossil Fuels v's Alternative Energy

The waste issue is hugely over blown IMO, it is a problem no doubt, but geologically stable deep storage is a safe and effective answer, and the volume in question is small. The protestors always quote the amount of waste in weight which due to the excessive specific density of much nuclear material makes the quantity seem huge, but in volume terms it’s small. I see the UK’s really hot waste regularly and it’s contained in the equivalent of a couple of Olympic sized pools, hardly a mountain for over 50 years of nuclear activity. The other thing is that waste is not just a problem for the nuclear power sector, most waste actually comes from other sources, especially the medical sector, and I don’t see protestors demanding an end to medical radiography. Not many realise the most dangerous incident involving nuclear waste in the UK for many many years was actually caused by a medical scanning unit being moved for decommissioning.

The thing is that the ENERGY department and the current whitehouse,congress/senate have layed out an ambitious plan to cut down the consumption of oil by 30% by 2030 and substitute this by using bio fuel (ethanol etc etc) . However this CANNOT be a one to one substitution on OIL and ETHANOL as it isnt practical , to acheive this they would still have to make cars and trucks 3-5 times more effeceint then they are now , reduce the usage of oil elsewhere , drill offshore oil etc etc , i think it is very much doable if we put our heads down , CORN lobby although stands in the way and they want ethanol to come from corn which is very uneconomical and not favourable to the agriculture setup going into the future , we allready have things in testing like switchgrass that can yeild upto 20 times more ethanol (interms of energy expanded comparisons) then corn , and can get something like 1500-2000 Gallons of ethanol per acre of land ( this is before any hyrid varieties are developed ) and are fast growing crops which can grow in the most unfavourable enviroments and climates . Even with this switchgrass the 30% substitute required would still need a farm area the size of wyoming to yeild enough ethanol for a one is to one switch , therefore if the US wants to do a practical reduction the incorporation of ethanol should be accompanied by making the transportation sector (land transport ) atleast 3-5 times more effeceint aswell . Moreover i really dont understant the concept of being able to produce your own ethanol , we can ask freindly countries in africa , S america , asia to produce the switchgrass to make up even more ethanol for us ( heck we can make it here and still save a lot of money ) , growing anything in the US is more expensive then it is in asia , africa and S america . I dont understand the logic behind taxing import duty on Ethanol when None exists on OIL .

A GREAT ARTICLE ON ETHANOL , BIODEISEL AND CONFRONTING THE OIL CRISIS IN THE U.S.=

Confronting Today’s Oil Crisis in the U.S.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/reinsider/story;jsessionid=866E297144F17D872637896AE8B05F94?id=45824

Looks like the F15 is in the firing line 😀
_______________________

The electrical industry appear to be pushing for nuclear power. The trouble with that is no one has come up with a safe disposal practice. In Plymouth harbour the Royal navy has some decommissioned nuclear powered subs, the nuclear waste is on board effectively in the middle of a city.
The politicians say that it will be safe buried deep underground,(but it has to be stored for a time period that is greater than the existance of any society has existed for).
Both Eire and the Scandinavian countries are trying to stop nuclear waste from Windscale (oops sorry ) being dumped in the Irish Sea where it contaminates fish life
I am not being a Luddite here but if it is that safe lets bury it under the houses of parliament .

I think you will find that the decommissioned subs are now in Rosyth. I saw them there last year. There is even the very first one in dry dock (can’t remember the name but i’m sure its obvious). The guy who took me round the dockyard gave me the quick five min tour. The boat I went on was surrounded by the decommissioned S class.

Ali

ANOTHER GREAT READ UP ON SOLAR ENERGY AND ADVANTAGES FROM US TAX LAWS –

http://riskable.com/2006/08/

A GREAT ARTICLE ON ETHANOL , BIODEISEL AND CONFRONTING THE OIL CRISIS IN THE U.S.=

Confronting Today’s Oil Crisis in the U.S.

With little doubt today the United States is being confronted with a crisis of major proportions. As world oil demand keeps growing and oil supplies are curtailed or threatened by political turmoil in the Mideast, world oil prices could well continue to escalate upwards at an alarming rate. This would portend a major increase in transportation costs with serious economic repercussions throughout the country. The question is what can we do NOW?

