GEEO- Greater Earth Energy Organization


GEEO – Greater Earth Energy Organization

Implementing the Space Energy Option to Address the Climate Emergency and the Energy Dilemma


Arthur R. Woods (*)
Latest update August 17, 2021


This article proposes the creation of a Greater Earth Energy Organization (GEEO) to address the impending Energy Dilemma and the Climate Emergency with a global initiative based on existing and established organizational examples as an approach to implement the Space Energy Option. The primary goal of the GEEO is to provide the entire world with an inexhaustible supply of environmentally clean energy in an equitable, economical and socially just manner.

Greater Earth is a new perception of our planet which is based on Earth’s true cosmic dimensions as defined by the laws of physics and celestial mechanics. It describes a region with a diameter of 3 million kilometers through which passes 55,000 times more solar energy than what falls on the surface of the planet. Greater Earth is also an interdependent dynamic system involving the cosmic interactions of the Sun, the Moon and the Earth that has enabled life on Earth to emerge, to survive and to thrive. Awareness of Greater Earth and extending civilization throughout its regions may help catalyze an optimistic path towards a sustainable and prosperous future for all humanity on Earth and beyond.

 


Introduction The Energy Dilemma The Climate Emergency

The Energy Market The Space Energy Option Greater Earth Energy Organization

>Greater Earth Accounting Unit Geopolitical and Legal Dimensions Conclusions

 

Introduction


Humanity is at a crossroads: it must decide if it prefers to live and prosper in an energy rich world or attempt to survive in an energy poor one. An approach to finding a viable solution to the impending energy dilemma and climate emergency confronting humanity and an analysis of the options currently available are urgently necessary. The fundamental causes of these interrelated issues are the many environmental and geopolitical issues associated with the continued use of fossil fuels added to the fact that continued reliance on fossil fuel resources is projected to become problematic and conflict prone in the coming decades. Energy reduction policies and measures currently being implemented by many nations to address these issues may result in energy insecurity. Thus, a sensible transition to a reliable, adequate and environmentally neutral alternative source of energy is imperative in order to preserve and sustain present civilization and to provide future generations with sufficient energy and hope for prosperity and peace.

Currently, 85% of world energy consumption comes from fossil fuels. The United Nations, the European Union, many governments, scientific and environmental organizations have declared a Climate Emergency and are calling for net-zero CO2  emissions targets by the year 2050 in order to lessen the effects of CO2  induced global warming by divesting from the use of fossil fuels. This process assumes that terrestrial solutions will be adequate for addressing this climate crisis if intergovernmental measures can be implemented in time. However, upon close examination, no terrestrial energy option – nuclear, wind and solar photovoltaic – can be realistically scaled to achieve the desired goals to reach the net-zero CO2  targets and divesting from fossil fuels while adequately meeting the growing energy needs of humanity. In addition, fossil fuels are becoming gradually exhausted and production will become uneconomical by mid-century. This represents an Energy Dilemma that may be more immediate and more disrupting to society than the Climate Emergency. Policies that force society to retreat from the use of fossil fuels and policies that promote inadequate energy solutions will result in an energy poor world – a situation that may lead to global conflict and to the collapse of civilization.

The only feasible near term solution currently available to humanity for addressing the climate emergency and the energy dilemma is the “Space Energy Option” which is based on technological concepts to harness the inexhaustible solar energy available in the region of Greater Earth to supply humanity with the abundant clean energy it will need in the future. The standard criticism of this approach since it was first introduced in 1973 has been its large scale and the initial costs. In the past decade launch costs have been reduced by approximately 90% and space hardware costs by almost 99%. However, initial financing for large scale development is still a major challenge that will most likely require public-private partnerships and international collaboration. International collaboration will also be essential for spectrum allocation consensus and orbital positioning of solar power satellites.

To address these concerns, an innovative plan called: “GEEO – the Greater Earth Energy Organization” is being proposed as a means to technically, economically and equitability develop and implement the space energy option.  It assumes that most people would prefer to live in an energy rich world rather than in an energy poor world. This applies not only to standards of living and food production but also having sufficient energy to tackle other global problems such as restoring the environment, adapting to climate change, providing adequate clean water, ending poverty as well as providing real hope for a positive and peaceful future for all humanity.

