4 ms·
When someone suggests energy, fuel, fresh water are in danger of "running out", you should ask them to sketch what they think the supply curve is for those reso
by uvdiv 15y ago
When someone suggests energy, fuel, fresh water are in danger of "running out", you should ask them to sketch what they think the supply curve is for those resources. They have something in common: a horizontal asymptote. With energy, it's a virtually inifinite supply at a price somewhere between 1-2x coal (nuclear fission) to a conservative 4-8x (solar) -- this for existing technology, today. For water, such an asymptote is desalination cost somewhere around 1-2x treated tap water. Similar stories for fuel -- EVs are one asymptote. In the left corner there's a short slope with a cheap, very limited resource (coal, petroleum, groundwater); then at a slightly higher price you have an infinite supply. I interpret this as saying, in the worst case, developed countries' crisis amounts to trivial negative economic adjustements ("trivial" compared to, e.g. everything else that happens through 2050...); and in the expected case, pretty unremarkable technology gains combine with massive economic growth give you far more, for far less. (The "optimistic" case is singularitarian...)
- nyellin 15y agoThere are theoretical upper limits on energy consumption: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
- uvdiv 15y agoI lost his reasoning somewhere between the astrophysical power output of a galaxy being ~10^37 watts, to the conflation of energy with economic utility, to the endorsement of deindustrialization and world socialism.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- benmccann 15y agoMy limited understanding of desalinization is that we avoid it not because of the expense, but because it's environmentally damaging to put a giant pipe in the ocean sucking up water that happens to bring a lot of fish and such with it.
- tomjen3 15y agoNo problem. Soon there will not be that many fish left in the ocean so that won't matter any more.
- ph0rque 15y agoWhere do you think the water goes once we're done with it?
- macavity23 15y agoThe biggest problem is what to do with the highly-concentrated brine after you've extracted the water - e.g. http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/hodges/site2006/project_pages/project_desalination_brine.htm http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/hodges/site2006/project_pages/...
- kondro 15y agoI think you severely overestimate how much water an average desalination plant can process.
- phil 15y agoIf you really believe there's an infinite amount of constant-price solar power available, I've got a solar panel the size of Manitoba to sell you.
- ra 15y agoHe said 'virtually infinite', which I think is reasonable if you take that to mean 'more than we could ever use'. Already today there are large scale solar development projects that, if scaled, offer the potential to supply enough electricity for a whole continent. eg:[1]. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/11/sahara-solar-panels-green-electricity http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/11/sahara-sol...
- acqq 15y agoSee nyellin's post with the link, I repeat it for convenience: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e... Tom Murphy calculates that with the energy needs increasing only "2.3% more per year" the whole solid earth would have to be covered with the solar panels in 275 years. 2.3% per year is 10 times more energy needed in 100 years, 1000 times more in 300 years. If you don't agree please point to the errors in his calculations. Start from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation "The irradiance at the Earth's surface to approximately 1000 W / m2 for a surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays at sea level on a clear day." Then calculate that most of the surface is not perpendicular, factor the whole land area on Earth. I come to around 3e16 W falling on the land area of Earth. World energy consumption in 2008 was 1.5e13 W according to Wikipedia and the growth in 2010 was 5% which is much faster need growth -- approx 10 times in 50 years == 100 times in 100 years == 10000 times in 200 years! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption So if we cover all the Earth land area with 100% efficient solar panels, we get only 3e16/1.5e13 = 2000 times more energy than we use now. With 5% per years growth, we'd need more than that in around 150 years.
- jamesaguilar 15y ago
- sampsonjs 15y agoIf you think solar or nuclear power will bring nigh infinite energy, say "solar/nuclear power will bring us nigh infinite energy." Using the words "asymptote" and "singularitarian" adds nothing to your highly dubious argument. I'm guessing you regret not finding a way to use the word "orthogonal" to mean "unrelated", too.