There are several avenues that could relieve the situation in the long term, but few that we can deploy now to meet our immediate needs. For example, when we talk about a “hydrogen” solution, we are really talking about a revolutionary technology whose practical application is likely a decade or more away. When we talk “electric vehicles” (EVs) we are assuming that battery and/or super capacitor technology will advance dramatically in the next few years so that auto batteries can be recharged quickly and the driving range between recharges can be extended appreciably.

Then there is the hope that liquid petroleum can be domestically produced from coal or oil shale. Producing oil economically from this country’s enormous coal supply is seriously being explored by several private companies with some support of the federal government, but it is still a long way from grand scale commercialization. Oil production from shale, on the other hand, is still in its early development stage and few breakthroughs are foreseen in the near future. Both of these technologies have problems associated with land use, water use, and ecosystem destruction that have yet to be solved. For these reasons none of these technologies appear to be realistic solutions in the near term.

This leaves mainly biofuels, i.e., ethanol and biodiesel. While wide attention is now being given to these fuels as petroleum substitutes, strong reservations have been expressed by some. One of the leading ethanol critics is Prof. David Pimental of Cornell University. He calculates that more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy achieved. Many have challenged Pimental’s conclusions on the basis that his data is badly outdated and that he includes too many irrelevant energy inputs in his calculations. In fact, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) analysis clearly shows, contrary to the Pimental paper, that U.S. farming and ethanol manufacturing practices are energy efficient and are becoming more so each year. It asserts that the energy content of ethanol delivered to the consumer is significantly larger than the total fossil energy inputs required to produce it. As early as 2002 USDA estimated that ethanol facilities produce at least 1.23 BTUs of energy as ethanol for every fossil BTU expended considering all energy inputs including corn transport, ethanol production, and the distribution and transport of the finished ethanol. This is key since the real goal is to measure how much petroleum is used in the process versus how much petroleum is displaced, not how much total energy is expended.

Still many professionals do believe that a major shortcoming of ethanol is its poor EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested). The ratio today using corn as a feedstock for ethanol is only 1(in):1.5(out) at best. Although this is positive, Prof. Charles Hall (State University of New York) points out that, “expecting to run a country totally on liquid fuels of this low EROEI is almost laughable.” Another danger, as warned in Jared Diamond’s book, “Collapse,” is the possible land degradation that would occur if the enormous acreage needed to produce enough substitute fuel to meet our nation’s oil demands is devoted to energy crops. Thus we have a dilemma. The only immediate substitute for oil seems to be ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol has it limitations as stated previously.

Biodiesel, which is a biofuel made primarily from waste fats or soybeans, can directly replace diesel oil but it too has EROEI weaknesses similar to ethanol. On the other hand, while not the total answer, biofuels can be a substantial contributor (possibly as much as 20%) to our liquid fuel needs and should not be discounted. To really make ethanol a major contributor, however, we need to quickly change our feedstock component from corn to cellulosic matter; i.e., farm waste and especially grown energy crops such as specialty grasses and short rotation woody biomass. The benefit of this is that we would achieve a much higher EROEI than from corn alone and we could grow many of the energy crops on land that is fallow, underused or unsuitable for food crops. It is worth noting that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, has long been engaged in a research program aimed at developing a practical means of converting cellulosic feedstock into ethanol. In fact, a new ethanol plant in Canada that uses only cellulosic waste as its feedstock has now come on line. It was built by the Royal Dutch Shell company in partnership with Iogen of Canada. More such plants are in the planning stage.

But even at best biofuels alone are not the answer. This country consumes about 21 million barrels of petroleum per day, 14 of which are used for transportation. Currently a NET average of about 150,000 barrels/day (54.75 million barrels/year) is being supplied by biofuels (assuming that only 1 gallon of liquid fuel is required to produce 2 gallons of ethanol — an optimistic assumption at this time). Even if we increased biofuels production thirty-fold, this would supplant little more than 20% of our petroleum needs (less than one-third of our oil imports today). This in itself is a most ambitious goal, to say the least. It would be unreasonable to expect that we could ever produce enough ethanol to match all or even 60% (amount imported) of our liquid fuel consumption. And even if we could, it is questionable whether this would be desirable considering the enormous amount of land area that would be necessary to produce the ethanol feedstock. Therefore, if we are to solve the total problem we must augment an expanded biofuels production initiative with a dramatic reduction in oil consumption, as much as 7 million barrels per day.