The Energy Dilemma

Among all of nature’s diverse systems, energy is the principal driver of the increasing complexity of galaxies, stars, planets and life-forms in the expanding universe. Energy flows engendered largely by the expanding cosmos seem to be as universal as anything yet found in nature. Indeed, unlocking Earth's vast energy reserves enabled our species to embark on an industrial revolution leading to a technological civilization that is on the threshold of expanding permanently into the near cosmos.

Before the industrial revolution, humanity was dependent on the limited flow of solar energy captured in living plants for subsistence needs such as food, fuel, and shelter. Since the beginning of the industrial age fossil fuels have been used as sources of energy starting with the widespread use of coal in the 1800’s followed by the discovery of oil in 1849 and its use in internal combustion engines. Subsequently, contemporary industrial society has been built largely on petroleum resources. Life expectancy tripled and per capita income increased 11 fold.

Fossil fuel use and the consequent anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) also have greatly expanded the global food supply. Fertilizer derived from natural gas has increased agricultural productivity by 40-60 percent. Synthetic fibers derived from fossil fuels now account for 60 percent of all fibers. Basic materials such as plastic, vinyl, and fiberglass constitute the raw material used in thousands of products in daily use. Typically, fossil fuels can be characterized as being energy dense, abundant, versatile, reliable, portable and affordable. However, environmental issues, geopolitical conflicts and the declining EROI (energy return on investment) due to the estimated scarcity of easily obtainable fossil fuels indicates a soon transition from these carbon fuels towards newer, cleaner and more plentiful energy resources will be necessary for maintaining civilization and providing a means for future societal development.

There are several sources of energy data available in order to have a picture of the world energy demands now and in the future. One commonly used is the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020 which in its 69th edition details the energy statistics for the year 2019 which is before the Coronavirus affected the world economy.  This energy review lists World Primary Energy Consumption by fuel, i.e. oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear energy, hydroelectricity and renewables by region and country. [1] For 2019, Fig.1 shows the World Total Primary Energy consumption was: 583.90 EJ, combined Fossil Fuels (coal, natural gas and oil): 492.34 EJ (Coal 157.86 EJ, Natural Gas 141.45 EJ Oil 193.03 EJ), Hydroelectricity: 37.66 Nuclear: 24.92 EJ, Renewables (wind, terrestrial solar and other non-hydro renewables) 28.98 EJ.

The BP report listed these in totals in exajoules (EJ) . When converted to terawatt hours (TWh) : Total world energy consumption: 162,194 TWh; Fossil Fuels: 136,761 TWh (84.3%); Hydroelectricity, 10,461 TWh (6.5%); Nuclear power, 6,922 TWh (4.3%); and 8,050 TWh (5%) from renewables as illustrated in Fig. 2. This estimate of world energy consumption is confirmed  by other sources such as the International Energy Agency [2].

 

Fig.1. Extract from BP Statistical Review of World Energy
Fig.1. Extract from BP Statistical Review of World Energy

 

Fig. 3. Global Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel in Terawatts
Fig. 2. Global Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel in Terawatt Hours

 

To illustrate what it would take to replace fossil fuels with an alternative terrestrial energy source, nuclear power can be used as an example. A typical nuclear power station generates about 1-GW of electricity and runs at 90% availability. Therefore, in order to replace current fossil fuel usage of 136,761 TWh with nuclear power would require the deployment of up to 17,347 new 1 GW nuclear reactors. This means, for the next 30 years, 578 nuclear power plants would have to go online each year. In 2019, world-wide nuclear power systems accounted for only 6,922 TWh (4% of the total energy use) and, currently, building one nuclear power plant takes about 10 years. Furthermore, some estimates conclude that the uranium reserves may supply the currently-operating reactors only for some 90 years more. Thus it is highly unlikely that nuclear power could substantially contribute to replacing fossil fuels due to the high construction costs, the long development times, public resistance, nuclear waste disposal issues, the lack of suitable locations with sufficient water and the fact that uranium supplies are both finite and inadequate. Worldwide, there are currently 449 nuclear power plants in operation.

As far as renewables are concerned, due the inherent intermittency and storage factors associated with wind and solar energy production, at least three times more electrical generating capacity from these sources must be installed to equal the output of nuclear power in the above example.  This means that approximately 52 TW of wind and solar capacity would be needed to equal the energy provided by fossil fuels today. As both wind and solar installations require much surface area as well as optimal weather conditions in favorable locations, reaching this goal also appears unrealistic. Currently just 0.745 GW of renewables have been installed worldwide.

