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

 

Replacing Fossil Fuels with Terrestrial Energy Alternatives

Using nuclear power as an example, in order to replace current fossil fuel usage of 136,761 TWh with nuclear power (assuming a 90% availability) 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. However, there would not be enough suitable locations providing sufficient cooling for many more nuclear plants even if these could be built. Accordingly, a nuclear solution to divest from fossil fuels seems highly unlikely [11].

Terrestrial fusion nuclear power has been under development for more than 50 years. Among the dozen or so fusion projects around the world, the largest effort is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) which is a 35 nation effort under development since 1985 that hopes to have a commercially viable reactor by the year 2050. ITER’s first plasma reactor demonstration experiment that should produce a net energy gain of 500 MW from 50 MW of input heating power is scheduled for 2025.  From the ITER website: “The ITER Tokamak and plant auxiliary systems will produce an average of 500 MW of heat during a typical plasma pulse cycle, with a peak of more than 1100 MW during the plasma burn phase; all of this heat needs to be dissipated to the environment”. [12] Thus, in addition to requiring geologically stable locations with sufficient access to cooling water where the substantial waste heat can be discharged into the local environment, scalable deployment of nuclear fusion faces the same obstacles as nuclear fission (17,347 new 1-GW reactors by the year 2050). Thus nuclear fusion is also not a near term energy option.

Wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) generators have significantly lower availability: the inherent intermittency and storage aspects, make it necessary to deploy multiples of their equivalent rated (peak) power levels to equal the output, e.g., of nuclear power systems. For wind, the generating capacity needs to be some 3.35 times higher [13] and for PV, 6-7 times higher. Thus, to replace 2018 use of fossil fuels with wind and solar, no less than 65 TW (depending on the assumed wind/ PV mix) of power generating capacity from these two renewable sources would need to be installed. Again, this translates into 2 TW of electrical generating capacity from wind and solar to be installed every year from now until the year 2050 – i.e., 5 GW per day – and this, too, would have to start immediately.

Published data shows that the world’s installed wind power capacity reached 597 GW in 2018. [14] Installed world terrestrial solar PV capacity was 401 GW in 2017 [15] and is predicted to reach 530 GW by 2024. [16] Thus, nuclear, wind, ground solar and other non-hydro renewables combined, contributed about 1.6 TW of current level of world energy consumption or approximately 8%.

With current world population of 7.7 billion expected to increase by 25% to 9.7 billion between now and 2050, at current energy consumption levels a very minimum of 23 TW (+25%) of power will be necessary to sustain civilization. However, based on the current average energy consumption increase of 1.5% per year, [17] more likely humanity will require more than 30 TW of continuous power by mid-century.

In his assessment of the U.S. energy needs in the year 2100, Michael Snead has reached a similar conclusion concerning the lack of scalability of terrestrial energy alternatives in his book Astroelectricity (2019) and on his Spacefaring Institute YouTube channel. [18]

Environmental Issues of Terrestrial Energy Alternatives

The major unresolved environmental problem associate with nuclear power generation is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes.[19] Sufficient cooling is also an issue as is the decommissioning process. These issues are in addition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. [20]

With regards to wind, while most elements of a wind turbine can be recycled or recommissioned, researchers estimate that over the next 20 years, the U.S. will have more than 720,000 tons of blade material which is a mix of resin and fiberglass to dispose of, a figure that does not ’t include newer, taller higher-capacity versions. As these used turbine blades do not have much value as scrap material, there is little commercial interest from recyclers. [21] [22] Other issues include unreliable and intermittent power generation, weather sensitivity, a lack of energy storage, land use, 20-25 year lifetime, low frequency amplitude modulation which is a problem for people living nearby,  and the environmental impact on birds, bats and insects.

Likewise, terrestrial solar power generation is also unreliable and intermittent, energy efficiency is less than 25%, has the same energy storage issue as wind, is subject to dust and rain, the photovoltaic e manufacturing process uses toxic materials, extensive land use, waste disposal and recycling issues, and last, but not least, the thermal burden which dissipated excess heat is added to the environment.

