3 ms·
That's a good point, although in the context of exponential growth, it's a small difference that just buys a few more centuries. The heat spreader would either
by jbay808 5y ago
That's a good point, although in the context of exponential growth, it's a small difference that just buys a few more centuries. The heat spreader would either have to grow exponentially in area radiating into space, or grow exponentially in temperature; at some point it will hit geographic or material limits, or else eventually end up bathing the Earth in gamma rays.
- manwe150 5y agohttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 “When the materials point at the sky, the infrared rays can pass straight through the atmosphere and into space. That effectively links the materials to an inexhaustible heat sink, into which they can keep dumping heat without it coming back.” I agree with jbay808 on the impracticality, but note that in context, I am responding to the question of whether it would be harder to remove the heat than to generate it. Both obviously quickly become impracticable if we expect exponential increases.