In 2005, the 235+ million on-road U.S. car/light truck fleet averaged 20.3 miles per gallon (mpg); down from 22.5 mpg in 1985. Our commercial airlines, trains, freight trucks, and farm machinery consume gasoline and diesel fuel at an enormous rate. And the amount of oil necessary to produce petroleum based products such as plastics and chemicals is increasing each year. To reduce costs, many airlines are already replacing their old stock with more fuel efficient planes. Many truckers are actively seeking ways to reduce travel miles for deliveries and increasing the fuel efficiency of their trucks.

But the lion’s share of the burden must fall upon the private owners of cars and light trucks (which include SUVs and minivans). Some inroads have already been made by the introduction of hybrid gasoline-electric autos which boast mpg ratings of more than twice the average mpg rating of all other cars. And it is further encouraging that many hybrid autos are now being modified so that they can be plugged into any electric power source when the vehicle is idle thereby recharging the batteries without using the vehicle’s gasoline engine or regenerative braking system. This increases the mpg tremendously and some hybrid auto manufacturers are seriously considering making this feature an option on future models.

Bottom line — to make a serious reduction in U.S. oil consumption over the next fifteen years we need to increase the average mpg of our car/light truck fleet from 20.3 mpg to 35 mpg (fifteen years is the average time it takes to turn over our entire light-car fleet today). Therefore, the ideal goal would be to phase in new high-efficiency vehicles to replace all low-efficiency vehicles as they are removed from service over the period. To accomplish this, our federal government would have to carry out a massive public relations campaign, along with an innovative financial incentive program, to convince car owners that it is not only in their own best interest, but in the national interest as well, to change their automobile preferences from SUVs, minivans, and light trucks to smaller, more efficient vehicles. Special rebates should be given to car buyers to purchase hybrid cars and, better yet, plug-in hybrid cars once they become commercially available. In addition, the government will have to gradually impose higher and higher fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards for cars, as well as light trucks, on car manufacturers for implementation over the next decade.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the action we must take NOW to relieve our dependence on foreign oil over the next two decades is threefold: First, we need to increase our domestic oil production from the current level of 7.5 million barrels/day to about 10 million barrels/day. This may mean more offshore drilling, possibly some discrete drilling on public lands, and, if it can become economical and environmentally acceptable, production of oil via coal liquefaction and/or extraction from oil shale.

Secondly, we need to produce more and more biofuels, hopefully as much as a NET 4 million barrels/day. This assumes that a practical method of producing ethanol from cellulosic feedstock will be developed within the next five years and that it will be the predominant method of producing ethanol over the following ten years. It also assumes that there will be a major increase in biodiesel production. These measures will not only provide alternative fuels to relieve much of our gasoline and diesel fuel needs but it also will create thousands of new domestic jobs and greatly improve our balance of trade.

Thirdly, and most importantly, we need to drastically reduce our oil consumption by some 7 million barrels/day. This means an upping of CAFE standards by government edict, a mass manufacture and sale of highly fuel-efficient vehicles, and the subsequent changing some of our life style habits. We can no longer lavish ourselves with large gas guzzling vehicles. We need to replace them with fuel efficient cars and trucks such as hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and we must learn to economize on our travel in every way we can (car pools, fewer road trips, shorter commutes, greater use of public transportation). In fact, there is a movement afoot encouraging local governments to pass new zoning laws and create incentives for better urban planning of all new real estate developments to ensure less travel between home, stores and places of employment.

These may appear to be near impossible goals, and maybe they are. But we must strive to achieve them as best we can. If we fall short we will still be far ahead of our current business as usual scenario and will reduce our oil imports appreciably. If we delude ourselves that there is no crisis and do nothing, we will be doomed.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/reinsider/story;jsessionid=866E297144F17D872637896AE8B05F94?id=45824

Nuclear power is a good way to go about it but they definately need to develop disposal technologies etc , I still think that their are many technologies and areas which are applicable at different level and should all be followed , I would switch to ethanol in a big way as if followed seriously it is more abundant ( nearly endless supply ) and cheaper then oil ( no drillling required just growing Hemp or sugarcane or corn) and has less emmissions ( close to 25% less) . Furthermore i would use solar energy to generate electricity at a local level and improve on the hydroelectricity generation specially through the oceans and wave electricity generation etc etc . All in all if we can reduce our usage of oil by around 20-25% by 2030 we’ll be doing good .

