4 ms·

Energy availability is effectively infinite if you can plan for what you need and invest in the necessary infrastructure. Total insolation for the Earth is aro

by dsr_ 9y ago

Energy availability is effectively infinite if you can plan for what you need and invest in the necessary infrastructure. Total insolation for the Earth is around 170 petawatts. If you need more than 1% of that, space-based solar will be cost-effective. The long-term problem with energy is getting rid of your waste.

wazoox 9y ago
Apparently you didn't make the effort to read the article I linked to. You're talking the usual, wishful-thinking nonsense that'll bring us into the entropy wall full speed, real soon now.
jamoes 9y ago
Yep, this is exactly the point economist Julian Simon made in his essay, "Can the Supply of Natural Resources - Especially Energy - Really Be Infinite? Yes!" [1] This exert from the conclusion sums up his argument well: > Incredible as it may seem at first, the term "finite" is not only inappropriate but is downright misleading when applied to natural resources, from both the practical and philosophical points of view. As with many important arguments, the finiteness issue is "just semantic." Yet the semantics of resource scarcity muddle public discussion and bring about wrongheaded policy decisions. [1] http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR03A.txt http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR0...
- wazoox 9y ago
  This is utter BS. It relies on bad analogies and not physical reality. The example given (copper) is absurd; recycling implies using energy (and disposal of waste heat), therefore you substitute a resource (copper ore) for another (used copper and energy). The analysis supposes that every resource is substitutable (they aren't), and that energy is infinite (it isn't).
cherenkoray 9y ago
Any energy usage creates waste heat. This is relevant on a planetary scale as well as for biological organisms. Mammals, for example (and, in essence, all living beings), produce heat by their metabolism. The need to get rid if it, for example the human body temperature must not exceed something like 39 ° C. Otherwise, the metabolism breaks down, and we die. Mammals are able to cool down in a somewhat warmer environment which is by evaporation. Evaporation shifts the maximum bearable environmental temperature a bit up to 48°C or 50°C. More specifically, evaporation only works if the temperature of the sweaty skin is above the dew point of the surrounding air[4]. When it is hotter, the dew point rises above said 39 °C [5], and what happens is that hot humid air condenses on our skin, heating the body up[1]. We can survive of up to 50°C, with difficulty, for a few short hours - then it's game over[2]. Places with such conditions just become inhabitable, and the Northern parts of the Persian Gulf and India are already pretty close to that. On the planetary scale, no, even if we had nuclear fusion and could increase the global energy output by a factor of twenty, we would have difficulties. The waste heat normally goes away by warming the planet and going into space as infrared radiation. But there is a thing called greenhouse effect[3], which causes the surface temperature to increase more than the temperature of the clouds. And human activity is not negligible if you do the math. The problem is now there is no effective method for transporting excess heat into space. This is also a problem in the International Space Station[6]. The trouble is now that exactly the same effect happens on the somewhat bigger spheric space station we are living on. That wonderful blue marble we call Earth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermia [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point [5] http://dpcalc.org/ http://dpcalc.org/ [6] https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/ https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/a...

by dsr_ 9y ago

wazoox 9y ago

Apparently you didn't make the effort to read the article I linked to. You're talking the usual, wishful-thinking nonsense that'll bring us into the entropy wall full speed, real soon now.

jamoes 9y ago

Yep, this is exactly the point economist Julian Simon made in his essay, "Can the Supply of Natural Resources - Especially Energy - Really Be Infinite? Yes!" [1] This exert from the conclusion sums up his argument well: > Incredible as it may seem at first, the term "finite" is not only inappropriate but is downright misleading when applied to natural resources, from both the practical and philosophical points of view. As with many important arguments, the finiteness issue is "just semantic." Yet the semantics of resource scarcity muddle public discussion and bring about wrongheaded policy decisions. [1] http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR03A.txt http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR0...

wazoox 9y ago
This is utter BS. It relies on bad analogies and not physical reality. The example given (copper) is absurd; recycling implies using energy (and disposal of waste heat), therefore you substitute a resource (copper ore) for another (used copper and energy). The analysis supposes that every resource is substitutable (they aren't), and that energy is infinite (it isn't).

cherenkoray 9y ago

Any energy usage creates waste heat. This is relevant on a planetary scale as well as for biological organisms. Mammals, for example (and, in essence, all living beings), produce heat by their metabolism. The need to get rid if it, for example the human body temperature must not exceed something like 39 ° C. Otherwise, the metabolism breaks down, and we die. Mammals are able to cool down in a somewhat warmer environment which is by evaporation. Evaporation shifts the maximum bearable environmental temperature a bit up to 48°C or 50°C. More specifically, evaporation only works if the temperature of the sweaty skin is above the dew point of the surrounding air[4]. When it is hotter, the dew point rises above said 39 °C [5], and what happens is that hot humid air condenses on our skin, heating the body up[1]. We can survive of up to 50°C, with difficulty, for a few short hours - then it's game over[2]. Places with such conditions just become inhabitable, and the Northern parts of the Persian Gulf and India are already pretty close to that. On the planetary scale, no, even if we had nuclear fusion and could increase the global energy output by a factor of twenty, we would have difficulties. The waste heat normally goes away by warming the planet and going into space as infrared radiation. But there is a thing called greenhouse effect[3], which causes the surface temperature to increase more than the temperature of the clouds. And human activity is not negligible if you do the math. The problem is now there is no effective method for transporting excess heat into space. This is also a problem in the International Space Station[6]. The trouble is now that exactly the same effect happens on the somewhat bigger spheric space station we are living on. That wonderful blue marble we call Earth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermia [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point [5] http://dpcalc.org/ http://dpcalc.org/ [6] https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/ https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/a...