7 ms·

I think the first world would look much like it does now, except that fusion would replace most current nuclear, coal, and oil-fired plants - the technologies t

I think the first world would look much like it does now, except that fusion would replace most current nuclear, coal, and oil-fired plants - the technologies that supply base load. Natural gas plants will continue in service as fast response peaking plants. Renewable energy sources will continue to replace older generation technologies so long as they continue to get cheaper and grid modernization keeps pace with the special requirements of renewables wrt variability. All that depends on whatever fusion tech proves to be both technically feasible and cost competitive. If that doesn't happen, or is really delayed, then grid storage technology may win out as a cost-effective energy "source". If storage becomes cheap and effective I'd expect to see renewables + storage expand to serve base load. Also, we'd see faster electrification of areas that currently can't afford classic distribution grids. This might accelerate significant changes in the developing world. But whatever the generation technology, energy won't be "unlimited". There will always be cost limits.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago
There are also fundamental thermodynamic limits that you hit at some point. All production and usage of electricity produces waste heat, it's unavoidable (see Carnot). Even neglecting global warming, you can't keep 20th century energy growth going for much more than another century or two before waste heat alone causes catastrophic climate change.
- refurb 10y ago
  you can't keep 20th century energy growth going for much more than another century or two before waste heat alone causes catastrophic climate change. That seems unlikely to me, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I would imagine that all of the waste heat produced through the world's economy is several orders of magnitude lower than the sun. Like less than 0.0001%.
  - DennisP 10y ago
    True, and waste heat is a far smaller contribution to warming than greenhouse gases. But exponential growth gets impressive after a while. At 2.3% growth per year, we boil the oceans in about 400 years: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e... Whether this is physically or economically realistic is another matter. I tend to think that long before waste heat is an actual problem, we'll either transition to a stable state or move the growth off planet. (Conveniently, fusion is also great for rockets.)
    - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
      Well, that assumes we don't move manufacturing processes off planet. Which is more realistic when nigh-unlimited energy (fusion) is available. With that, you can do cool things like launch loops or even a space fountain.
      - DennisP 10y ago
        Hence my last paragraph. But alternative launch systems is a good point.
  - namlem 10y ago
    Waste heat could possibly replace natural gas for heating. Eventually that won't be enough, but I'm sure by the time it becomes a problem we'll figure something out.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago

There are also fundamental thermodynamic limits that you hit at some point. All production and usage of electricity produces waste heat, it's unavoidable (see Carnot). Even neglecting global warming, you can't keep 20th century energy growth going for much more than another century or two before waste heat alone causes catastrophic climate change.

refurb 10y ago
you can't keep 20th century energy growth going for much more than another century or two before waste heat alone causes catastrophic climate change. That seems unlikely to me, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I would imagine that all of the waste heat produced through the world's economy is several orders of magnitude lower than the sun. Like less than 0.0001%.
- DennisP 10y ago
  True, and waste heat is a far smaller contribution to warming than greenhouse gases. But exponential growth gets impressive after a while. At 2.3% growth per year, we boil the oceans in about 400 years: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e... Whether this is physically or economically realistic is another matter. I tend to think that long before waste heat is an actual problem, we'll either transition to a stable state or move the growth off planet. (Conveniently, fusion is also great for rockets.)
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    Well, that assumes we don't move manufacturing processes off planet. Which is more realistic when nigh-unlimited energy (fusion) is available. With that, you can do cool things like launch loops or even a space fountain.
    - DennisP 10y ago
      Hence my last paragraph. But alternative launch systems is a good point.
- namlem 10y ago
  Waste heat could possibly replace natural gas for heating. Eventually that won't be enough, but I'm sure by the time it becomes a problem we'll figure something out.