These 500-sun to 1000-sun cells are high quality space cells and are very reliable on satellites in rugged space radiation environments. The unknown durability is mostly related to terrestrial weather. The cost is something like $10/cm^2, at 1000-suns and 35% efficiency that is $0.33/Watt. Forecasts are for cells approaching 50% efficiency and costing less than $0.10/Watt.

Check this out –

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/01/technology/towerofpower0802.biz2/index.htm
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=866E297144F17D872637896AE8B05F94?id=45797
http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/Tercel/tercell.pdf
http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/Tercel/tercell.pdf
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html

And some of the pioneering efforts in utelizing solar energy at a large scale level –

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1858047,00.html

From the Times,

IT IS the modern-day equivalent of turning base metal into gold, and Sean McCarthy believes that he has it cracked.
A free, infinite supply of pure energy could be sitting in a secure area of an unprepossessing unit in the Docklands of Dublin. Mr McCarthy claims to have created a perpetual motion machine, a device that can produce at least as much energy as it consumes, so that once it has been set running it can continue indefinitely.

Even Sir Isaac Newton, who spent years trying to turn base metals into gold, reputedly said: “The seekers after perpetual motion are trying to get something from nothing.”

The problem is that after allowing The Times and its physics expert, John White, into the office, Mr McCarthy decided not to let us see the machine. It is some form of an all-magnet motor and the only clue that he will give is that it looks like “a grandfather clock, without its pendulum”.

Having made its existence known through a full-page advertisement in The Economist, Mr McCarthy, 40, has been overwhelmed by interest from around the world — some of which has veered towards “death threat” territory. “We had one physicist who finished his rant by saying, ‘You had better watch your back’,” he said.

“We are getting bloggers putting out stories that this is a stunt to market Xboxes, that we are a call centre and that we have just closed down.”

The search for perpetual motion is considered heretical in the scientific community because it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Historically, those who set out to prove otherwise fell into one of three categories: sincere but wrong; a few cogs short of a self-blowing windmill; and money-grabbing fraudsters.

After the first British patent for a perpetual motion machine nearly four centuries ago, hundreds have followed.

Mr McCarthy is the head of an IT company that advises police forces across Europe on fighting fraud. “If I am proved wrong, this company is out of business and I will never work in this town again,” he said.

By the end of this month Mr McCarthy hopes to have assembled a panel of “the most qualified and the most cynical” scientists to test his machine.

Dr White, an atomic physicist at University College Dublin, had a straightforward question: “Why not publish your results in a peer review journal and go and collect your Nobel prize when you are vindicated?” He added: “If he is right, he will have solved the riddle of the Universe and brought peace to the Middle East.”

Mr McCarthy said that he had stumbled by accident across “a kinetic anomaly of magnetic fields” while developing a small wind turbine to power closed-circuit television cameras.

Some “very well-respected” scientists had tested the machine and achieved the same results, he said. But they refused to publish their findings because “this area is surrounded by fraudsters and the misguided. So we decided that either we should just drop this or find a different way to get science interested.”

The machine that could solve one of the world’s ills is shrouded in mystery. The Times got as far as a door marked “strictly no admittance” through which an animated-looking Frenchman disappeared.

Dr White’s verdict? “I haven’t seen a working device and he has created publicity in a way that is non-traditional to scientific verification.

If it is true and actually works then it will make our scientists think. I know science and Academia, is very strictly controlled, and only ideas from published papers are classed as legitimate.They don’t deal in make believe, even ufos are not recognised. 🙂
_______

From the Times,

IT IS the modern-day equivalent of turning base metal into gold, and Sean McCarthy believes that he has it cracked.
A free, infinite supply of pure energy could be sitting in a secure area of an unprepossessing unit in the Docklands of Dublin. Mr McCarthy claims to have created a perpetual motion machine, a device that can produce at least as much energy as it consumes, so that once it has been set running it can continue indefinitely.

