3 ms·

I don't think we have a choice. Human activities are currently completely dependent upon the availability of energy. Right now most of that energy comes from no

I don't think we have a choice. Human activities are currently completely dependent upon the availability of energy. Right now most of that energy comes from non-renewable sources and is limited. Our only other choice besides nuclear technologies is covering large portions of our planet's surface with solar panels, which in itself might cause problems because they will shade out plants and change weather and climate patterns as they scale. Traditional nuclear plants get us quite aways farther, but have their own risks, and still require absolutely enormous mining fields which isn't ideal. Fusion power however is the holy grail of energy production. We can go pretty much anywhere and find plentiful sources for fuel. Of course this is assuming small fusion reactors will ever actually work, but we have yet to find a hard limit or insurmountable barriers. We have been progressing slowly but consistently but the payoff would be world changing, potentially even galaxy changing int he longer run.

lutorm 8y ago
covering large portions of our planet's surface with solar panels Have you calculated it? If I recall correctly, it's actually not a large portion at all. It's large in the sense that it would be a large infrastructure project, but it's not larger than the combined area already covered by buildings.
- neolefty 8y ago
  Yes. I think the main limitation is not land use — rather: political will, energy storage, transport, manufacturing, and power leveling.
- AngryData 8y ago
  That is assuming we keep similar power usages as today, but many of our largest industries are consuming unaccounted for fossil fuel energy. Fertilizer for example, fossil fuels are used as a reagent in creating artificial fertilizer, on top of already huge energy costs. The energy required to make fertilizer out of the air and water, rather than fossil fuels, is 100x more at best case. 60% of our total crop yield is the result of artificial fertilizer. Then look at plastics, how much more energy is required to create nonfossil fuel hydrocarbon precursors? You can make hydrocarbons from trees, but it might take an entire tree just to make a few cheap plastic containers. Many other industries are also powered by mined and drilled organic fuels and minerals, but are still fairly limited in availability, at least for such cheap prices/energy requirements anyways which will rise into the future. Building solar panels to power our planet today isn't insurmountable, but what about 20 years from now? 50? 100? Power costs are the limiting factor in many industrial processes, including farming, steel and aluminum production, aviation and rocketry, indoor farms, plastics, and nearly every other form of material synthesis. Don't get me wrong, im not advocating against solar power in anyway, however I don't think it is an effective source for powering our largest industrial processes into the future. Even a small 10 man ceramics shop can draw enough power that they need to call up the local power companies before they turn their large furnaces on, I see no reasonable way of storing and supplying those kind of immense power requirements with solar panels and current storage technologies in any economical way.

lutorm 8y ago

covering large portions of our planet's surface with solar panels Have you calculated it? If I recall correctly, it's actually not a large portion at all. It's large in the sense that it would be a large infrastructure project, but it's not larger than the combined area already covered by buildings.

neolefty 8y ago
Yes. I think the main limitation is not land use — rather: political will, energy storage, transport, manufacturing, and power leveling.
AngryData 8y ago
That is assuming we keep similar power usages as today, but many of our largest industries are consuming unaccounted for fossil fuel energy. Fertilizer for example, fossil fuels are used as a reagent in creating artificial fertilizer, on top of already huge energy costs. The energy required to make fertilizer out of the air and water, rather than fossil fuels, is 100x more at best case. 60% of our total crop yield is the result of artificial fertilizer. Then look at plastics, how much more energy is required to create nonfossil fuel hydrocarbon precursors? You can make hydrocarbons from trees, but it might take an entire tree just to make a few cheap plastic containers. Many other industries are also powered by mined and drilled organic fuels and minerals, but are still fairly limited in availability, at least for such cheap prices/energy requirements anyways which will rise into the future. Building solar panels to power our planet today isn't insurmountable, but what about 20 years from now? 50? 100? Power costs are the limiting factor in many industrial processes, including farming, steel and aluminum production, aviation and rocketry, indoor farms, plastics, and nearly every other form of material synthesis. Don't get me wrong, im not advocating against solar power in anyway, however I don't think it is an effective source for powering our largest industrial processes into the future. Even a small 10 man ceramics shop can draw enough power that they need to call up the local power companies before they turn their large furnaces on, I see no reasonable way of storing and supplying those kind of immense power requirements with solar panels and current storage technologies in any economical way.