The above examples only concern replacing the energy derived from fossil fuels in 2019 as was reported in the BP report. As world population is expected to increase by 25% to 9.7 billion in the year 2050, it can be assumed that at least 25% more energy will be needed which would increase world energy demands to approximately 23 TW or 201,480 TWh.  Currently, almost 1 billion people are without access to electricity, 3 billion lack access to clean cooking solutions, proper fuels for heating and are on the threshold of industrial development.  [3] However, most energy organizations estimate that humanity’s 2050 energy needs will be at least 50% more than today which is about 18.5 TW or at least 28 TW in 2050, but probably even much more as the lesser developed nations increase their economic activities. Over the last decade worldwide energy consumption has increased at a rate of 1.5% per year and if this rate continues, then humanity would need at least 271,560 TWh of energy in the year 2050. If distributed equally, this would provide a worldwide per capita energy consumption level of about 3 kW which is less than what most European nations on average currently consume. If energy efficiency measures are adopted worldwide and energy equally distributed this could be a realistic goal towards eventually creating an equitable energy rich future.

The politics of decarbonization such as the European Union’s (EU) recently announced ‘Fit for 55’ program to meet its ambitious target of a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, relative to 1990 levels, aligns EU policy with the ambitious political mandates of the European Green Deal and EU Climate Law.  In addition, as seen in Figure 3. below, estimates provided by the BP World Reserves of Fossil Fuel, indicate that the remaining proven extractable reserves of fossil fuels are reaching critical levels.  [4]  As shown, at current rates of consumption, humanity will exhaust the proven reserves of crude oil in the year 2066, natural gas by the year 2068 and coal in the year 2169. Together, these developments significantly add to the urgency of finding a viable global energy solution and underscores the imminent Energy Dilemma that humanity is facing.

Fig 3. Estimated years of extraction remaining for fossil fuels.
Fig 3. Estimated years of extraction remaining for fossil fuels.

The above projection is confirmed by the ‘The World Counts’  website which estimates the end of oil will occur in approximately 46 years. 

For a more detailed analysis of the Energy Dilemma please view:  Space Energy Options for Addressing the Energy Dilemma and the Climate Emergency


The Climate Emergency

Warming
Due to the many assessments and reports issued since 1990 by the United Nation’s IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – and the subsequent international commitment to address the climate issue achieved in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change which, as of March 2019 has now been signed by 187 countries, the world population has become increasingly alarmed that a period of global warming has commenced which may lead to environmental catastrophe by the end of this century.  Numerous scientific studies have shown that this warming is caused by rising levels of CO2  in the atmosphere which is attributed to the continued dependence on the use of fossil fuels to satisfy most of humanity’s energy needs. A worldwide program to address an impending climate disruption has been incorporated into the United Nation’s Agenda 2030 program  [5] including the Paris Agreement and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals as well as through a number of international conferences,  [6] sub-organizations and public-private partnerships.  Similar measures are also being promoted, developed and adopted by environmental and scientific organizations worldwide. [7] Many prominent people such as former US vice-president Al Gore, British natural historian and broadcaster David Attenborough and the young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg have brought the Climate Emergency to the world’s attention.  [8]

Cooling

As it is the Sun which warms the surface of Earth and drives the hydrologic cycle, it is the primary source of energy for the climate system which keeps Earth suitable for life. The sunspot cycle of the Sun also has much do with the changes in the climate and scientists report that the current long period of low sunspot activity may indicate that the Sun is entering a Solar Minimum which could lead to a severe cooling effect similar to the last Little Ice Age. [9]  Solar activity which modulates the influx of galactic cosmic rays (high-speed particles that strike the Earth from space), has been shown to have a direct influence on cloud formation and has been correlated with warmer periods during high solar activity and cooling periods during low levels of solar activity. [10] Severe global cooling could result and this situation would probably be much worse for humanity than the predicted rise in global temperatures as this would directly affect food production and require additional energy for heating and maintaining all aspects of society. Thus, this possibility should not be overlooked in the current discourse.

In either scenario, addressing the Climate Emergency will require massive amounts of clean energy production for a growing population to adapt and survive a severe warming or a severe cooling situation. [11] As the Energy Dilemma and the Climate Emergency are deeply interrelated, a new reliable and inexhaustible clean energy source must be developed to address both situations.

