3 ms·

disagree essentially because I believe we'd get into a situation where the problem becomes heat dissipation. the problem is the human psique, not technological

by bsedlm 5y ago

disagree essentially because I believe we'd get into a situation where the problem becomes heat dissipation. the problem is the human psique, not technological capabilities.

stouset 5y ago
If we find a cheap new way to generate orders of magnitude more energy, we'll use orders of magnitude more energy. And you're right. We're only a bit over two hundred years away at 2.3% annualized growth in energy use from noticeably raising Earth's surface temperatures just from a thermodynamic perspective. And that's completely ignoring the effects of greenhouse gases.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  You and parent project this in some theoretical universe where these effects would be ignored. Why on earth do you think so? With semi-unlimited energy at our palms, we can do serious geoengineering. We can put these furnaces into high orbits, or moon and beam down just raw output energy with lasers. Or whatever, even the sky isn't a proverbial limit.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    Fusion isn't magic, more energy doesn't suddenly obviate the burden of practical engineering constraints, we won't be "geoengineering" our way out of climate change for the foreseeable future.
    - willis936 5y ago
      A world where energy consumption increases by a factor of 10,000 is a far fetched fantasy. If we're starting with such premises, should they not be followed?
      - stouset 5y ago
        A world where energy consumption increases by a factor of 10,000 would already be a world where the surface is lava thanks to basic thermodynamics. Earth can only radiate so much heat into space, and its ability to do so will not outpace energy production for much longer. A world where energy consumption increases fiftyfold is a century and a half away and would be brushing up against the point where we are noticeably increasing the equilibrium temperature of Earth sans any greenhouse gases. Hitting the thermodynamic limits of Earth's ability to radiate heat into space isn't a far-fetched fantasy, it's terrifyingly close.
        willis936 5y ago
        This is very wrong. Humans produce about 30 TW of heat. The sun imparts 10 trillion times this amount. If we increased our production by 10,000 then we need to put a small umbrella in space to slightly dim the sun the smallest amount to maintain power balance.
        stouset 5y ago
        Feel free to do the math yourself. You’ll forgive me for trusting in the calculations of UCSD professor of physics Tom Murphy, who’s written about this extensively. Edit: Also, your numbers are quite simply incorrect. The 70% of sunlight that doesn’t bounce back into space is about 35,000TW, far from the hundreds of trillions of terawatts you claim. At 2.3% energy growth for the next 275 years, we’ll be adding 7,000TW to this number. That is easily enough to noticeably increase Earth’s equilibrium temperature, and far less than this will be necessary to do so given greenhouse gases which reduce our ability to radiate heat into space. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
        willis936 5y ago
        Sorry the 13 trillion number was from the total power output of the sun (10^26 W). The Earth receives 340 W / m^2 on average (not accounting for albedo) [1]. The surface area of the Earth is 510 trillion m^2. Humans release 160,000 TWh / year (18.5 TW) [2]. That means the input power from the sun is 9350x what humans release into the atmosphere. If wind and solar play a larger role in the energy mix then the picture looks even better. I can't see how humans could increase power consumption by multiple orders of magnitude without solving so many other (more difficult) problems. Even if we did, playing games with albedo and/or orbital sunshades are on the table with the comparatively meager means we have today. Any future society using that much power surely could address these issues with ease. Also, expecting constant growth for the next 275 years isn't really a good projection of current trends. We're already seeing negative 2nd derivatives in energy production and population. There is nowhere left to expand in to. The world has become very small very fast. 1. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page2.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/pag... 2. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/1925 https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/1925
  - stouset 5y ago
    Unlimited energy doesn't free us from the consequences of thermodynamics. Geoengineering doesn't help us. Where we generate the energy doesn't change anything if it's used here on this planet. There are literal physical limits here that can't just be handwaved away by space magic. Higher energy use in a finite spherical volume fundamentally results in increased temperatures when your only way of getting rid of that heat is radiation (and not convection or conduction). And we can't just beam that heat away with space magic either thanks to entropy. Thermodynamics gives us no tools to deal with this problem outside of increasing the spherical volume of Earth (and therefore its surface area).
willis936 5y ago
That is an overwhelmingly good problem to have. We would have truly mastered the planet for that to be a concern. As it stands, keeping society above water for the next hundred years seems like the grand challenge to accomplish. Do not assume victory is given. Nothing is a given. We are always on the edge.
wilkommen 5y ago
I agree. I don't think humanity is happier given more resources, above a certain relatively small amount. But humanity's desires are limitless. If we are able to invent a free energy machine we'll just use it so much that it causes new problems.