Even Sir Isaac Newton, who spent years trying to turn base metals into gold, reputedly said: “The seekers after perpetual motion are trying to get something from nothing.”

The problem is that after allowing The Times and its physics expert, John White, into the office, Mr McCarthy decided not to let us see the machine. It is some form of an all-magnet motor and the only clue that he will give is that it looks like “a grandfather clock, without its pendulum”.

Having made its existence known through a full-page advertisement in The Economist, Mr McCarthy, 40, has been overwhelmed by interest from around the world — some of which has veered towards “death threat” territory. “We had one physicist who finished his rant by saying, ‘You had better watch your back’,” he said.

“We are getting bloggers putting out stories that this is a stunt to market Xboxes, that we are a call centre and that we have just closed down.”

The search for perpetual motion is considered heretical in the scientific community because it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Historically, those who set out to prove otherwise fell into one of three categories: sincere but wrong; a few cogs short of a self-blowing windmill; and money-grabbing fraudsters.

After the first British patent for a perpetual motion machine nearly four centuries ago, hundreds have followed.

Mr McCarthy is the head of an IT company that advises police forces across Europe on fighting fraud. “If I am proved wrong, this company is out of business and I will never work in this town again,” he said.

By the end of this month Mr McCarthy hopes to have assembled a panel of “the most qualified and the most cynical” scientists to test his machine.

Dr White, an atomic physicist at University College Dublin, had a straightforward question: “Why not publish your results in a peer review journal and go and collect your Nobel prize when you are vindicated?” He added: “If he is right, he will have solved the riddle of the Universe and brought peace to the Middle East.”

Mr McCarthy said that he had stumbled by accident across “a kinetic anomaly of magnetic fields” while developing a small wind turbine to power closed-circuit television cameras.

Some “very well-respected” scientists had tested the machine and achieved the same results, he said. But they refused to publish their findings because “this area is surrounded by fraudsters and the misguided. So we decided that either we should just drop this or find a different way to get science interested.”

The machine that could solve one of the world’s ills is shrouded in mystery. The Times got as far as a door marked “strictly no admittance” through which an animated-looking Frenchman disappeared.

Dr White’s verdict? “I haven’t seen a working device and he has created publicity in a way that is non-traditional to scientific verification.

The electrical industry appear to be pushing for nuclear power. The trouble with that is no one has come up with a safe disposal practice. In Plymouth harbour the Royal navy has some decommissioned nuclear powered subs, the nuclear waste is on board effectively in the middle of a city.
The politicians say that it will be safe buried deep underground,(but it has to be stored for a time period that is greater than the existance of any society has existed for).
Both Eire and the Scandinavian countries are trying to stop nuclear waste from Windscale (oops sorry ) being dumped in the Irish Sea where it contaminates fish life
I am not being a Luddite here but if it is that safe lets bury it under the houses of parliament .

Use the radioactive fission waste to feed a tokamak. It will provide power and dispose of the waste. The sad part is no government seems to be willing to fund tokamak research because there is too much tax money to be had from conventional energy producing methods. Ban tax-hungry bureaucrats and we could have a virtually unlimited energy supply.

The electrical industry appear to be pushing for nuclear power. The trouble with that is no one has come up with a safe disposal practice. In Plymouth harbour the Royal navy has some decommissioned nuclear powered subs, the nuclear waste is on board effectively in the middle of a city.
The politicians say that it will be safe buried deep underground,(but it has to be stored for a time period that is greater than the existance of any society has existed for).
Both Eire and the Scandinavian countries are trying to stop nuclear waste from Windscale (oops sorry ) being dumped in the Irish Sea where it contaminates fish life
I am not being a Luddite here but if it is that safe lets bury it under the houses of parliament .

It can be done but is not cost effective.

A large communications-type satellite costs about £235M and weighs 4000+kg. It presently costs £4,700+/kg to get a satellite into geostationary orbit or £19+M. Satellite life is approximately 10 years or £25.4M/yr to operate. Two 36m wings will generate 16 kilowatts total output based on 30% efficiency by solar cells (no failures allowed in this example). Doing the math results in a cost of £181/kWh while your present residential electricity rate probably runs £.052/kWh (no taxes included).