The Energy Market

Uing the BP report mentioned above that states that in 2019 total world energy consumption was 162,194 TWh, it is possible to estimate the world energy market by using an average price per kWh US $0.13 as calculated by GlobalPetrtolRices.com. Using this formula, the value of the world energy market is approximately $ 21 trillion US dollars ($21,085,220,000.000). [12] Also, this information allows one to make some simple projections based on current average electricity prices.

It needs to be noted that, as fossil fuels becomes more difficult to produce and/or less profitable, this will surely impact the future availability of this finite energy resource. Furthermore, as the world’s financial system is sensitive to the price of fossil fuels as well as to the role and value of the US dollar in the energy market; disruptions in this market will have major consequences for the world economy. The control of fossil fuels as an energy resource has been and will continue to be a major factor in geopolitical conflicts which also directly impacts the energy market. In addition, the proposed Carbon Taxes and Carbon Trading schemes to reduce the use of fossil fuels as in the EU strategy will also impact the price. Taking the above into account yet relying on the current situation, the following projections provide some useful insights into the anticipated 2050 energy market.

Year 2050 Market Estimates

With the population expected to increase from 7.7 billion to 9.7 billion in the year 2050, at current energy consumption and price levels the value of the energy market would automatically increase by at least 25% and the value to US $25 trillion. A 50% increase in energy consumption would equal approximately US $31.5 trillion. A 1.5 % average yearly increase in consumption would require 269,079 TWh which results in an energy market of  US $35 trillion.  Thus, based on the current price of electricity calculated in today’s dollars without any major disruptions or inflation, the projected the value of the energy market in the year 2050 will be between 25 and 35 trillion US dollars. However, considering inflation and all of the factors mentioned above, this amount will probably be much more - unless, of course, radical measures to reduced energy use are implemented.

The Space Energy Option

As some 55,000 times the amount of solar power which is available on the surface of Earth passes through the region of Greater Earth, one only has to change our previous perception of our planet and look beyond the atmosphere to find the solution the terrestrial energy and climate problems. Yet, in current discussions about transiting from fossil fuels to some other alternative energy source, it is generally assumed that only terrestrial renewables such as wind and solar will provide the necessary energy once government mandated commitments to energy availability and CO2  reduction targets are established and enforced. It is therefore surprising that energy from space,  generally referred to as Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP), a technologically feasible idea that was introduced as the Solar Power Satellite by Peter Glaser in 1968 and patented in 1973, is rarely considered or even discussed as a possible alternative to terrestrial energy sources when discussing possible solutions to the climate emergency. [13]  The standard criticism of harnessing energy in space for use on Earth has been the initial cost to implement any space power system usually associated with the high price of launching mass into orbit and the cost of space hardware. As mentioned above, these costs have been reduced in recent years. However, when considered in the context of the looming climate emergency and energy dilemma, and when viewed in the context of the worldwide market for energy, this criticism should have lesser relevance as terrestrial energy alternatives prove to be insufficient, impractical, uneconomic or undesirable and the magnitude of these two interrelated societal issues becomes apparent.

Since Peter Glaser’s published concept, a number of studies have described the feasibility of supplying Earth with solar power from space. The largest study was “Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program” conducted by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA from 1977 to 1981 at a cost of $19.7 million which came to the conclusion that Space Solar Power (SPS) relying on large reusable rockets and automated assembly systems in orbit was technically feasible. However, the DOE, influenced by its preference for nuclear power and the related energy lobbies, canceled any further work on the project. The most recent study was conducted by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA)  [14]  in 2011 which described how a SPS system located in Earth orbit would use the latest space technologies and be built by robots out of modular components – a concept that has both economic and maintenance advantages. Recent advances in reusable launch systems increase the feasibility of developing a space energy option.

There are several technological approaches to harnessing energy in space. These range from building the power satellites on Earth and placing these in low, middle or geostationary orbits or using lunar materials to construct the solar power satellites on the Moon for placement in Earth orbit or even directly transmitting the energy to Earth from the Moon. This lunar approach which is called Lunar Solar Power (LSP) that was originally introduced by David Criswell  [15], would significantly reduce the cost of transporting massive tons of material from the surface of Earth into space which, due to the high launch costs, has been the biggest obstacle to the development of any space power system. Lastly, if nuclear fusion reactors ever become operationally feasible, eventually Helium-3 which is rare on Earth could be mined in sufficient quantities on the Moon for fusion reactors on Earth.
In addition to the above mentioned studies, there are several books that describe in detail the various space power technologies and approaches for harvesting energy in space for meeting humanity’s energy needs on Earth. These include:

