4 ms·

Why would the world have a lower energy budget? Solar cells are getting cheaper about as fast as Moore's law. Nuclear power (and if we're really lucky, fusion)

by berntb 17y ago

Why would the world have a lower energy budget? Solar cells are getting cheaper about as fast as Moore's law. Nuclear power (and if we're really lucky, fusion) can solve most problems. As usual, the probably real danger for people is... other people.

Gupie 17y ago
The real danger is that most of the world will become unsuitable for agriculture, e.g. the Sahara expanding to Southern Europe, the Mid-West becoming one great dust bowl.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  You're joking right? The majority of agriculture in the western world is produced directly because of the Gulf Streams warming effect, look at any agricultural output maps and you'll see North American and European production is squarely centred around where the gulf stream contacts the continent and increases local temperatures. As the global temperature increases vast amounts of land will be moved into the range of arable crops, specifically the two largest countries in the world (Canada and Russia) have very low percentages of arable land due to the vast amount of taiga, as temperatures increase the arable land will increase exponentially. These two countries could easily feed the world at present production densities. [Edit: Canada currently has less than 5% arable land, and presently only uses ~0.6% of all land for agriculture. Russia has about 7% arable land, but only uses ~0.1%. The prairies account for ~80% of Canada's agriculture land, and these very prairies are expected to grow exponentially as temperatures increase] Incidentally your claim that the Sahara is expanding is quite frankly laughable, when all current evidence has been showing it is presently shrinking due to increased rainfall. Expectations are that if this trend continues it will turn into the 'Green Sahara' of 12,000 years ago. This would turn the Sahara into the biggest pasture land in the entire world . . . that's if you believe the global warming models being used.
  - berntb 17y ago
    I don't disagree with any of the above, but there is a small problem. During the state transfer, the climate might change fast (there is some evidence for that happening before), which will (over a few years' time) make farming ... well, problematic. It might be good for the world/humanity, but it sucks to get caught in the middle.
    - electromagnetic 17y ago
      I agree, the climate can potentially change fast (it could potentially change very slowly, we're guessing at a process we haven't been around for before) which is why the burden will be on governments to monitor changes in arable land and provide incentives for farmers to grow crops in the areas opening up rather than waiting for our existing farmland to become useless. With proper care and planning we should be able to ride out even the fastest change of climate that nature can throw at us, however I started this sentence 'with proper care' which is certainly not a synonym for the government handling of industry.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    It would be, if the warming were even. Remember - as we increase the energy of the system, the _average_ temperature increases, but so does the range it's in. Cold will be colder, hot will be hotter, rainy will be rainier and windy will be windier. It's not all roses.
  - TomCobley 17y ago
    The worse case is dire.: "We have the example of the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event 55 million years ago. About the same amount of CO2 was put into the atmosphere as we are putting in and temperatures rocketed by about 5 °C over about 20,000 years. The world became largely desert. The polar regions were tropical and most life on the planet had the time to move north and survive." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maxim...
rbanffy 17y ago
Solar cells are promising, but they cannot solve this problem - at the very least, they can't generate power at night - we would have to rely on either an integrated planetary grid or a huge amount of batteries. Nuclear has only that much fuel to use. Uranium is non-renewable. And fusion is yet to prove it can provide enough energy. We need better reactors.
- berntb 17y ago
  I originally argued against the statement that we will have a "lower energy budget" in 90 years. In short, I am arguing about developments that will come home to roost in less than a decade -- and disprove your statements. Even if these developments take five times as long, you are still vertigo-inducing wrong... You are arguing like some sort of inverse Kurzweil. :-) >>Solar cells are promising They will never help much where I live. But not many live here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8386460.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8386460.stm People in the highly populated parts of Europe will literally need a reason to not put them on the house -- in just a few years. Then add 80 more years of tech development... Consider how much energy you'll get from solar cells in a city's total roof area. 1 square meter under the equator is 1 kW. If every person have 10 square meters of solar cells, it should be enough for all energy use (below the polar circle). (The same goes for energy storage, developed over 90 years.) >>Uranium is non-renewable. Check up on Thorium reactors (and also on more modern versions of normal reactors, which burns a larger fraction of the fuel). Then add 90 more years of development... There is lots of Uranium in the ground. Raise the prices and it will come up. >>And fusion is yet to prove it can provide enough energy. We will know about e.g. General Fusion, Polywell and TriAlpha in just a few years. Realistically, I'd not give that large chance for the individual projects (10%? 20%?). But I'd be surprised if nothing like that comes along in 90 years. Just consider space based solar, with the next-next-next-next generation of super cheap launch systems.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    I originally argued against the statement that we will have a "lower energy budget" in 90 years. Given increasing population, how much more energy do you expect to be able to use? While true we may be able to increase our energy usage, I doubt most of mankind will be able to use as much as we do. Also, do you realize how much effort (and energy expenditure) would it be to manufacture 10 square meters for every human being alive? Count 10 billion people - that's 100 billion square meters, not counting replacing damaged solar cells. Nuclear fission is also a point that could be much improved, but it is pretty much a dead end unless we discover some new laws of physics. Nuclear facilities are horrendously expensive to build and to safely manage. There are safer designs, but how much safe is safe in a world you have to guard nuclear fuel (and waste) and keep if from people who are willing to blow themselves up? As for fusion, you could add the chances of success if they were completely different approaches, but they are not. Also, giving them even a 10% chance of success is very optimistic. There is no reason to panic, but there is reason to proceed carefully and think through what we are doing and what we are going to do.

