4 ms·

"It would make no sense to plan on building and replenishing ever larger space sunshades to counter continuing and increasing use of fossil fuel. The same massi

"It would make no sense to plan on building and replenishing ever larger space sunshades to counter continuing and increasing use of fossil fuel. The same massive level of technology innovation and financial investment needed for the sunshade could, if also applied to renewable energy, surely yield better and permanent solutions." - Roger Angel

GekkePrutser 4y ago
That won't be necessary as fossil fuel is limited anyway. We're already past peak oil. Eventually we will have burned it all. But I agree it's a technological bridge too far. I could see it help to fix the damage already done (and the damage to be done before we can move to fully renewable) but I don't think it's realistic. But I don't think other mitigation methods like carbon capture are realistic either (not at a scale to actually matter).
- adastra22 4y ago
  Peak oil is/was a myth. There is at least an order of magnitude more oil than we could ever burn without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. Peak oil as a concept only ever made sense if you assumed a static price of oil. There are immense reserves when the price per barrel rises, or when new technology like fracking opens up new reserves.
  - jabthedang 4y ago
adastra22 4y ago
This is a terrible take. First of all, the price of space launch is plummeting, making the cost of launching a fleet of sun shades drop like a rock. It may soon be veeery affordable. Like, something Elon would do just for the kicks. Second, there are distinct advantages to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It makes agriculture grow more quickly, leading to higher food yields. And the greenhouse effect is mostly independent of latitude so places like Siberia and northern Canada become habitable while the tropics do not become so hot as to be unlivable. Raising the global temp by 2 degrees could double the amount of high quality arable land suitable for dense human habitation. Third, instead of a sunshade we could use a larger translucent film which blocks UV-B light like sunglasses. Imagine a world without skin cancer!
- hoosieree 4y ago
  I'm not an expert but blocking UV-B may have some negative consequences.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Imagine a world where bees can't see the centers of flowers.
    - adastra22 4y ago
      Bees see with UV-A light, not UV-B.
      - uoaei 4y ago
        Bees see with both. UV-A (320-350nm) and UV-B (290-320nm) both overlap with bee visual spectrum (300-650nm). Do you have data on which flowers in which geographical areas reflect with UV-A and/or UV-B? Maybe to bolster your argument you will need to prove that this won't affect bees, and pollinators more generally.
        adastra22 4y ago
        The harmful UV-B rays are under 300nm, and that’s the cutoff for bee vision for the same basic biological reason. Below that limit is what you’d want to filter out.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    It does not. UV-B is ionizing radiation and is incapable of being used by biological processes as a source of energy. About the only effect it has on our biome is that it contributes to the production of ozone, and it is possible that filtering out UV-B might reduce (but not eliminate) the ozone layer. However the main/only benefit of the ozone layer is to filter out UV radiation, so... UV-B is like mosquitos, one of those rare things that really only does cause harm and can be safely eliminated if possible.
- deleted 4y ago
jollyllama 4y ago
Easier from a perspective of organization and governance, too. Energy policy can be managed with existing institutions. If you want to launch a megafleet to block the sun, who they hell do you ask for approval? The UN? How many countries do you need to sign off on it?
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  If the "you" here is not the all powerful US, it's a certainty that there will be a war over the project. If it's the US, it will "just" lose a lot of soft-power.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    What if it's not even the US but some private company with launch capabilities that also may or may not be US based?
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      Friendly reminder that a private company with launch capability currently is massively increasing the space junk problem and about to trigger the Kessler scenario for a quick buck and internet access without cables, while at the same time ruining surface-based astronomy. So why stop there? And as always, the Simpsons have predicted it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LbxDZRgA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LbxDZRgA4
      - marcosdumay 4y ago
        Well, just to keep in mind, internet access without cables is very valuable, and possibly the most valuable use of that space we can have. It's important to control the space junk problem, of course. But not at the cost of not using the space.
      - robbomacrae 4y ago
        I'm no Musk fan but is this true? I thought Starlink was low altitude so everything would fall back down pretty quickly. And while I imagine its not great for astronomy surely it's not much work for some institution or enterprising individual to create a tool for using the known position and timing of such satellites to help remove their impact on images?
mc32 4y ago
One needs it only long enough to tide us (humanity) over till we have viable alternative shoe-in solutions. Without that, turning on a dime away from hydrocarbons toward renewables only will inflict lots of damage to progress and people in both rich and poor countries as well. We need an intermediate solution to attenuate the impact of hydrocarbons while we transition to alternative energy sources gracefully. Lots people who advocate for the "bandage tear-off" fix are those who envision being able to withstand the consequences of such a choice. (Oh, I'll telecommute, I'll take the train, I'll get geothermal, I'll move to a mild climate, etc.) Most people don't have the above choices.
knappe 4y ago
This also puts all of our eggs in one basket. That would seem to be a troublesome thing to do.
boxed 4y ago
That's true. Except the little detail of time. We've already passed the time when that rational and sane option was viable. Now we're in a situation where we need both.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

