45 ms·
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
by 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.