  • Return to the Moon by Harrison H. Schmitt (Helium-3) (2007) [ Amazon ]
  • Energy Crisis: Solution from Space by Ralph Nansen (2009) [ Amazon ]
  • Solar Power Satellites by Don M. Flournoy (2011) [ Amazon ]
  • Sun Power: The Global Solution for the Coming Energy Crisis by Ralph Nansen (2012) [ Amazon ]
  • Electric Space: Space-based Solar Power Technologies & Applications by Danny Jones and Ali Baghchehsara (2014) [ Amazon ]
  • The Case for Space Solar Power by John Mankins (2014) [ Amazon ]
  • Astroelectricity by Michael Snead (2019) [ Amazon ]

Although the engineering and logistical challenges would be formidable, except for the case of Helium-3 fusion power, no new technology needs to be invented and no scientific breakthroughs are necessary for the SBSP/LSP approaches. The generation of electrical power in space has been used for decades on spacecraft and the transmission of power via microwaves in space has been demonstrated. Additional research is needed to control and direct these low-intensity beams over the required distances of space. The logistics of establishing and supplying a lunar base community – though a very large endeavor – is comparable to similar large scale engineering projects that have been accomplished on Earth.

Addressing the Climate Emergency and the Energy Dilemma in an environmentally neutral and socially just manner is no small task.  On the one hand, there is the United Nation’s proposed “Agenda 2030 Option” [16] to transform industrial society by implementing regulated terrestrial solutions to Earth problems in order to cope with an increasingly energy poor and environmentally stressed world – a situation that could unfortunately eventually lead to a de-industrialization of modern society resulting an energy poor world and increasing global conflict as terrestrial energy resources prove to be insufficient. Or, there is the “Space Option” [17]  which is to harness the inexhaustible resources of space to meet humanity’s present and future needs on Earth – of which energy is the most essential – which could optimistically lead to universal peace and global prosperity and eventually, to the expansion of human civilization beyond the home planet. Most people would probably agree that it would be preferable to live in an energy rich world rather than in an energy poor world. This applies not only to maintaining standards of living in the developed countries but also to having sufficient energy to tackle other global problems such as restoring the environment, adapting to climate change, maintaining independent and free societies, ending poverty as well as providing hope for a positive future for all humanity. [18]

GEEO – Greater Earth Energy Organization

As the United Nations, the European Union, many governments, organizations and energy companies are currently focusing on how to deal with global warming through restrictions on the use of fossil fuels while promoting inadequate terrestrial renewable energy resources as the only replacement, a parallel initiative to achieve energy sufficiency and fossil fuel independence through the development of the space energy option is seriously needed. Due to the global scope and magnitude of the energy dilemma and climate emergency, such an initiative would have to become under the auspices of a global organization as well; such as the proposed Greater Earth Energy Organization (GEEO).

The goals of the GEEO are to provide the entire world with an inexhaustible supply of environmentally clean energy in an equitable, apolitical and socially just manner. The GEEO would be set up as a democratic international organization of nations independent of any other international organization or corporate influence. There two  precedents for this type of international space related organization. The first is INTELSAT (1964-2001) – an intergovernmental consortium owning and managing a constellation of communication satellites before it became privatized in 2001. The second is the European Space Agency (ESA) – an intergovernmental organization of 22 member nations and 9 associate members dedicated to the exploration of space founded in 1975. It is interesting to note that not all member countries of the European Union are members of ESA and not all ESA member states are members of the European Union.

In the case of INTELSAT, the financing was shared among the member participants’ so called  “investment share” that was strictly proportional to each member’s use of the system which was determined on an annual basis.  [19] ESA has two budgetary categories: “Mandatory” which all member contributions are based on a scale related to their Gross National Product and “Optional” where members can optionally participate in special programs.  From its beginning, ESA has applied a principle of “fair return” in its industrial procurement policy of geographical distribution. [20] Simply stated this is based on the ratio between the share of the weighted value of contracts a member country receives and the country’s contributions paid to ESA. This percentage of a member’s contribution is called the “industrial return coefficient”. For example, with a coefficient of 98% a member country can expect to receive 98% of its annual contribution in the value of contracts placed with its local industries. This process is constantly evolving and each budgetary process must look at the needs and goals of the organization so determine how this process can be optimally applied to a system involving contractors and sub-contractors.