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of 2016. They predicted that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050. [23]  [24] While solar generation is considered CO₂-free, the manufacture of solar panels and related technologies can involve some environmentally unfriendly substances. Nitrogen trifluoride is a common byproduct of electronics manufacture; including those used in solar photovoltaics, and it is a greenhouse gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In addition, many photovoltaics include small amounts of the toxic metal cadmium, and the batteries required to store generated electricity can contain a host of other heavy metals and dangerous substances. [25]

Each of these terrestrial energy alternatives has various unresolved and specific environmental impact issues which are often overlooked when these are promoted as “green” solutions to humanity’s energy dilemma.

Economic Issues of Terrestrial Energy Alternatives

A stated above, 17,347 new 1-GW nuclear reactors would be necessary to replace current fossil fuel use. To do this by year 2050, averagely 578 new 1-GW reactors would have to go on line each year or 1.5 reactors each day. At a cost of $5 billion per 1-GW facility, the basic construction cost of these would be approximately $3 trillion per year or $87 trillion over a 30 year period. These estimates are probably underestimated as seen in the two examples below of nuclear power plants currently under construction.

• Hinkley Point C nuclear power station – a 3.2 GW facility in Great Britain that is expected to eventually cost £22.5 billion ($29 billion) [26]
• Flamanville in Manche, France begun in 2007 – 1.6 GW facility is now expected to eventually cost €12.4 billion ($14 billion) [27]

Using these examples, the average cost is approximately $9 billion per GW to construct a nuclear power plant today.  This amount is based on what is referred to as the Engineering, Procurement and Construction costs or EPC.  The EPC for a 1-GW nuclear power plant will be used in comparison to the cost of constructing and launching a 1-GW SPS. At $9 billion per 1-GW nuclear power plant the above 30 Year cost estimate becomes $160 trillion. Not included in this estimate are the costs of financing, cost of fuel, nuclear waste disposal, regulations, operations and decommissioning which would further significantly impact this cost.

With government initiatives, policies, subsidies and mass-production factors, the reported cost of building wind and solar electrical generation plants is now considered comparable to that of building new coal or nuclear capacity.  Of course, when these governmental factors expire or are removed then the real costs of the competing energy technologies may be realistically compared.

There is a complex method proposed by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) to make these comparisons. Referred to as the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and levelized avoided cost of electricity (LACE) these are, respectively, estimates of the revenue required to build and operate a generator over a specified cost recovery period and the revenue available to that generator over the same period. The LCOE / LACE comparisons in Fig. 3. are  from their publication Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020. [28]

Fig 3. Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) February 2020.

Market shocks may cause a divergence between LCOE and LACE and therefore disturb the market equilibrium. These market shocks include technology change, policy developments, fuel price volatility, geopolitical conflicts, or, as experienced in 2020, a global health pandemic, that can increase or decrease the value-cost ratio of any given technology.

However, even if one accepts that the cost terrestrial renewable energy production has now reached parity with coal and nuclear power production, an increase in energy demand from 2020 to 2050 must also be taken into account. World population is expected to increase to 9.7 billion by 2050. Under present economic circumstances, an accompanying 25% increase in energy demand can be expected at a minimum. The EIA projects nearly 50% increase in world energy use by 2050. [29]

These economic considerations add to the problem of scaling terrestrial energy options to meet the energy needs of humanity while concurrently divesting from fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuels are Critically Finite

In addition to the many environmental and geopolitical issues associated with the continued use of fossil carbon fuels, the limited nature of these resources needs consideration. For instance, in Fig. 4 the “BP: World Reserves of Fossil Fuel” report shows that the remaining proven extractable reserves of fossil fuels are critically finite. At current rates of consumption, humanity will exhaust said reserves of crude oil by the year 2066, natural gas by 2068 and coal by 2169. [30] Furthermore, EROI – energy return on investment – is also a critical issue for future production predictions as this will influence the price of fossil fuels as they become more difficult and thus less economical to produce. This aspect also significantly adds to the urgency of finding a viable alternative energy solution and underscores the imminent Energy Dilemma that humanity is facing.

