5 ms·

Use of fusion as an energy source removes a lot of threats our civilizations are facing but it also comes with some caveats rooted in human behavior. Human ene

Use of fusion as an energy source removes a lot of threats our civilizations are facing but it also comes with some caveats rooted in human behavior. Human energy consumption has always gone up when the supply got more efficient, from coal to oil to fission. While here, the power generation itself won't have such a drastic impact (unless humanity overdoes it, though, we seem to always do that) but maybe more power means more consumption and demand for other goods that get used up while using things that consume power. And with enough power you can think about making things that consume more or even build more things that consume more power. Lots of processes that were considered too wasteful suddenly become feasible. Just like with digital documents, when people predicted that paper wouldn't be needed in the modern economy and the demand for paper would decline, it has actually skyrocketed - because a paper document isn't important anymore. You throw it away and print a new one when it has a crease. Historically, we've been very bad at predicting such side effects. So I won't buy in a 'fusion solves everything' mindset. Fusion power can be a boon for humanity on a global scale but it could also make some problems worse.

jeffparsons 5y ago
> Lots of processes that were considered too wasteful suddenly become feasible. I worry about this, too, but couldn't there be some positive effects here, too? E.g. what if it made desalination a lot cheaper?
- eru 5y ago
  Why do you even worry?
  - jeffparsons 5y ago
    Because the secondary effects of something becoming more efficient can be harmful, in counterintuitive ways. E.g. if some process in steel manufacturing is improved to require less power, you might think, yay, there's less power needed so less CO2 released. Good for mitigating global warming. But what might actually happen instead is that it becomes feasible to make more things out of steel because it is cheaper than before, so more energy is used on steel production in total, even though per unit it is more efficient. The same thing could happen with fusion energy, but in ways we can barely imagine now. What high-power workloads are not even considered now that would be cheap enough with fusion power?
    - eru 5y ago
      Yes, I understand that. But if you run your high-power workload with fusion, you won't be releasing any CO2. Your explanation reminds of the common example that increased car safety leads to more speeding. And somehow arguing that increased safety is futile. But people like having more steel and like being able to go faster at the same level of safety.
blake1 5y ago
Your first point is not supported by the data. The US Energy Information Agency keeps track of this[1], and the per capita energy use peaked around 2000. And we are much better at running an energy-efficient economy: energy use/real $ GDP has halved in the last century. The trend may not continue. People might start to do much more air travel (which would require massive runway building). Global warming might increase the need for AC. But my intuition is that there is some limit to the amount of energy one person can consume. [1] https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_13.pdf https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_13.pdf
- wnkrshm 5y ago
  It is good to see that the per capita trend has reversed, maybe if the global population would not increase steadily we may actually not increase energy consumption steadily. Edit: I found an interesting nature article[0] that looks at different correlations of population and consumption to identify if there is an anthropocene epoch. There are pretty clear-cut trends but who knows, maybe Earth's population will actually reach a kind of steady state. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00029-y.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00029-y.pdf
  - eru 5y ago
    Global population is expected to plateau soonish.
- neutronicus 5y ago
  Yeah, capital-E Energy is mostly for capital-W Work and thermodynamics. Once you refrigerate your living space and don't walk anywhere and everything you want is brought to your door what else are you going to do?
  - Someone 5y ago
    I’m not sure whether you’re serious, but: Bigger cars? Supersonic city trips to the other side of the world? Weekends in Antarctica? A week in one of SpaceX’s hotels? High-resolution screens on every wall of your home, plus the AC needed to keep your house cool? Reshape a mountain to improve your view? Transform lead into gold? Mine bitcoin? If energy were free, I foresee accelerated destruction of nature. At best, the world would become a gigantic park.
eru 5y ago
> While here, the power generation itself won't have such a drastic impact (unless humanity overdoes it, though, we seem to always do that) but maybe more power means more consumption and demand for other goods that get used up while using things that consume power. Eh, we are sitting on a giant ball of matter. Not much worry about using stuff up. (We might use up any one particular thing. But there are substitutes.)

jeffparsons 5y ago

> Lots of processes that were considered too wasteful suddenly become feasible. I worry about this, too, but couldn't there be some positive effects here, too? E.g. what if it made desalination a lot cheaper?

eru 5y ago
Why do you even worry?
- jeffparsons 5y ago
  Because the secondary effects of something becoming more efficient can be harmful, in counterintuitive ways. E.g. if some process in steel manufacturing is improved to require less power, you might think, yay, there's less power needed so less CO2 released. Good for mitigating global warming. But what might actually happen instead is that it becomes feasible to make more things out of steel because it is cheaper than before, so more energy is used on steel production in total, even though per unit it is more efficient. The same thing could happen with fusion energy, but in ways we can barely imagine now. What high-power workloads are not even considered now that would be cheap enough with fusion power?
  - eru 5y ago
    Yes, I understand that. But if you run your high-power workload with fusion, you won't be releasing any CO2. Your explanation reminds of the common example that increased car safety leads to more speeding. And somehow arguing that increased safety is futile. But people like having more steel and like being able to go faster at the same level of safety.

blake1 5y ago

Your first point is not supported by the data. The US Energy Information Agency keeps track of this[1], and the per capita energy use peaked around 2000. And we are much better at running an energy-efficient economy: energy use/real $ GDP has halved in the last century. The trend may not continue. People might start to do much more air travel (which would require massive runway building). Global warming might increase the need for AC. But my intuition is that there is some limit to the amount of energy one person can consume. [1] https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_13.pdf https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_13.pdf

wnkrshm 5y ago
It is good to see that the per capita trend has reversed, maybe if the global population would not increase steadily we may actually not increase energy consumption steadily. Edit: I found an interesting nature article[0] that looks at different correlations of population and consumption to identify if there is an anthropocene epoch. There are pretty clear-cut trends but who knows, maybe Earth's population will actually reach a kind of steady state. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00029-y.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00029-y.pdf
- eru 5y ago
  Global population is expected to plateau soonish.
neutronicus 5y ago
Yeah, capital-E Energy is mostly for capital-W Work and thermodynamics. Once you refrigerate your living space and don't walk anywhere and everything you want is brought to your door what else are you going to do?
- Someone 5y ago
  I’m not sure whether you’re serious, but: Bigger cars? Supersonic city trips to the other side of the world? Weekends in Antarctica? A week in one of SpaceX’s hotels? High-resolution screens on every wall of your home, plus the AC needed to keep your house cool? Reshape a mountain to improve your view? Transform lead into gold? Mine bitcoin? If energy were free, I foresee accelerated destruction of nature. At best, the world would become a gigantic park.

eru 5y ago

> While here, the power generation itself won't have such a drastic impact (unless humanity overdoes it, though, we seem to always do that) but maybe more power means more consumption and demand for other goods that get used up while using things that consume power. Eh, we are sitting on a giant ball of matter. Not much worry about using stuff up. (We might use up any one particular thing. But there are substitutes.)