Using these two organizations as examples and inspiration of the kind of international organization needed, the GEEO will be set up as an international consortium of nation states. Each member state will become a member of the General Assembly of Parties (GAP) with an equal vote in deciding the strategic organizational policies and the budget plans. An organizational infrastructure will be created to manage the GEEO operations.

To achieve as much as possible a 100% fair and equal participatory plan reflecting the energy procurement and development process, each member’s contribution to GEEO will be determined by an efficiency coefficient that is based on its population and its per capita energy consummation. A country with a higher per capita consumption of energy and a small population will contribute correspondingly more to the GEEO budget than a country with a large population and a lower per capita energy consumption level on a per capita basis. As increased energy use is correlated with a country’s level of economic development, this formula should encourage already developed countries consuming higher levels of energy to become more energy efficient while stimulating lesser developed countries with low per capita energy use to intentionally increase their level of energy use in order to further their economic development.

As with the ESA concept of fair industrial return and geographical distribution, an equal percentage of a country’s contribution to GEEO will be returned to the country through contracts that are placed with its local industries and organizations.  The following example illustrates how this might function. The GAP meets and determines its immediate development goals and associates a corresponding budget to achieve these goals.  With a larger number of participating member countries the budget can be larger while the per country contribution smaller. Figure 7 shows the funding breakdown of the ESA budget for 2019.   [21]

 


Figure 7. Breakdown of the ESA budget for 2019
Figure 7.  Breakdown of the ESA budget for 2019
Click image to enlarge.

The examples below are based on 25 member nations from different geographical regions representing just over 2 billion people. China, Japan, Russia and the United States have not been included in this list as they have already considered developing their own space energy programs, although these countries may find that the GEEO approach is more economical and efficient. As the start-up phase the activities of the GEEO will primarily consist of organizational matters and research and development, the initial budget in the first example (Figure 8.) has been set at 100 million. Note: the actual internal currency (GEAU) to be used for accounting purposes is discussed below.

Figure 8. Using the Efficiency Coefficient to calculate yearly contributions to a budget of 100 million
Figure 8. Using the Efficiency Coefficient to calculate
yearly contributions to a budget of 100 million GEAU.
Click image to enlarge.


As can be seen in the four highlighted examples above, of a yearly budget of 100 million set by the GAP, Canada with its population of 37.4 million would contribute a total of about 9 million to the budget which equals .24 cents per Canadian person. India’s contribution would be about 28 million which is .02 cents per person based on its population of 1.4 billion. Kenya, with a population of 52.6 million would also pay just .02 per person or a total of 866 thousand. Comparably, Switzerland would pay 952,000 based on its population of 8.6 million which works out to .11 cents per Swiss individual.  As determined by the GEEO’s GAP, a set percentage of these national contributions would be returned to each member nation in the form of contracts to their local industries, organizations and educational institutions.

Figure 9. Using the Efficiency Coefficient to calculate yearly contributions to a budget of 20 billion
Figure 9. Using the Efficiency Coefficient to calculate
yearly contributions to a budget of 20 billionGEAU
Click image to enlarge.

 

After several years of research and development more funds will be needed for technological development and hardware procurement. Using the 2019 NASA budget of approximately $20 billion and the 2019 ESA budget of approximately $6.3 billion (€5.72 billion) as an example, a phase B budget could hypothetically be set at 20 billion. (Figure 9.) The average contribution per person from the 25 GEEO member nations would be approximately 24 accounting units (GEAU). In this budgetary case,  Canada with its population of 37.4 million would contribute a total of about 1.8 billion to the budget, India’s contribution would be about 5.6 billion, Kenya would pay 173 million and Switzerland about 190 million. In terms of US dollars or Euros, Switzerland’s contribution to ESA in 2019 was US $176 million or €159 million.

GEAU – the Greater Earth Accounting Unit

As the GEEO is an international consortium of nations and each country has its own economy and currency, an internal accounting unit will need to be established that can be equitably used among the members for setting the yearly budget and for accounting purposes. This enables a fair and just accounting practice and avoids the geopolitical use of any currency as an instrument of monetary policy, speculation and/or economic warfare.

Before the Euro became an established currency in the EU, ESA used a similar “accounting unit” approach among its members. Therefore, GEEO will establish the GEAU as the Greater Earth Accounting Unit for its budgetary and accounting purposes. Coincidentally, GEAU is pronounced the same as GEEO. In the initial phases of development, the GEAU will be associated with or “backed by” to a terrestrial commodity such as a precious metal. Gold has been traditionally used in this function and a number of nations including Russia, China and India are currently stockpiling gold to value back their currencies and as a way to decouple their currency from the so called “petro dollar” and the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency which has given the United States many economic advantages that other countries do not have.

