4 ms·

I feel like it's a very useful metaphor for the work ahead in dealing with energy production, consumption, storage, efficiency, etc. Layer 1: We must think of

I feel like it's a very useful metaphor for the work ahead in dealing with energy production, consumption, storage, efficiency, etc. Layer 1: We must think of clever solutions to reduce our energy footprint where possible and shifting typical energy uses around is one way to do so Layer 2: But we must also be conscious and aware of economies of scale, and shifting the burden of energy usage from one central server to N clients is ultimately not a good answer for NET energy consumption. Layer 3: But for some constrained resources, that might be worthwhile, depending on the magnitude: The incremental cost of extra rendering on the client is a rounding error. But on a solar-powered low-energy server, it MIGHT be meaningful, and be the difference between something working and not. This is a lens we must apply to everything: * Logging * Battery technology * Buying locally vs economies of scale * International shipping * Container ships * etc.

fastball 5y ago
I'd rather avoid all these layers and just build so much nuclear we get to a future where electricity is too cheap to meter.
- 8bitsrule 5y ago
  Current world power consumption is about 15 terawatts. That's 15,000 gigawatts. [0] One gigawatt takes about 1 nuke. So, 15,000 nukes. Round that down to 10,000 nukes; ignore demand from new electric cars and cooling, and required downtime. On a very good day, a new nuke rounds down to $10 billion. 10^4 x 10^10 = $ 100 trillion. Not to mention mining, operating, disposal, and environmental costs. Or tsunamis, or profits, or interest. In other units (Q = 10^18 joules) Total world energy consumption per year: 400 Q. Total solar power striking the Earth each year: more than 4 x 10^6 Q.[1] Catch 1/10,000 of that. [0] https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/world-power-consumption.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-scienc... [1] http://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/~hetheriw/energy/topics/doc/intro/total_solar_power_over_earth.pdf http://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/~hetheriw/energy/topics...
- ratsforhorses 5y ago
  But isn't one of the problems of global warming (ie where humans have a "future") the amount of waste heat we are producing? https://environmentalsystemsresearch.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40068-020-00169-2 https://environmentalsystemsresearch.springeropen.com/articl...

fastball 5y ago

I'd rather avoid all these layers and just build so much nuclear we get to a future where electricity is too cheap to meter.

8bitsrule 5y ago
Current world power consumption is about 15 terawatts. That's 15,000 gigawatts. [0] One gigawatt takes about 1 nuke. So, 15,000 nukes. Round that down to 10,000 nukes; ignore demand from new electric cars and cooling, and required downtime. On a very good day, a new nuke rounds down to $10 billion. 10^4 x 10^10 = $ 100 trillion. Not to mention mining, operating, disposal, and environmental costs. Or tsunamis, or profits, or interest. In other units (Q = 10^18 joules) Total world energy consumption per year: 400 Q. Total solar power striking the Earth each year: more than 4 x 10^6 Q.[1] Catch 1/10,000 of that. [0] https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/world-power-consumption.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-scienc... [1] http://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/~hetheriw/energy/topics/doc/intro/total_solar_power_over_earth.pdf http://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/~hetheriw/energy/topics...
ratsforhorses 5y ago
But isn't one of the problems of global warming (ie where humans have a "future") the amount of waste heat we are producing? https://environmentalsystemsresearch.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40068-020-00169-2 https://environmentalsystemsresearch.springeropen.com/articl...