Last sentence, 2nd paragraph should have read "Yes, to those who understand it, want it, and appreciate the long term benefits... but they are few."

Apologies.

Amazing, it is as if all the great feats of space exploration in the 60's and 70's, and the grand plans we had to follow up with space colonies, lunar colonies, space power and asteroid mining are all just strange myths from a distant past.

This was all conceived back in the 70's. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/colonies_chap03.html It was even remotely possible back then. It can certainly be done now.
Would it be safe? Yes. Would it be practical? Possibly, depending on how it is done. Is it less objectionable than other forms of energy? Not to those who understand it, want it, and appreciate the long term benefits... but they are few.

We can't use abundant, cheap coal because of irrational fears of CO2. We can't use nuclear because of only slightly less irrational fears of radioactive waste. We can't use wind because it's big and noisy and no one wants it near them. We won't be able to use Orbital Solar Power because "the microwaves will cook us", "the energy balance of the Earth will be disrupted", "the big satellites will ruin the night sky" and a host of other silly reasons.

Such a pity. Building these first PowerSats could herald the new age of Space Colonization. More likely fear and ignorance will keep us trapped on this muddy little rock for the rest of time.

Hardly.

A. Your reply seems to suggest that I favor the old definition. I do not.
B. I never said the Illinois action was not asinine; you are just projecting.
C. My favored Planetary Classification is described here: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/PDF/planet_def.pdf
            1. This classification would benefit from further refinement, but represents a more logical (i.e. less asinine) approach.
            2. This classification provides for upper as well as lower mass boundaries and allows inclusion of esoteric bodies like rogue planets and double planets.
            3. Yes, this would result in a larger number of "new" planets... so what? The IAU approach irrationally favors fewer planets.
D. Your attempt to appear scholarly in your reply is juvenile and an excellent example of my use of the term "slashdot dweeb". An adult response would have been "What method of classification do you prefer and why?" or "What about the IAU method do you find objectionable?"

The new "definition" by the IAU is asinine and was voted on by just 424 self-appointed members of a 9000 member group of astronomers who do not even represent all of the world's astronomers. The people of Illinois have as much right as the IAU, scientists or not. In related news, 500 geographers get drunk at a convention in Las Vegas and officially adopt the Dymaxion Map of the world as the official description of the Earth, and declare that there is only one Continent comprising all the worlds land masses surrounded by a single World Ocean. The move is condemned by most of the public, but is fiercely defended by a bunch of dweebs on Slashdot as "really cool".