In this example silver will be used as a precious metal commodity for backing the GEAU in its initial stages. Silver is more plentiful than gold and is also widely used as an industrial material. A more environmentally benign commodity or a combination of precious metals may be used, but in the initial phase the GEAU needs to have a worldwide recognized value and precious metals have an historical role.  At current retail prices one kilogram of silver costs approximately US $800.  Thus, for this example and for accounting purposes the value of one GEAU could be correlated to 1 gram of silver, 10 GEAUs to 10 grams of silver and 1000 GEAUs would be the equivalent of 1 kilogram of silver. Thus, US $10 billion would equal approximately 12.5 billion GEAU. Therefore, as a country’s yearly contribution to GEEO would be in calculated in GEAUs, a country would have to possess an equivalent verifiable amount of silver in its own national reserves.

This would not be a cumulative but a progressive reserve as the country will receive a large percentage of its yearly contribution via the geographical industrial return policy and its GEAU contribution would be assessed on a yearly basis. In this case, a country may have to increase its silver reserves to meet an increasing budgetary requirement for the subsequent year.  For the more developed countries this should not pose a problem. For the lesser developed countries this growing reserve of silver would likely add value to the country's own currency.

Once the GEEO starts to produce and distribute energy the intrinsic value of the GEAU would then be based on the value of the power it is producing and the terrestrial commodity reserves of silver which served to back the original contributions could be used by the nations for other purposes.  Simply stated, the member nations of GEEO agree to use the GEAU for all of its accounting purposes and the nations agree that their yearly contribution in the form of GEAUs will be backed by a commodity such as silver. Once electrical power is being generated and distributed, the value of the GEAU becomes pegged to the value of the energy it is distributing or selling. An added advantage to this concept is when the GEEO must purchase materials or services outside of its member consortium. For these transactions, the GEAU which is pegged to the price of silver could conceivably be converted into whatever currency necessary for this purpose.

Get GEAU Now!


As all the GEEO members have all mutually financed and developed the space energy option the electrical power they will receive will be based on the cost of operation and maintenance of the space power system and will be calculated in GEAUs. Similar to how hydro-electrical systems function today as there is no cost added for the fuel. Likewise, space power systems once installed should have very long energy producing lifetimes. Nuclear power and fossil fuel powered electrical generation systems on the other hand, must also add the price of fuel, transport and maintenance to their market price.

In the first phase of the GEEO any nation may join by simply agreeing to pay the yearly contribution and participating in the GAP. When the research and development phase has been completed and implementation of the space power system has commenced, the GAP may require an adjusted initial fee for new nations to join the GEEO in lieu of having participated in the development phase. Once electrical power is being produced and distributed, excess power may be sold to non-members at whatever market value that has been determined by the GEEO.  This approach should create an incentive for many nations to join the GEEO as soon as possible.

The technology development program would focus on finding efficiencies by using existing facilities and through the mass production of standardized elements such as the launch system and the space satellite power components using automated manufacturing whenever possible. Robotic systems would be deployed to assist the construction of the space power systems in orbit.  In the case of using of lunar materials, a human presence would also likely be required. Fortunately, a number of nations are currently developing plans to set up facilities on the Moon.

If many nations would agree to join the GEEO in order to address the climate emergency and energy dilemma with commitment and enthusiasm, within 10 years (which is less time than the US needed to complete the Apollo program) the world could conceivably begin to receive environmentally clean energy in inexhaustible quantities and the space energy option would become economically self-sufficient. As such, by the end of the century, energy would become as ubiquitous as air and water for future generations.

The Geopolitical and Legal Dimensions

As an international consortium of nations, the GEEO should be incorporated as a not-for-profit organization. The main advantage to having such a structure would be to avoid conflict and competition between nations and to provide a transparent process for the development and eventual distribution of this new energy resource. Ideally, this organization should be based in a neutral country with a credible regulatory framework. Switzerland represents such a country and international organizations such as the IOC – the International Olympic Committee (in French, Comité International Olympique CIO) and FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) have their headquarters in Switzerland and both are registered as “associations” which, under Swiss law, allows them to have a tax free status if requested. Both organizations manage budgets amounting to billions of dollars. Other examples are the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which have additional diplomatic privileges.

