6 ms·
The same could be said about wind power. Ultimately, wind and ocean currents are driven by the 170,000 terawatts of solar irradiance continuously hitting the e
by wcoenen 4y ago
The same could be said about wind power.
Ultimately, wind and ocean currents are driven by the 170,000 terawatts of solar irradiance continuously hitting the earth[1]. Human civilization uses about 17 terawatt[2], so we still have a ways to go before we get in the same ballpark.
(On the other hand, give it a few centuries of exponential growth and let's see where we end up.)
[1] https://news.mit.edu/2011/energy-scale-part3-1026 https://news.mit.edu/2011/energy-scale-part3-1026
https://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/current_world_energy_consumption https://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/current_world_energy_...
[2] https://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/current_world_energy_consumption https://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/current_world_energy_...
- user3939382 4y agoJust to point out, we would be harvesting a lot more than we use because of inefficiencies in capturing, storage, and transmission strategies. Also note that the amount we use is lower than it would otherwise be if we had access to more energy, industry is energy-constrained.
- rootusrootus 4y agoIn the case of something like PV, would that matter too much? The inefficiency doesn't mean the rest is lost, just that it stays in the local environment rather than get transmitted away somewhere else on a wire.
- omgwtfbyobbq 4y agoPretty much. As an examples, in deserts, there can be a modest increase in local IR radiation because of the change in albedo from PV panels compared to sand, but the overall decrease in IR from avoiding the CO2/etc emissions of fossil fuel generation is much, much larger than the local increase.
- neatze 4y agoThis with assumption that there is linear relation without butterfly effects, even if there are negative effects, most likely they are negligible when compared to green house effect on the planet, my false intuition tells me that power generation from wind and ocean currents would contribute to planet cooling, no idea if electricity converted to work will radiate heat faster into space then air and oceans passively.
- paulsutter 4y agoThat 170,000 terawatts hitting earth is dwarfed by the 400 trillion terawatts output by the sun, so we can always build some fraction of a Dyson sphere if we start to run short with the 170,000 The sooner we stop using these feeble fossil fuels the better
- willis936 4y agoFantasy solutions don't work for real problems. We have the capability to make real problems via terraforming.
- hackernewds 4y agoTerraforming is a fantasy that won't work for real problems
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- andai 4y ago>We have the capability to make real problems via terraforming. [emphasis mine]
- Dylan16807 4y agoYes, they slightly misread, but it's a fair retort. Terraforming is pretty fantasy, but it happens.
- paulsutter 4y agoWe’re carbon (de-)terraforming the earth everyday on a global scale, haven’t you heard? It’s very real
- gibolt 4y agoA Dyson sphere is just as much fantasy as physics, true of most of today's technology just 50 years ago. Solar and wind are needed today, but Starship could bring launch costs down enough that some highly optimized space solar panels with microwave power beaming could be viable within a decade.
- Cthulhu_ 4y agoAnd with this one, currents - mainly ebb and flow - are caused by the gravity of the moon pulling on the oceans. But yeah, it will have an effect; the other question to ask is, how significant is this effect, and how does it compare to other forms of power production, e.g. fossil fuels? The global warming caused by fossil fuels has a bigger effect on the oceans; with decreasing salinity due to the melting of ice caps / glaciers, the gulf stream is slowing down and will eventually stop, causing distribution of heat across the planet to stop, causing the northern seas to cool down and the southern ones to heat up.
- jccooper 4y agoI think this is targeting ocean currents, which are solar-powered convection between the tropics and the poles, rather than tidal currents.
- jameshart 4y agoTidal flows are a pretty massive energy reservoir - basically you’ve got all the potential and kinetic energy of the moon’s orbit to draw from. That’s (according to my crude Wolfram Alpha based research) about 3e28J of kinetic energy plus 7e28J of potential energy, for a total of 10^29 Joules. Technically a non renewable resource, but you would be hard pressed to make a dent in that energy budget with any kind of human scale extraction project.
- narag 4y agoTechnically a non renewable resource... How's that? Can we consume it? What would be the reaction? Moon altering its orbit?
- andkenneth 4y agoYes this technically degrades the moons orbit. Do it long enough and hard enough and the moon will hit the earth. Shouldn't be of any concern though, because the kinetic energy the moons movement is carrying is insanely high.
- edf13 4y ago10% reducation in currents and wind surely would have massive impacts on the planet?
- SllX 4y agoWell 1) living has a massive impact on the planet because everything we do leaves a mark and everything we eat redirects energy into our bodies so that ship has sailed and 2) a 10% reduction in currents and wind specifically would have massive impacts on the planet’s currents and wind if we built enough power plants that used those sources of energy specifically to power the entirety of human civilization. We have other options, and the way we source power (as a planet, never mind individual jurisdictions) is basically an “all of the above” energy strategy in practice. However we can source energy, we do it.