5 ms·

I want a personal cold fusion reactor and to be a 2000 MW person, not this unviable milquetoast degrowth.

by hoseja 4y ago

lm28469 4y ago
Unviable degrowth or unliveable planet
- prottog 4y ago
  Degrowth will absolutely remove more enjoyable life-years from the planet than even maintaining the status quo, let alone achieving technological progress that will allow carbon-free 2000MW per person. The latter is certainly preferable to the former.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > let alone achieving technological progress that will allow carbon-free No guarantees that we are on that path, if it was the case we'd already all be running on nuclear but we made the opposite choice, in Europe for example because gas is cheaper, cheaper = more profit = growth = better and we all see where it got us But let's continue with out ultra wasteful ways of life, surely when China and India catch up with EU/US level of waste the world will be saved
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Yeah. Screw this 'climate change' nonsense. Let's see if we can vaporize the mantle by 2100. The second law exists and climate change is just the first of many symptoms of running face first into it. 2kW is a sensible limit for living on a planet and having it still be a planet worth living on. You might push it up an order of magnitude or two without cooking humans by fully transforming most habitable land and carefully rejecting 30% of the sunlight whilst using the rest, but that would destroy most ecosystems. If you want a barren rock to bake, go live on the moon.
- hoseja 4y ago
  Just to check, have you ever looked up the total solar irradiation wattage? You might be surprised. Climate change isn't "Grug burn too many fire, fire make hot.", it's a comparatively tiny shift in a delicate balance.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Yes. Sunlight that makes it to the surface is about 170PW. Primary energy is about 17TW this is roughly on the order of what can be utilized without drastically altering the planet. GHG emissions shift the balance by about 200TW which is enough to be extremely harmful. 20kW is 170TW which is enough to be similarly harmful (although not to escalate to being apocalyptic). 2000MW per person is enough to raise the temperature of the entire earth (the whole thing, not the surface) by 25 degrees a year.

I want a personal cold fusion reactor and to be a 2000 MW person, not this unviable milquetoast degrowth.

by hoseja 4y ago

I want a personal cold fusion reactor and to be a 2000 MW person, not this unviable milquetoast degrowth.

lm28469 4y ago

Unviable degrowth or unliveable planet

prottog 4y ago
Degrowth will absolutely remove more enjoyable life-years from the planet than even maintaining the status quo, let alone achieving technological progress that will allow carbon-free 2000MW per person. The latter is certainly preferable to the former.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > let alone achieving technological progress that will allow carbon-free No guarantees that we are on that path, if it was the case we'd already all be running on nuclear but we made the opposite choice, in Europe for example because gas is cheaper, cheaper = more profit = growth = better and we all see where it got us But let's continue with out ultra wasteful ways of life, surely when China and India catch up with EU/US level of waste the world will be saved

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Yeah. Screw this 'climate change' nonsense. Let's see if we can vaporize the mantle by 2100. The second law exists and climate change is just the first of many symptoms of running face first into it. 2kW is a sensible limit for living on a planet and having it still be a planet worth living on. You might push it up an order of magnitude or two without cooking humans by fully transforming most habitable land and carefully rejecting 30% of the sunlight whilst using the rest, but that would destroy most ecosystems. If you want a barren rock to bake, go live on the moon.

hoseja 4y ago
Just to check, have you ever looked up the total solar irradiation wattage? You might be surprised. Climate change isn't "Grug burn too many fire, fire make hot.", it's a comparatively tiny shift in a delicate balance.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Yes. Sunlight that makes it to the surface is about 170PW. Primary energy is about 17TW this is roughly on the order of what can be utilized without drastically altering the planet. GHG emissions shift the balance by about 200TW which is enough to be extremely harmful. 20kW is 170TW which is enough to be similarly harmful (although not to escalate to being apocalyptic). 2000MW per person is enough to raise the temperature of the entire earth (the whole thing, not the surface) by 25 degrees a year.