4 ms·

“The aspiration is to have a working power plant in time to combat climate change." Let's combat global warming by producing even more heat, converting 40% of

by zde 9y ago

“The aspiration is to have a working power plant in time to combat climate change." Let's combat global warming by producing even more heat, converting 40% of it to electricity.

asfasgasg 9y ago
> Let's combat global warming by producing even more heat, converting 40% of it to electricity. All the wattage produced by humanity is utterly insignificant in the face of the energy we receive from the sun. It will still be insignificant if we double it. (We receive about 2 × 10^18 watt hours per day from the sun at the ground. Daily human energy production is about 5 × 10^15 watt hours.)
- wcoenen 9y ago
  On the other hand, at a fixed doubling period of 35 years (i.e. assuming 2% yearly growth) we'll get at that "one extra sun" level in only 500 years. Or if we take "5% of an extra sun" as the problematic power output, it will take only 150 years. (Now consider that in the golden age of oil before the oil shocks in the seventies, oil consumption was growing more like 8% per year.)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - davrosthedalek 9y ago
    In that scenario, we are doomed anyway: If we would generate anywhere close to that level of power via solar, we would change the albedo of earth significantly -> heating. And we would certainly affect the air currents on a global scale if we use wind power to that extend.
  - asfasgasg 9y ago
    > (Now consider that in the golden age of oil before the oil shocks in the seventies, oil consumption was growing more like 8% per year.) At that time, per capita energy use in the US was growing by 3% per year while population would grow by 1.5% per year. Today, per capita energy consumption in the United States is falling, and the population is growing more slowly. The story is much the same elsewhere. Even China has leveled off in per capita energy consumption. India's is still growing, but it will take many years considering their baseline of 1/10 of the United States per capita before they're the biggest problem, and I guess they'll probably turn that trend around before they actually get to that point.
- oakwhiz 9y ago
  In addition, it may be possible to put surplus energy into atmospheric greenhouse gas fixation, if such technologies are fruitful. In essence spending more watts to reduce future retention of solar thermal joules.
asdsa5325 9y ago
Global warming isn't caused by artificially "producing heat"...
- zde 9y ago
  Increasing system's entropy is bad, bad, bad! There's no way back, you know?
andrewjl 9y ago
Assuming widespread deployment of fusion reactors and use of battery powered vehicles for transport, humanity's carbon footprint would decrease by about one or even two orders of magnitude, which is the real culprit behind anthropogenic climate change. Obviously that's not something that can happen overnight.
- tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
  Could we do that with solar and wind?

by zde 9y ago

“The aspiration is to have a working power plant in time to combat climate change." Let's combat global warming by producing even more heat, converting 40% of it to electricity.

asfasgasg 9y ago

> Let's combat global warming by producing even more heat, converting 40% of it to electricity. All the wattage produced by humanity is utterly insignificant in the face of the energy we receive from the sun. It will still be insignificant if we double it. (We receive about 2 × 10^18 watt hours per day from the sun at the ground. Daily human energy production is about 5 × 10^15 watt hours.)

wcoenen 9y ago
On the other hand, at a fixed doubling period of 35 years (i.e. assuming 2% yearly growth) we'll get at that "one extra sun" level in only 500 years. Or if we take "5% of an extra sun" as the problematic power output, it will take only 150 years. (Now consider that in the golden age of oil before the oil shocks in the seventies, oil consumption was growing more like 8% per year.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- davrosthedalek 9y ago
  In that scenario, we are doomed anyway: If we would generate anywhere close to that level of power via solar, we would change the albedo of earth significantly -> heating. And we would certainly affect the air currents on a global scale if we use wind power to that extend.
- asfasgasg 9y ago
  > (Now consider that in the golden age of oil before the oil shocks in the seventies, oil consumption was growing more like 8% per year.) At that time, per capita energy use in the US was growing by 3% per year while population would grow by 1.5% per year. Today, per capita energy consumption in the United States is falling, and the population is growing more slowly. The story is much the same elsewhere. Even China has leveled off in per capita energy consumption. India's is still growing, but it will take many years considering their baseline of 1/10 of the United States per capita before they're the biggest problem, and I guess they'll probably turn that trend around before they actually get to that point.
oakwhiz 9y ago
In addition, it may be possible to put surplus energy into atmospheric greenhouse gas fixation, if such technologies are fruitful. In essence spending more watts to reduce future retention of solar thermal joules.

asdsa5325 9y ago

Global warming isn't caused by artificially "producing heat"...

zde 9y ago
Increasing system's entropy is bad, bad, bad! There's no way back, you know?

andrewjl 9y ago

Assuming widespread deployment of fusion reactors and use of battery powered vehicles for transport, humanity's carbon footprint would decrease by about one or even two orders of magnitude, which is the real culprit behind anthropogenic climate change. Obviously that's not something that can happen overnight.

tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
Could we do that with solar and wind?