Fig 4. Estimated years of extraction remaining for fossil fuels.

 

The Space Option

The Space Option concept was first introduced in 1993 at the 44th International Astronautical Congress in Graz, Austria and subsequently developed by the authors. [31] It is an evolutionary plan to meet the basic and anticipated needs of humanity with the addition of utilizing near Earth resources -­ not only for the in-situ support of science or exploration – but rather to apply these resources and/or their products for use on Earth at a conspicuous level. Most immediately, the harnessing of inexhaustible amounts of clean energy from space would replace humanity’s dependence on the continued use of fossil fuels while insuring humanity’s future energy needs. This would also provide the basic means for restoring the environment, sustaining the world economy, reducing poverty and stimulating progress in the developing countries while preserving the living standards of the developed nations. Additionally, plentiful energy from space could also power desalination plants and contribute to solving the water crises and likewise produce hydrogen for future transportation scenarios.

In current discussions about transiting from fossil fuels to some other alternative energy source, it is surprising that energy from space, specifically Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) , a technologically feasible idea that was introduced as the Solar Power Satellite by Peter Glaser in 1968 [32] and patented in 1973, is rarely considered or even discussed as a possible alternative to terrestrial energy sources. The standard objection to SBSP has been the initial cost to implement such a space power system. [33] This cost is often unfairly compared to costs of terrestrial energy solutions which are highly subsidized by governments.  A fair comparison considered in the context of the increasing demand for CO₂-neutral energy and the value of the global energy market by the year 2050, this objection should have lesser relevance as terrestrial energy alternatives prove to be insufficient, impractical, expensive or undesirable and the magnitude of Energy Dilemma becomes apparent.

Space Energy Options

Peter Glaser described the basic SPS concept in terms of actual technological capabilities. Intriguingly, several science-fiction authors had presented related schemes since the 1940’s. In particular, Isaac Asimov had a space station near the Sun collecting energy and transmitting it to various planets using microwave beams in his short story “Reason” [34].

Following Glaser’s publication, several technical studies assessed the feasibility of supplying Earth with solar power from space. To date, the most extensive study remains the “Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program,” conducted from 1977 to 1981 by the (US) Department of Energy (DoE) and NASA, with a $19.7 million budget. [35] Ralph Nansen, at the time with the Boeing Corporation, participated in this study. In his book: Sun Power: The Global Solution for the Coming Energy Crises (1995), he writes that the study had come to a conclusion that Space Solar Power relying on large reusable rockets and automated assembly systems in orbit was technically feasible. Nansen writes, had the project gone forward, an investment of $2 trillion would have saved the United States $22 trillion by 2050 and this would have adverted the energy crises we are now facing forty years later.[36]

More recently, a study by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) – completed in 2011 [37] and subsequently published in the book The Case For Space Solar Power (2014) by the IAA study’s lead author John Mankins [38] – realistically describes how a SPS located in Earth orbit would use the latest technologies and be built by robots out of modular components – a concept that has both economic and maintenance advantages.

There are a number of technological approaches to building the optimal SPS. These range from very large structures placed in Geosynchronous orbit (GEO) to smaller satellites in Middle Earth Orbit (MEO) and in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The size and mass of the satellite and the choice of orbit will have much impact on the overall efficiency and cost of an eventual SPS system. In addition to the aforementioned DoE/NASA study, various approaches to SPS are discussed in detail in these five books about Space-Based Solar Power:

• Frank P. Davidson, L.J. Giacoletto, & Robert Salked, Eds. (1978) Macro-Engineering and the Infrastructure of Tomorrow. AAAS Selected
  Symposium 23, Westview Press, Boulder (CO), 131-137

• P Glaser, F Davidson, & K Csigi, (1998) Solar Power Satellites, Wiley

• Ralph Nansen, (1995, 2012) Sun Power: The Global Solution for the Coming Energy Crisis, Ocean Press 1995,  Nansen Partners 2012