by bsedlm 5y ago

disagree essentially because I believe we'd get into a situation where the problem becomes heat dissipation. the problem is the human psique, not technological capabilities.

stouset 5y ago

If we find a cheap new way to generate orders of magnitude more energy, we'll use orders of magnitude more energy. And you're right. We're only a bit over two hundred years away at 2.3% annualized growth in energy use from noticeably raising Earth's surface temperatures just from a thermodynamic perspective. And that's completely ignoring the effects of greenhouse gases.

saiya-jin 5y ago
You and parent project this in some theoretical universe where these effects would be ignored. Why on earth do you think so? With semi-unlimited energy at our palms, we can do serious geoengineering. We can put these furnaces into high orbits, or moon and beam down just raw output energy with lasers. Or whatever, even the sky isn't a proverbial limit.
- root_axis 5y ago
  Fusion isn't magic, more energy doesn't suddenly obviate the burden of practical engineering constraints, we won't be "geoengineering" our way out of climate change for the foreseeable future.
  - willis936 5y ago
    A world where energy consumption increases by a factor of 10,000 is a far fetched fantasy. If we're starting with such premises, should they not be followed?
    - stouset 5y ago
      A world where energy consumption increases by a factor of 10,000 would already be a world where the surface is lava thanks to basic thermodynamics. Earth can only radiate so much heat into space, and its ability to do so will not outpace energy production for much longer. A world where energy consumption increases fiftyfold is a century and a half away and would be brushing up against the point where we are noticeably increasing the equilibrium temperature of Earth sans any greenhouse gases. Hitting the thermodynamic limits of Earth's ability to radiate heat into space isn't a far-fetched fantasy, it's terrifyingly close.
      - willis936 5y ago
        This is very wrong. Humans produce about 30 TW of heat. The sun imparts 10 trillion times this amount. If we increased our production by 10,000 then we need to put a small umbrella in space to slightly dim the sun the smallest amount to maintain power balance.
        stouset 5y ago
        Feel free to do the math yourself. You’ll forgive me for trusting in the calculations of UCSD professor of physics Tom Murphy, who’s written about this extensively. Edit: Also, your numbers are quite simply incorrect. The 70% of sunlight that doesn’t bounce back into space is about 35,000TW, far from the hundreds of trillions of terawatts you claim. At 2.3% energy growth for the next 275 years, we’ll be adding 7,000TW to this number. That is easily enough to noticeably increase Earth’s equilibrium temperature, and far less than this will be necessary to do so given greenhouse gases which reduce our ability to radiate heat into space. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
        willis936 5y ago
        Sorry the 13 trillion number was from the total power output of the sun (10^26 W). The Earth receives 340 W / m^2 on average (not accounting for albedo) [1]. The surface area of the Earth is 510 trillion m^2. Humans release 160,000 TWh / year (18.5 TW) [2]. That means the input power from the sun is 9350x what humans release into the atmosphere. If wind and solar play a larger role in the energy mix then the picture looks even better. I can't see how humans could increase power consumption by multiple orders of magnitude without solving so many other (more difficult) problems. Even if we did, playing games with albedo and/or orbital sunshades are on the table with the comparatively meager means we have today. Any future society using that much power surely could address these issues with ease. Also, expecting constant growth for the next 275 years isn't really a good projection of current trends. We're already seeing negative 2nd derivatives in energy production and population. There is nowhere left to expand in to. The world has become very small very fast. 1. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page2.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/pag... 2. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/1925 https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/1925
- stouset 5y ago
  Unlimited energy doesn't free us from the consequences of thermodynamics. Geoengineering doesn't help us. Where we generate the energy doesn't change anything if it's used here on this planet. There are literal physical limits here that can't just be handwaved away by space magic. Higher energy use in a finite spherical volume fundamentally results in increased temperatures when your only way of getting rid of that heat is radiation (and not convection or conduction). And we can't just beam that heat away with space magic either thanks to entropy. Thermodynamics gives us no tools to deal with this problem outside of increasing the spherical volume of Earth (and therefore its surface area).

willis936 5y ago

That is an overwhelmingly good problem to have. We would have truly mastered the planet for that to be a concern. As it stands, keeping society above water for the next hundred years seems like the grand challenge to accomplish. Do not assume victory is given. Nothing is a given. We are always on the edge.

wilkommen 5y ago

I agree. I don't think humanity is happier given more resources, above a certain relatively small amount. But humanity's desires are limitless. If we are able to invent a free energy machine we'll just use it so much that it causes new problems.