The legal framework for the eventual use of extraterrestrial resources rests with the Outer Space Treaty (OST) which forms the basis of international space law.  [22]  The OST entered into force on October 10, 1967 and, as of June 2019, 109 nations are parties to the treaty. The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles:

  • the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;

  • outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;

  • outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;

  • States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;

  • the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;

  • astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;

  • States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities;

  • States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and

  • States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

With regards to the development of the space energy option several articles are of particular importance which further gives credence to having an international approach.

Article I: The exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind. Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

Article II: Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Article III: States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.

Article IV: The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Article VI:  States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty.  The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.

Article IX: In the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, States Parties to the Treaty shall be guided by the principle of co-operation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.

Article XIII: Any practical questions arising in connection with activities carried on by international intergovernmental organizations in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be resolved by the States Parties to the Treaty either with the appropriate international organization or with one or more States members of that international organization, which are Parties to this Treaty.

To adhere to the provisions of the OST, and to avoid any potential conflicts, it would advantageous and indeed practical if all the current signatories would become members of the GEEO.

Conclusions

The Energy Dilemma and the Climate Emergency are interrelated as having access to plentiful clean energy is the key to addressing either situation. Easily obtainable fossil fuels will reach critical levels by mid-century.  Terrestrial alternative energy sources including nuclear, wind and ground solar cannot be realistically scaled to replace fossil fuels at present or at future consumption levels.  The only technologically near term alternative currently available to humanity is the space energy option which is to harvest inexhaustible clean energy in space for meeting humanity’s energy needs on Earth.

Although engineering will still be a substantial challenge, no technological or scientific breakthroughs are necessary for developing the space energy option. The standard criticism for deploying a space power system has been the initial cost, especially the cost of launching massive amounts of hardware into orbit. Mass producing re-usable launch systems and automatizing the manufacturing process of the space power systems will bring down these costs and the eventual the use of lunar materials could further reduce costs.

Projected world energy demand based on estimated population projections will approach 271,560 TWh of power annually. Distributed equally, this would be a per capita energy consumption of 3 kW which could lead to worldwide prosperity.  The estimated value of this energy market calculated in today’s dollars will grow to at least US $25-35 trillion but probably much more.

The creation of an international collaborative organization such as the GEEO – the Greater Earth Energy Organization using an internal accounting commodity-based unit such as the GEAU could, in principle, practically “bootstrap” the development and deployment of the space energy option whereas the only financial “risk” would be backing the GEAU with a commodity such as silver until the moment when power from space systems becomes widely available to the GEEO members and to the entire world. At this point the system should become economically self-sufficient.  To insure transparency and accountability, the GEEO should be incorporated as a not-for-profit international organization under the laws of a neutral country with a credible regulatory framework.

An intergovernmental organization such as GEEO would automatically adhere to the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty and avoid possible international legal obstacles that could evolve in the case of a single nation or corporate entity. Implementing the space energy option, if successful and timely, could diffuse current and future geopolitical conflicts over the control of the remaining finite fossil fuels while avoiding a massive de-industrialization of society to meet net-zero CO2  climate goals.  Terrestrial alternative energy sources could continue to be developed and deployed intelligently to ease the energy transition to a space-based option but their overall energy production potential and their environmental impact will need to be realistically evaluated.

Most people would agree that it would be preferable to live in an energy rich world rather than in an energy poor world. This applies not only to our standard of living but also having sufficient energy to tackle other global problems such as restoring the environment, adapting to climate change, providing adequate clean water, ending poverty as well as providing hope for a positive and peaceful future for all humanity.  If, as shown in this article, the existing alternative terrestrial energy resources cannot be realistically scaled to meet humanity’s future energy needs as a replacement for fossil fuels, then neither will regulatory frameworks, taxes on CO2 , carbon trading schemes, nor new business models to change society’s energy habits. The time to address and solve the Energy Dilemma and the Climate Emergency is now. Creating the GEEO and implementing the space energy option is a realistic, pragmatic and equitable way to do so. As it is an “option” it should be evaluated and compared with all other energy sufficiency and climate mitigation options currently available to humanity.

 

(*) Arthur R. Woods is an independent researcher and astronautical artist based in Switzerland with two art projects successfully flown on the Mir space station. He is co-founder with Marco C. Bernasconi of The Space Option concept. He is member of the International Academy of Astronautics.

 

The GEEO website is under construction at: https://geeo.earth

 

Click for References

 

Support Greater Earth