• John Mankins, (2014) The Case for Space Solar Power, Virginia Edition Publishing LLC

• Michael Snead, (2019) Astroelectricity,  Spacefaring Institute LLC

For comparison with terrestrial energy alternatives, one may build on the 5-GW power level used e.g. in the DoE/NASA reference study. The power generated by the orbital plant must cover the losses in the transmission chain: (i) in the conversion from DC electrical to microwave power, (ii) in relation with the beam’s space and absorption losses, and (iii) with the microwave capture and conversion to AC power at the ground “rectenna” (rectifying antenna). One also has to account for the time the station passes through the Earth’s shadow (<1% for a geostationary orbit). For 1 TW of continuous power, then, some 202 solar power satellites would be necessary.  Scaling this to meet humanity’s energy needs, about 3,030 of such power plants would be necessary to deliver 15 TW, which is approximately what is needed to replace fossil fuels today. Twice this number would be required to provide 30 TW of continuous clean solar power in the year 2050.

Solar Power from the Moon

In the mid-1980s, David Criswell introduced a significant variation of the SPS concept called the Lunar Solar Power (LSP) System. Instead of building the photovoltaic system in Earth orbit using materials transported from Earth, he proposed a potentially more efficient approach by using an existing orbiting platform – the Moon – for the location of the solar collectors and to use lunar materials for their construction. Criswell contends that generating power from the Moon would be at least 50 times more cost efficient than competing approaches such as large solar arrays on Earth or solar power satellites deployed to orbit about the Earth either from the Earth or from the Moon. The sunward hemisphere of the Moon continuously receives 13,000 TW of solar power. In addition, all of the main resources for power generation – reliable solar power, lunar real estate, and appropriate materials – are readily available on the Moon [39]. Thus, instead of sending tons of materials from Earth into space at great environmental and financial cost, and constructing these enormous and complex power satellites in orbit, one would send a small team of humans accompanied by the necessary robots to the lunar surface to carry out the job on site.

The primary material necessary for the manufacture of photovoltaic collectors is silicon, which, as on Earth, is in great quantity on the Moon. The solar converters would be thin-filmed photovoltaics made out of lunar glass. Robots would mine the lunar soil for silicon and the photovoltaics would be manufactured in an automated factory constructed for this purpose. The basic technology for manufacturing photovoltaics with a conversion efficiency factor of less than 10% already exists and the engineering aspects are typical of major construction techniques. Of course these activities would be carried out in a new environment but thanks to Apollo, there exists substantial information about the lunar environment. The photovoltaics would be mounted on a grid that would also be constructed from of lunar materials.

Criswell estimated that within 10 years from startup, a LSP system could be providing 50 GWe (Gigawatt electric) per year of electric power and a small scale 100 GWe demonstrator system could show a net profit within 10 years. This would be steadily increased in average yearly installments of 560 GWe/year over a 30 year period eventually reaching a 20,000 GWe or 20 TWe which, at 2 kW per person, is considered as a minimum sustainable energy level for a population of 10 billion if the energy is equally distributed. In 2002 Criswell stated: “Prosperity for everyone on Earth by 2050 will require a sustainable source of electricity equivalent to 3 to 5 times the commercial power currently produced.” [40] 3 kW per person would equal the 30 TW currently projected for an expected population of 10 billion in the year 2050.

Following in Criswell’s footsteps, the Shimizu Corporation in Japan has proposed the Luna Ring – a gigantic, 400 km-wide and 11,000 km-long mirrored structure positioned on the lunar equator which would capture solar energy and beam it back to Earth with lasers. [41]

Helium-3 Astrofuel

Helium-3 is sometimes referred to as Astrofuel. Helium-3 is transmitted with the solar wind, but Earth’s magnetic field pushes the isotope away so that only extremely small quantities of it are found on Earth. It is seen as an ideal isotope for nuclear fusion reactors on Earth once these become operational since helium-3 reaction produces no radioactive byproducts.  Thanks to the Moon’s negligible magnetic field, it is estimated that up to 1,100,000 metric tonnes of helium-3 have been deposited in the lunar regolith, however in concentrations of less than about twenty parts per billion.

