7 ms·
"Because we will be in a trough between 20th-century resources and 21st-century needs, in 2012 all storable forms of energy will be expensive. Machines will be
by redthrowaway 14y ago
"Because we will be in a trough between 20th-century resources and 21st-century needs, in 2012 all storable forms of energy will be expensive. Machines will be designed to use only minimal amounts of it. At the same time, there will be a general expectation that a practical cheap-energy delivery system is just around the corner. Individuals basing their career plans on any aspect of technology will concentrate on that future, leaving contemporary machine applications to the less ambitious or to those who foresee a different future. The most socially approved-of individuals will constitute a narrowly focused aristocracy, and will be at the mercy of dull functionaries and secretive rebels who actually perform the day-to-day maintenance of society. It should be noted that most minimal-energy devices process information and microscopic materials, not consumer goods. The function of "our" society may depend on processing information and biotechnology to subjugate goods-producing societies. These societies may be geographically external, or may be yet another social stratum within central North America. In either case, crowd-management technologies will have to turn away from forms that might in any way impair capital goods production. Social regimentation will then have become so deft that most people will regard any other social milieu as pitiable. "
Most were quaintly charming, but that was right on. I'm surprised that fewer authors mentioned the information revolution as being a large force in society.
- maxerickson 14y agoPortable energy isn't particularly expensive. The cheap labor in Asia isn't particularly subjugated (and Western nations produce more material goods in absolute terms, never mind U.S. agriculture). What's left?
- ricardobeat 14y agoPortable energy is extremely expensive. The Tesla Roadster's battery pack costs upwards of $30k and weighs half a ton. Lithium AA batteries cost ~$400-500 per kW.
- illumin8 14y agoA gallon of gasoline costs ~$3.50 and weighs a few pounds.
- jcromartie 14y agoAnd for the curious: contains 36 kWh.
- zeroonetwothree 14y agoDiesel is slightly more efficient too, though I believe it's the most efficient current fuel (energy per volume).
- demallien 14y agoOr, to be more precise, when burned in a modern car engine, produces 36kWh. If I pop it into my handy iMatterToEnergy(tm), I get substantially more...
- smsm42 14y agoIf you had that, you could produce energy directly from air, or from waste, or from whatever. The point of gasoline is that the energy is cheaply extractable by chemical means (which means it does not require extraordinary energy levels to unlock and very expensive machines and protections to operate).
- Retric 14y agoThat's about 20 times what coal costs per equivalent energy. There both carbon based fossil fuels, one's just portable.
- dredmorbius 14y agoBy unit weight, hydrogen is the highest density chemical fuel source, though its low mass/volume density means that per unit of storage volume it rates poorly. LNG is next by weight (though well down the curve). Coal fares rather worse than I would have thought, though it may win on energy/volume. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Energy_density.svg/800px-Energy_density.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/En... Energy densities of various storage media / methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(specific_energy_density) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(specific_... And more energy densities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energies_per_unit_mass#Common_energy_densities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energies_per_unit_mass#Common_... A kilogram of uranium has roughly 20 million times the energy of a kilogram of gasoline. Which has roughly 25 times the energy storage of a kilogram of LiON batteries (and just ekes out kerosene/diesel as well). TNT and gunpowder have surprisingly low energy densities -- it's not their storage capacity, but release rates which give them value (it's also why planes loaded with jet fuel are more effective attack vectors against skyscrapers than missiles loaded with explosives, at least on a total net energy delivery basis).
- twelvechairs 14y ago> Western nations produce more material goods in absolute terms This is a pretty vague statement. Which western nations? Which asian nations? Which material goods? In absolute terms of what? Measured at what point? I'm not saying anything in particular, but can you provide a source so we can see the meaning behind it?
- maxerickson 14y agoDoes it help if I clarify that I meant that Western nations have increased their production of material goods (rather than ceasing it, like is implied in the prediction)? I do see that the way I worded it looks like maybe I was making a comparison to Asia. I don't think it is controversial that U.S. manufacturing output has grown.
- rmc 14y agoI'm surprised that fewer authors mentioned the information revolution as being a large force in society. You can probably conclude that no-one predicted the information revolution. (What people didn't predict or mention is often the most interesting part of past future predictions.)