That won't be necessary as fossil fuel is limited anyway. We're already past peak oil. Eventually we will have burned it all. But I agree it's a technological bridge too far. I could see it help to fix the damage already done (and the damage to be done before we can move to fully renewable) but I don't think it's realistic. But I don't think other mitigation methods like carbon capture are realistic either (not at a scale to actually matter).

adastra22 4y ago
Peak oil is/was a myth. There is at least an order of magnitude more oil than we could ever burn without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. Peak oil as a concept only ever made sense if you assumed a static price of oil. There are immense reserves when the price per barrel rises, or when new technology like fracking opens up new reserves.
- jabthedang 4y ago

adastra22 4y ago

This is a terrible take. First of all, the price of space launch is plummeting, making the cost of launching a fleet of sun shades drop like a rock. It may soon be veeery affordable. Like, something Elon would do just for the kicks. Second, there are distinct advantages to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It makes agriculture grow more quickly, leading to higher food yields. And the greenhouse effect is mostly independent of latitude so places like Siberia and northern Canada become habitable while the tropics do not become so hot as to be unlivable. Raising the global temp by 2 degrees could double the amount of high quality arable land suitable for dense human habitation. Third, instead of a sunshade we could use a larger translucent film which blocks UV-B light like sunglasses. Imagine a world without skin cancer!

hoosieree 4y ago
I'm not an expert but blocking UV-B may have some negative consequences.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Imagine a world where bees can't see the centers of flowers.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Bees see with UV-A light, not UV-B.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      Bees see with both. UV-A (320-350nm) and UV-B (290-320nm) both overlap with bee visual spectrum (300-650nm). Do you have data on which flowers in which geographical areas reflect with UV-A and/or UV-B? Maybe to bolster your argument you will need to prove that this won't affect bees, and pollinators more generally.
      - adastra22 4y ago
        The harmful UV-B rays are under 300nm, and that’s the cutoff for bee vision for the same basic biological reason. Below that limit is what you’d want to filter out.
- adastra22 4y ago
  It does not. UV-B is ionizing radiation and is incapable of being used by biological processes as a source of energy. About the only effect it has on our biome is that it contributes to the production of ozone, and it is possible that filtering out UV-B might reduce (but not eliminate) the ozone layer. However the main/only benefit of the ozone layer is to filter out UV radiation, so... UV-B is like mosquitos, one of those rare things that really only does cause harm and can be safely eliminated if possible.
deleted 4y ago

jollyllama 4y ago

Easier from a perspective of organization and governance, too. Energy policy can be managed with existing institutions. If you want to launch a megafleet to block the sun, who they hell do you ask for approval? The UN? How many countries do you need to sign off on it?

marcosdumay 4y ago
If the "you" here is not the all powerful US, it's a certainty that there will be a war over the project. If it's the US, it will "just" lose a lot of soft-power.
- dylan604 4y ago
  What if it's not even the US but some private company with launch capabilities that also may or may not be US based?
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    Friendly reminder that a private company with launch capability currently is massively increasing the space junk problem and about to trigger the Kessler scenario for a quick buck and internet access without cables, while at the same time ruining surface-based astronomy. So why stop there? And as always, the Simpsons have predicted it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LbxDZRgA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LbxDZRgA4
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      Well, just to keep in mind, internet access without cables is very valuable, and possibly the most valuable use of that space we can have. It's important to control the space junk problem, of course. But not at the cost of not using the space.
    - robbomacrae 4y ago
      I'm no Musk fan but is this true? I thought Starlink was low altitude so everything would fall back down pretty quickly. And while I imagine its not great for astronomy surely it's not much work for some institution or enterprising individual to create a tool for using the known position and timing of such satellites to help remove their impact on images?

mc32 4y ago

One needs it only long enough to tide us (humanity) over till we have viable alternative shoe-in solutions. Without that, turning on a dime away from hydrocarbons toward renewables only will inflict lots of damage to progress and people in both rich and poor countries as well. We need an intermediate solution to attenuate the impact of hydrocarbons while we transition to alternative energy sources gracefully. Lots people who advocate for the "bandage tear-off" fix are those who envision being able to withstand the consequences of such a choice. (Oh, I'll telecommute, I'll take the train, I'll get geothermal, I'll move to a mild climate, etc.) Most people don't have the above choices.

knappe 4y ago

This also puts all of our eggs in one basket. That would seem to be a troublesome thing to do.

boxed 4y ago

That's true. Except the little detail of time. We've already passed the time when that rational and sane option was viable. Now we're in a situation where we need both.