Extracting helium-3 from the lunar regolith will require the mining and processing of hundreds of millions of tons of regolith. This would also require a very large lunar operation which would also depend on large amounts of energy such as Lunar Solar Power to heat the regolith to a temperature of about 600 degrees centigrade. It has been estimated that 1 million metric tonnes of helium-3, reacted with deuterium, would generate about 20,000 terawatt-years of thermal energy. To put this into perspective, 25 tonnes of helium-3 would power the United States for one year at current consumption levels [42].

This technology may become viable once nuclear fusion has been demonstrated at a commercial level and eventually, there may be some synergies once this technology advances. The most comprehensive book about mining helium-3 is “Return to the Moon” by Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmitt [43]. Once humanity has become a true spacefaring species, helium-3 could perhaps be easier obtained from the four giant gas planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune; all of which have very large amounts of helium-3 in their atmospheres [44]. The movie “Moon” (2009) directed by Duncan Jones is about an astronaut on the Moon who has been managing the mining facilities extracting helium-3 from the lunar surface to be sent to Earth for use in fusion power generators.
Helium-3 and Lunar Solar Power are discussed in some detail in the following:

• John S. Lewis, (1996) Mining the Sky, Basic Books

• Dennis Wingo, (2004) Moonrush: Improving Life on Earth with the Moon’s Resources, Apogee Books Space

• Charles Proser (ed.), (2005 – DVD) Gaia Selene, Celestial Mechanics

• Harrison Schmitt, (2006) Return to the Moon, Praxis Publishing

• Robert Zubrin, (2019) The Case for Space: How the Revolution in Spaceflight Opens Up a Future of Limitless Possibility, Prometheus Books

• Leonard David, (2019) Moon Rush: The New Space Race, National Geographic

 

Environmental Considerations of the Space Energy Option

Energy from space would be a very “green” technology when compared with terrestrial energy alternatives, especially if it developed within an international collaborative context. As mentioned above, the land area necessary for continuous baseload ground solar or wind is substantially larger than that required for nuclear power generation. In addition, the intermittency issue for ground solar or wind requires a massive storage capacity to insure continuous 24/h day electrical power.  In comparison, the mass of a Solar Power Satellite and its rectenna (receiving antenna) would be 10-20% less than an equivalent ground based photovoltaic system with its storage system. [45]   Before lunar resources become available for fabricating space power system off-Earth, the power satellites will need to be constructed on Earth and launched into orbit. This will require a fleet of reusable launchers, ideally a single-stage-to orbit launch vehicle fueled by liquid oxygen (Lox) and liquid hydrogen (LH2) as the waste would be mostly water vapor.  

However, the most environmentally friendly solution which is also the most economic solution would be to manufacture the SPS elements on the Moon and assemble these in lunar orbit. A small automated factory on the Moon and robotic mining operation of lunar materials would be the essential elements. the finished SPS components would then be sent into lunar orbit - perhaps at Lagrange point 1 in the Earth Moon system - to be assembled. This would practically eliminate both the manufacturing and the launch costs of the space solar power system.

Such launch vehicles are under development and conceivably an international consortium of nations could accelerate this development.  As to the “thermal burden” or the warming effect of energy generation, analysis has shown that 15 TW of power from space would contribute less than 0.006 o C   to increasing Earth’s temperature. Compared to the temperature increased caused by power production from fossil fuels, this amount is extremely small. [46] As to the safety of beaming power to earth from space, microwave transmission is preferable to laser transmission which eliminates the weaponization aspect and the potential danger laser light on eyes. As to the environmental effects of electromagnetic microwave exposure on flora and fauna, the International Academy of Astronautics study indicated a maximum allowable energy intensity in a wireless power transmission should be less than the intensity of full summer sunlight at the equator – in other words, less than 1,000 watts per m2. The acceptable standard could be set and regulated by an international consortium.  

