4 ms·
There’s an angle that a lot of these discussions tend to miss. We are running out of easy energy. The step change in civilization we observed in the past 200 ye
by thewarrior 5y ago
There’s an angle that a lot of these discussions tend to miss. We are running out of easy energy. The step change in civilization we observed in the past 200 years was because we found an abundant source of energy.
Ideas don’t build sky scrapers energy does. If you don’t believe me you can look up the per capita energy consumption per American and observe that it is basically stagnant since 1970. Which is also curiously the date since when the American dream started to fade.
We got around this by outsourcing some activities to economies with a low energy intensity, loading up on debt and improving the energy efficiency of our devices. But these cannot result in the kind of step change improvements that we got used to over the last century.
Why have we seen such amazing progress in computing and the internet ? Moores law allows us to extract twice as much compute for the same energy every 18 months. The energy burned by a transistor scales with its area. This is nothing short of miraculous. It’s as if your car doubled its mileage every 2 years. This has allowed computing to cheat the stagnation in energy we have been seeing elsewhere. When compute gets cheaper transporting information gets cheaper as well as it is computers that transport the information. Hence the biggest growth industry continues to be technology and the internet. Batteries or solar panels do not double every 18 months. Batteries have barely moved in comparison. The newer iPhones feel heavier after they made the battery bigger.
There was a fear for a time that “Peak Oil” would lead to some kind of a total collapse. The reality is more of a slow burn stagnation as we wring the oil out of ever deeper deposits.
The much heralded green transition got a dose of reality this year in Europe as they realized how reliant they are on natural gas to not freeze to death.
Building tens of thousands of Nuclear plants is far from trivial although it is in theory possible.
We will in general struggle to maintain the standards of living we currently have especially as we expand it to the broader population.
This is a harsh truth many don’t want to confront. Perhaps the elites realize this and have decided to squeeze every last drop out of the orange so they can experience the growth that was once the norm for all first worlders. The elites being the top 2-5 %.
The entire third world that was looted and colonized is also now stepping up to claim its fair share of global resources. The more they develop the higher energy prices will go. And yet it is inevitable.
Hence I struggle to see how first world living standards will not stagnate even in the presence of interesting new technologies and breakthroughs. The meta verse might be the answer as a simulation of prosperity may be cheaper than actual prosperity. It might also explain why everything is moving into the virtual world. Energy constraints apply a lot less here.
And don’t get me started on Climate Change.
- Miner49er 5y agoThis is a really interesting way of looking at it that I hadn't considered.
- adrianN 5y agoWe're not running out of easy energy at all. Renewable energy is quite easy and we'll never run out while the sun has hydrogen left. Economic growth has increasingly been decoupled from increases in energy use (at least in developed nations).
- thewarrior 5y agoThe energy is there but it’s too expensive to extract store and distribute compared to Saudi Arabian oil. Hydrocarbons are not just a source of energy. They are also a storage mechanism that can also fuel their own transportation and distribution. There’s probably not enough rare minerals on the earth to build enough batteries to take care of all global transportation, electricity and heating let alone future needs. Nuclear - fission and then fusion are the only way out.
- adrianN 5y agoI don't think you want to use our current battery tech to store large amounts of energy. I'd go with hydrogen or perhaps synthetic methane instead, because we can reuse much of the existing natural gas infrastructure.
- thewarrior 5y agoHydrogen is a potential solution but it’s very difficult to store and transport.
- adrianN 5y agoIt's a little more difficult to store and transport than methane, yes. If that turns out to be a deal breaker, you can always upgrade the hydrogen to methane using atmospheric CO2. You lose a bit of efficiency, but perhaps that's cheaper than upgrading the storage and transport infrastructure.