3 ms·

I'm sorry but I don't think your reasoning holds up. It does not make sense to say that it is physically unavoidable to exponentially scale pollution. Polluti

by smokel 3y ago

I'm sorry but I don't think your reasoning holds up. It does not make sense to say that it is physically unavoidable to exponentially scale pollution. Pollution is having unwanted substances in our environment. If we ever get to the point that we can actually construct a Dyson sphere, it seems likely that we could also dispose of unwanted substances, and place them outside of our environment, i.e. the outside of the sphere. As a more realistic example, wind and solar power do not seem to increase pollution (at least not in the most obvious way), but they do increase our access to more energy. Also, Freeman Dyson is no longer with us, so he will probably not be able to change his mind anymore. He was a skeptic, and I dare not say that I agree or disagree with him, but I must say that you're portraying him very poorly, and the linked article is much more nuanced than that.

mempko 3y ago
Lets say you have a process that uses all available energy and energy grows exponentially at say 2% per year. This means energy doubles every 35 years and so does the usage of it. If the process is 95% efficient at using the energy for useful work, that means 5% of the energy used is waste/pollution (could be in the form of heat or something else). By definition, for every doubling of energy created and used, you have a doubling of pollution. This should be obvious. To prevent the doubling the amount of pollution generated for any given year, you must increase efficiency by the same amount (double efficiency in 35 years). It should be obvious that it's impossible to use 100% of energy available for useful work without waste. There is always waste. That's what I mean that it's physically unavoidable to exponentially grow pollution if you exponentially grow energy use.
- smokel 3y ago
  I understand the math, but waste and pollution are two different things. There may be exponentially more waste, but if that waste would consist solely of heat that could be dissipated to the outside of the sphere (we're still discussing the Dyson Sphere structure), then there need not be any pollution at all. I understand that it is impossible to ever reach 100% efficiency in harvesting energy. But in principle, if the inefficiency would be in the form of heat only, then one might easily dissipate more than 100% of that, and we'd even cool down. Note the use of the word "easily" in a context where we're actually building Dyson spheres. Unfortunately, this is all very hypothetical, and perhaps that is the source of our confusion here. Building a Dyson Sphere will probably not start in our lifetimes, and present energy sources tend to do pollute our atmosphere, so there are still some practical problems to solve :/
  - breuleux 3y ago
    > if that waste would consist solely of heat that could be dissipated to the outside of the sphere (we're still discussing the Dyson Sphere structure) If we build a Dyson sphere, I very much doubt we would live inside of it. We'd rather be beaming the energy to Earth and other inhabited areas.

by smokel 3y ago

mempko 3y ago

Lets say you have a process that uses all available energy and energy grows exponentially at say 2% per year. This means energy doubles every 35 years and so does the usage of it. If the process is 95% efficient at using the energy for useful work, that means 5% of the energy used is waste/pollution (could be in the form of heat or something else). By definition, for every doubling of energy created and used, you have a doubling of pollution. This should be obvious. To prevent the doubling the amount of pollution generated for any given year, you must increase efficiency by the same amount (double efficiency in 35 years). It should be obvious that it's impossible to use 100% of energy available for useful work without waste. There is always waste. That's what I mean that it's physically unavoidable to exponentially grow pollution if you exponentially grow energy use.

smokel 3y ago
I understand the math, but waste and pollution are two different things. There may be exponentially more waste, but if that waste would consist solely of heat that could be dissipated to the outside of the sphere (we're still discussing the Dyson Sphere structure), then there need not be any pollution at all. I understand that it is impossible to ever reach 100% efficiency in harvesting energy. But in principle, if the inefficiency would be in the form of heat only, then one might easily dissipate more than 100% of that, and we'd even cool down. Note the use of the word "easily" in a context where we're actually building Dyson spheres. Unfortunately, this is all very hypothetical, and perhaps that is the source of our confusion here. Building a Dyson Sphere will probably not start in our lifetimes, and present energy sources tend to do pollute our atmosphere, so there are still some practical problems to solve :/
- breuleux 3y ago
  > if that waste would consist solely of heat that could be dissipated to the outside of the sphere (we're still discussing the Dyson Sphere structure) If we build a Dyson sphere, I very much doubt we would live inside of it. We'd rather be beaming the energy to Earth and other inhabited areas.