 

Economic Considerations of the Space Energy Options

The standard criticism for deploying a space power system has been the initial cost, especially the cost of launching massive amounts of mass into Earth orbit. With a dedicated international effort resulting on the mass production of a specific re-usable launch system as well as mass-producing and automatizing the manufacturing process of the space power systems, economic efficiencies can be expected. At the moment these space systems are more-or-less custom built due to the small size of the space power generation market applied to supplying individual satellites and the International Space Station with electrical power. The eventual use of lunar materials and space manufacturing could substantially reduce costs further. Once these efficiencies are achieved, the actual cost of space energy systems can be realistically compared to terrestrial energy alternatives.

As pointed out when discussing the LCOE and LACE costs of energy production,  there are additional governmental policies, subsidies and tax issues involved in determining the revenue required to build and operate a power generating system over a specified cost recovery period and the revenue available to that generator over the same period. This will apply to space power systems as well. However, if terrestrial energy alternatives cannot be sufficiently scaled to replace fossil fuels which are concurrently becoming critically depleted, then the argument based purely on the initial development costs of deploying a viable space power system becomes  less relevant. Humanity needs a plentiful and inexhaustible source of clean energy to maintain and sustain civilization. Without this, civilization will collapse.

An additional economic consideration is the magnitude of the world energy market. Using 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).   [47]

Next Steps

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 and the transmission of power via microwaves have 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 manned lunar base community – though a large task – is comparable to similar large scale engineering projects that have been accomplished on Earth.

It should be pointed out that the money spent to finance and construct a SPS/LSP system would be spent on Earth and flow through the global economy. Considering the value and ever increasing demand for energy, the potential revenues of such a clean energy producing system would certainly be immense and the initial investment quickly amortized. The real challenge of implementing this system is this initial financial investment and gaining the public’s confidence in the system.

China has recently signaled its interest in developing an Earth-Moon economic zone by 2050 and mining of helium-3 may appears to be the economic motivation to do so [48]. If any one nation dominates and the controls the source of energy powering the world economy this will obviously become a reason for conflict. Also, power generation stations in orbit or on the Moon would become targets in case of war and this aspect would lead to further militarization of space activities and the fallout of any large scale destruction of space assets could result in making the space environment unusable and in the worst case, forever trapping humanity on its home planet.  Therefore an international consortium of nations dedicated to jointly developing any of the Space Energy Options would seem to be the way forward. This concept is discussed in this article: GEEO – Greater Earth Energy Organization [49].

Conclusion

Humanity is facing an imminent Energy Dilemma which, in addition to the Climate Emergency, deserves the focus of world attention. As energy is the key element of both of these issues, the solutions to solving both or either are interrelated and interconnected.  Addressing the Climate Emergency will require massive amounts of clean energy production to adapt and survive a severe warming or cooling situation. Addressing the Energy Dilemma will require massive amounts of clean energy production for restoring the environment and meeting the energy needs of a growing population. None of the alternative terrestrial energy options – nuclear, wind and ground solar (PV) – can be sufficiently scaled to achieve the goal of divesting from fossil fuels and achieve net-zero CO₂ levels by the year 2050 as is being called for by the United Nations, many governments and numerous organizations. In addition, each of these terrestrial energy alternatives has various unresolved and specific environmental impact issues which are often overlooked when these are promoted as “green” solutions to humanity’s energy dilemma. The various Space Energy Options represent the only technically feasible near term alternatives to addressing these two emergencies – if any of these can be implemented in time. Although the up-front investment would be significant it is comparatively reasonable to other industrial projects of similar scale. Once any of the Space Energy Options become operational they would likely become profitable in a very short time. An international consortium of nations could combine resources to jointly select and mutually develop the best Space Energy Option which would avoid future conflict over control and distribution of this essential resource to the ultimate benefit of all humanity.

Authors:

(*) Arthur R. Woods is an astronautical artist and independent researcher with two art projects successfully flown on the Mir space station. He is a member of the International Academy of Astronautics. Co-chair of the Moon Village Association Cultural Considerations Working Group.

 

Click for References and Notes

 

Support Greater Earth