You tell me if there is a cost-effectiveness problem.

Yeah but it was only a sci-fi program.

Ali

I saw a sci-fi program where they had satellites in orbit with massive photo voltaic cells which collected the sunlight and “fired” it at collectors on the ground. Was wondering if one of you rocket scientists out there can tell me if this is practical.

Ali

It can be done but is not cost effective.

A large communications-type satellite costs about £235M and weighs 4000+kg. It presently costs £4,700+/kg to get a satellite into geostationary orbit or £19+M. Satellite life is approximately 10 years or £25.4M/yr to operate. Two 36m wings will generate 16 kilowatts total output based on 30% efficiency by solar cells (no failures allowed in this example). Doing the math results in a cost of £181/kWh while your present residential electricity rate probably runs £.052/kWh (no taxes included).

You tell me if there is a cost-effectiveness problem.

It’s a Master’s of Science degree in Space Studies. My last two classes cover rocket propulsion system design and satellite communications system architecture.

It depends how much emphasis one places on the word “certified”……… :diablo:

Wow i didnt know i was in such esteemed company !! Truely honored to be a fellow member to a person that represents brain power of about .0000001 % of the most inteligent of the earth’s population 🙂

I dont think you need a rocket scientist to tell you that:)

I’ll actually be a certified rocket scientist in June when my Masters is finished :diablo:

Impractical for now. You’d need to put a lot of mass into orbit, and the current price to place items in orbit is pretty damn high. Until we find a cheaper method, things like this are going to remain pipe dreams.

As I said, it was a sci-fi program. Good idea though.

Ali 🙂

I dont think you need a rocket scientist to tell you that:)

Anyway there are far more practical ways to generate electricity and decrease the dependency on oil and other renewable recources , Ethanol is one way to go , and E85 is just a start ( 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) , i think that that if we have enough brains out in this world that can manufacter nuclear bombs , put men on space and bring them back they can definately make a Ford F150 drive as meanly with ethanol as with gasoline or make a ferrari go as fast with E85 as with petrol given time and money . As i said i believe that the concentrator cell is a good way to go about in a small community level , specially in poorer countries where the infrastructure needs complete replacement and sunlight is plenty , imagine a village or a group of villages or districs in africa having a few acres of concentrator cells making enough energy for about 10000-15000 homes all coupled with effeceint energy saving electronics . That is where i beleive solar energy can be very beneficial . Furthermore why dont we see the damn govt. subsidise these , heck if the US Govt and energy departments starts to subsidize the development of these things ( specially for commercial use) we can benefit at a greater rate , It seems much much better then paying billions to boeing in subsidizing a airliner ( or europeans doing it to airbus) …I think they should look towards doubling energy utelization and cutting the price in half for the next 10-12 years then they should start to buy it in 10’s of thousands and offer it to the public at a subsidized rate.

There is so much politics involved in this that it sickens me to my stomach , the reason why ethanol is so darn expensive in the US ( relativly) is because we place a duty on importing foreign ethanol and use home grown ethanol ( largely from corn) which is expensive due to obvious reasons , however there is no such duty on other sources of energy such as Oil etc , if they lift the Duty on eth. it will surely reduce prices considerably specially when in the future ethanol wont be generated from corn but would be generated from biomas , sugarcane heck even hemp . I am not touting Ethanol as a long term sollution but for the next 30-40 years it is a great alternative to oil ( reduces emmisions by around 25% ) while in the meantime we continue to develop technology that will enable more effeceint and renewable recources such as those in the concentrator cells , hudroelectrical , even more effecient nuclear reactors . We just need to realize that there are technologies available today , and on the brink of being available that can give us better eco freindly enviroment and we dont need to implant generators in space to acheive that.

I saw a sci-fi program where they had satellites in orbit with massive photo voltaic cells which collected the sunlight and “fired” it at collectors on the ground. Was wondering if one of you rocket scientists out there can tell me if this is practical.

Ali

Impractical for now. You’d need to put a lot of mass into orbit, and the current price to place items in orbit is pretty damn high. Until we find a cheaper method, things like this are going to remain pipe dreams.