by berntb 17y ago

Gupie 17y ago

The real danger is that most of the world will become unsuitable for agriculture, e.g. the Sahara expanding to Southern Europe, the Mid-West becoming one great dust bowl.

electromagnetic 17y ago
You're joking right? The majority of agriculture in the western world is produced directly because of the Gulf Streams warming effect, look at any agricultural output maps and you'll see North American and European production is squarely centred around where the gulf stream contacts the continent and increases local temperatures. As the global temperature increases vast amounts of land will be moved into the range of arable crops, specifically the two largest countries in the world (Canada and Russia) have very low percentages of arable land due to the vast amount of taiga, as temperatures increase the arable land will increase exponentially. These two countries could easily feed the world at present production densities. [Edit: Canada currently has less than 5% arable land, and presently only uses ~0.6% of all land for agriculture. Russia has about 7% arable land, but only uses ~0.1%. The prairies account for ~80% of Canada's agriculture land, and these very prairies are expected to grow exponentially as temperatures increase] Incidentally your claim that the Sahara is expanding is quite frankly laughable, when all current evidence has been showing it is presently shrinking due to increased rainfall. Expectations are that if this trend continues it will turn into the 'Green Sahara' of 12,000 years ago. This would turn the Sahara into the biggest pasture land in the entire world . . . that's if you believe the global warming models being used.
- berntb 17y ago
  I don't disagree with any of the above, but there is a small problem. During the state transfer, the climate might change fast (there is some evidence for that happening before), which will (over a few years' time) make farming ... well, problematic. It might be good for the world/humanity, but it sucks to get caught in the middle.
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    I agree, the climate can potentially change fast (it could potentially change very slowly, we're guessing at a process we haven't been around for before) which is why the burden will be on governments to monitor changes in arable land and provide incentives for farmers to grow crops in the areas opening up rather than waiting for our existing farmland to become useless. With proper care and planning we should be able to ride out even the fastest change of climate that nature can throw at us, however I started this sentence 'with proper care' which is certainly not a synonym for the government handling of industry.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  It would be, if the warming were even. Remember - as we increase the energy of the system, the _average_ temperature increases, but so does the range it's in. Cold will be colder, hot will be hotter, rainy will be rainier and windy will be windier. It's not all roses.
- TomCobley 17y ago
  The worse case is dire.: "We have the example of the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event 55 million years ago. About the same amount of CO2 was put into the atmosphere as we are putting in and temperatures rocketed by about 5 °C over about 20,000 years. The world became largely desert. The polar regions were tropical and most life on the planet had the time to move north and survive." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maxim...

rbanffy 17y ago

Solar cells are promising, but they cannot solve this problem - at the very least, they can't generate power at night - we would have to rely on either an integrated planetary grid or a huge amount of batteries. Nuclear has only that much fuel to use. Uranium is non-renewable. And fusion is yet to prove it can provide enough energy. We need better reactors.

berntb 17y ago
I originally argued against the statement that we will have a "lower energy budget" in 90 years. In short, I am arguing about developments that will come home to roost in less than a decade -- and disprove your statements. Even if these developments take five times as long, you are still vertigo-inducing wrong... You are arguing like some sort of inverse Kurzweil. :-) >>Solar cells are promising They will never help much where I live. But not many live here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8386460.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8386460.stm People in the highly populated parts of Europe will literally need a reason to not put them on the house -- in just a few years. Then add 80 more years of tech development... Consider how much energy you'll get from solar cells in a city's total roof area. 1 square meter under the equator is 1 kW. If every person have 10 square meters of solar cells, it should be enough for all energy use (below the polar circle). (The same goes for energy storage, developed over 90 years.) >>Uranium is non-renewable. Check up on Thorium reactors (and also on more modern versions of normal reactors, which burns a larger fraction of the fuel). Then add 90 more years of development... There is lots of Uranium in the ground. Raise the prices and it will come up. >>And fusion is yet to prove it can provide enough energy. We will know about e.g. General Fusion, Polywell and TriAlpha in just a few years. Realistically, I'd not give that large chance for the individual projects (10%? 20%?). But I'd be surprised if nothing like that comes along in 90 years. Just consider space based solar, with the next-next-next-next generation of super cheap launch systems.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  I originally argued against the statement that we will have a "lower energy budget" in 90 years. Given increasing population, how much more energy do you expect to be able to use? While true we may be able to increase our energy usage, I doubt most of mankind will be able to use as much as we do. Also, do you realize how much effort (and energy expenditure) would it be to manufacture 10 square meters for every human being alive? Count 10 billion people - that's 100 billion square meters, not counting replacing damaged solar cells. Nuclear fission is also a point that could be much improved, but it is pretty much a dead end unless we discover some new laws of physics. Nuclear facilities are horrendously expensive to build and to safely manage. There are safer designs, but how much safe is safe in a world you have to guard nuclear fuel (and waste) and keep if from people who are willing to blow themselves up? As for fusion, you could add the chances of success if they were completely different approaches, but they are not. Also, giving them even a 10% chance of success is very optimistic. There is no reason to panic, but there is reason to proceed carefully and think through what we are doing and what we are going to do.