Length: 100,000km, anchored on the Earth with a large mass floating in the ocean and a large counterweight at the top end, called an Apex Anchor.
Width: One meter
Design: Woven with multiple strands to absorb localized damage and curved to ensure edge-on small size hits do not sever the tether.
External Power: The power must be external as the gravity well is extreme and lifting your own power is a non-starter.
Dr. Edwards’ approach was to use large lasers pointing up to the climber with a “solar panel like” receiver on its nadir position.
Cargo: The first few years will enable 20ton payloads without humans [radiation tolerance an issue for the two week trip] with five concurrent payloads on the tether for the two-week trip to GEO. [Currently, the plan is seven concurrent payloads for one-week travel.]

What could possibly go right?

That cherry.
Let's talk about the effect on climate change of the release of tens of thousands times more CH4 than a hypothetical submarine landslides.

Nice cherries you got there. Pick 'em yourself?

FWIW I do live in hell (aka Australia) and its getting too f**king warm by half.

This is the same hell your climate denialism is dead on target to create,
with no VIABLE alternative except to burn baby burn.

E X A C T L Y

Now why are we crying about a meagre $1B to get that answer?

Re the " Apocalyptic Global Warmists ":, we are more concerned with methane tipping points
(you know, when we burn enough carbon to warm the oceans and atmosphere so the TRILLIONS of tons of
methane in permafrost and in undersea clathrate deposits are emitted). That promises runaway climate change.

Let me repeat:
The commonly accepted way to reduce climate change (archaic form: global warming) is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG).

There IS scientific consensus. Just no political consensus. Equals: we are so screwed.

Don't worry, That's just 24 hours of Federal Reserve QE's money printing time (@$85B/month)!

The commonly accepted way to reduce climate change (archaic form: global warming) is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG).
The largest sources of human caused GHG emissions are a. coal fired electricity generation b. industrial agriculture.
The total CO2 equivalent emitted by you, me and what we consume, every year is 30 Billion tons.
That needs to be reduced by at least 50% within two decades or so.

Coal fired electricity generation produces prodigious amounts of CO2.
The problem with reducing coal based emissions is many fold:
on one side are entrenched interests in coal mining, and built infrastructure, that influence politics and public opinion.
Renewables were once very expensive but are competitive now. The mass production of PV panels shows what can be achieved.
The Germans have done a great deal of research to evolve technology solutions to maintain modern lifestyles.

Industrial agriculture produces prodigious amounts of CH4 (aka methane).
The waste of up-converting feed stock into live stock will be reduced by increasingly poorer climate conditions.
Since the ratio of petrochemical energy in to food energy out is something like 10:1 all food will get expensive
as fuel costs keep rising with the inexorable increased cost of oil exploitation (aka peak oil).

Obama's $1B will fund a lot of US research to help you maintain your life without ruining the earth's ecological systems

So you're saying that a Tesla with AWD will use the same amount of petrol as a FWD/RWD model.
Like, still zero?

It's not global warming, at least not caused by our burning BILLIONS of tones of fossil fuels.
Simply, it's all God's fault for being such a homophobic sociopathetic but supreme being

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25793358

I LOVE A SUNBURNT COUNTRY
(with apologies to Dorothea Mackellar)

I love a sunburnt country
A land of sunburnt plains,
Of sunburnt mountain ranges,
Of droughts and sunburnt rains.
I love sunburnt horizons
I love her sunburnt sea
Her sunburn and her sunburn
This sunburnt land for me.

Micheal Leunig, 16 December 2006

Subscribe to Slashdot for full access:
$199
[Subscribe]

ReadCube Access*
preview pdf
*printing and sharing restrictions apply

Purchase comment full text and PDF:
$32
[Buy Now]

Already a subscriber? Log in now or Register for online access.

Additional access options:
Use a document delivery service | Login via Athens | Purchase a site license | Institutional access

This thread is hilarious if you use GreaseMonkey to change each instance of Elsevier to Elrentier.
If you dont and read it straight, then its very sad that the rentier business model (IP trolling, patent trolling, etc) is such viscous immorality.

A common complaint about the all-electric Nissan LEAF has been its short range, officially 75 miles on a full charge according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To address that challenge, Nissan could add options for consumers to purchase bigger battery packs to boost the LEAF’s all-electric range, Pierre Loing, vice president of product and advanced planning and strategy told PluginCars.com. “The packaging easiness (of the battery) makes it easier to put more batteries in the car, and you will see this,” Loing said during an interview this week at the 2013 Los Angeles Auto Show.

EV range is such a hard problem, unless you think about it.

Nevertheless, we need to understand that $SUBJECT's inability to see reality
is rooted in his faith, and in powerful psychological conditioning,
and that will never be changed by exposure to anything as simple as facts.

Something the EPA should look at is huge health (bill) implication for veterans exposed to dense acrid smoke from open-air burn pits on military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is a seriously appalling way to run garbage disposal: 10 acre open pit fires going 24/7 burning all camp waste.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/28/4771164/the-next-agent-orange-why-burn-pits-are-making-soldiers-sick