3 ms·

Even a perfect engine is not 100% efficient, if we don’t find a way to expel more energy or reduce the energy we use, we will only create more heat and will nee

Even a perfect engine is not 100% efficient, if we don’t find a way to expel more energy or reduce the energy we use, we will only create more heat and will need even more energy to deal with it. It is also the case that a large part of the world is simply not built to withstand such temperatures, and using more energy to accommodate that means putting more heat into the atmosphere.

gottorf 3y ago
> we will only create more heat and will need even more energy to deal with it Yes, that's a thermodynamic certainty. But the moment Homo sapiens left the year-round pleasant high plains of East Africa, we were going to need energy; you can't blame the caveman for lighting a stick on fire to keep himself warm. > a large part of the world is simply not built to withstand such temperatures People live in some truly inhospitable places, some cold, some hot, and have done so since before modern conveniences. Unless the plan is to make sure everyone in the world lives in places where you naturally don't need (or want) heat or air conditioning, the extra heat in the atmosphere is the price we must pay.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  I don't think you appreciate what you are asking here. Infrastructure in London was melting last summer, lots of our infrastructure will have to be rebuilt, which is severely inefficient, and will require even more energy.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    Then we must adapt and rebuild the infrastructure. What's the alternative, that everyone just abandon London? Climate scientists agree that if the world stopped all carbon emissions today, at the snap of a magical finger, the planet will continue to warm for the foreseeable future. It seems to me then that the correct path out is through, not backwards. And "through" involves building and rebuilding, using whatever energy sources are economical. By all means, bring renewables in that fold, but renewables alone are far from sufficient. It's not just a matter of everyone driving Teslas instead of F-250s, or indeed even of everyone cramming into electric-powered city buses or walking instead of using automobiles. The primary industries are all still powered by vast amounts of fossil fuels: the huge mining trucks, farm tractors, and backhoes that produce the real things that real people need to consume to survive, have such high energy density requirements that there are no viable electric alternatives yet.

gottorf 3y ago

> we will only create more heat and will need even more energy to deal with it Yes, that's a thermodynamic certainty. But the moment Homo sapiens left the year-round pleasant high plains of East Africa, we were going to need energy; you can't blame the caveman for lighting a stick on fire to keep himself warm. > a large part of the world is simply not built to withstand such temperatures People live in some truly inhospitable places, some cold, some hot, and have done so since before modern conveniences. Unless the plan is to make sure everyone in the world lives in places where you naturally don't need (or want) heat or air conditioning, the extra heat in the atmosphere is the price we must pay.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
I don't think you appreciate what you are asking here. Infrastructure in London was melting last summer, lots of our infrastructure will have to be rebuilt, which is severely inefficient, and will require even more energy.
- gottorf 3y ago
  Then we must adapt and rebuild the infrastructure. What's the alternative, that everyone just abandon London? Climate scientists agree that if the world stopped all carbon emissions today, at the snap of a magical finger, the planet will continue to warm for the foreseeable future. It seems to me then that the correct path out is through, not backwards. And "through" involves building and rebuilding, using whatever energy sources are economical. By all means, bring renewables in that fold, but renewables alone are far from sufficient. It's not just a matter of everyone driving Teslas instead of F-250s, or indeed even of everyone cramming into electric-powered city buses or walking instead of using automobiles. The primary industries are all still powered by vast amounts of fossil fuels: the huge mining trucks, farm tractors, and backhoes that produce the real things that real people need to consume to survive, have such high energy density requirements that there are no viable electric alternatives yet.