3 ms·

Are the physical capacities of space and time capable of getting us to scale in these technologies? Only so much energy comes from the sun per square foot. Batt

by chimi 14y ago

Are the physical capacities of space and time capable of getting us to scale in these technologies? Only so much energy comes from the sun per square foot. Batteries can only store so much of that. There are only so many tons of required metals on the planet to create all the infrastructure, solar panels and electric motors we will need? I don't know yet for sure if it's possible to maintain our current quality of life given the resources we have at our earthly disposal.

Retric 14y ago
The long term solution to electric cars is electrified highways not better battery's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irisbus_Cristalis_ETB18_C1_Lyon_TCL_PDVM_Ibou.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irisbus_Cristalis_ETB18_C1... Also, we use ~474 exajoules of energy per year, the sun provides ~3,850,000 exajules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy Collecting 1% of that energy could easily support a western style lifestyle for 10 billion people.
- pif 14y ago
  > Collecting 1% of that energy could easily support a western style lifestyle for 10 billion people. Yes, but how can we collect that 1%? Even considering 100% efficiency for solar panels, we'd need to cover 1% of the global Earth surface (land and oceans). Even more, we'd need at least to double it in order to have a 1% covered 24h/24. I'm afraid we don't have all the required material.
  - Retric 14y ago
    Wind and Hydro collect far more solar power than a solar panel as far a surface area is concerned and requires little in the way of rare materials. Also, we cover more than 1% of the earth with plants, but they don't tend to be all that efficient bump them into the 15+% range by say genetically engineering something to collect wavelengths that Chlorophyll skips over and the numbers get intense. We also farm the oceans but focus way to high on the food chain to get much in the way of efficiency. PS: There are also plenty of raw materials to cover the earth in solar panels but that's hardly unnecessary. But as far as the raw numbers go, covering 10% of the worlds oceans with floating solar collectors is vary doable and has a lower impact. (At the cost of significant climate change.)
  - Retric 14y ago
    Also the earth is a sphere, if you focus on where the sun is, and used tracking solar collectors you could probably get away with 1/2 of 1% of the earths total surface area @100% efficiency. And even less than that if you added wind, hydro, and geothermal. PS: Or ~1.5% with 33% efficient solar panels. Which might seem like a lot, but we already use a lot of land to generate energy.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 14y ago
We require multiple worlds of resources for the human population to live at what we presently deem a good quality of life. For some reason we assume this means collapsing our living standards down to the third world. More reasonable, I believe, is acknowledging that there are an infinite supply of worlds.
- noonespecial 14y ago
  And nice bite sized, pre chunked world nuggets known as asteroids.

by chimi 14y ago

Retric 14y ago

The long term solution to electric cars is electrified highways not better battery's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irisbus_Cristalis_ETB18_C1_Lyon_TCL_PDVM_Ibou.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irisbus_Cristalis_ETB18_C1... Also, we use ~474 exajoules of energy per year, the sun provides ~3,850,000 exajules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy Collecting 1% of that energy could easily support a western style lifestyle for 10 billion people.

pif 14y ago
> Collecting 1% of that energy could easily support a western style lifestyle for 10 billion people. Yes, but how can we collect that 1%? Even considering 100% efficiency for solar panels, we'd need to cover 1% of the global Earth surface (land and oceans). Even more, we'd need at least to double it in order to have a 1% covered 24h/24. I'm afraid we don't have all the required material.
- Retric 14y ago
  Wind and Hydro collect far more solar power than a solar panel as far a surface area is concerned and requires little in the way of rare materials. Also, we cover more than 1% of the earth with plants, but they don't tend to be all that efficient bump them into the 15+% range by say genetically engineering something to collect wavelengths that Chlorophyll skips over and the numbers get intense. We also farm the oceans but focus way to high on the food chain to get much in the way of efficiency. PS: There are also plenty of raw materials to cover the earth in solar panels but that's hardly unnecessary. But as far as the raw numbers go, covering 10% of the worlds oceans with floating solar collectors is vary doable and has a lower impact. (At the cost of significant climate change.)
- Retric 14y ago
  Also the earth is a sphere, if you focus on where the sun is, and used tracking solar collectors you could probably get away with 1/2 of 1% of the earths total surface area @100% efficiency. And even less than that if you added wind, hydro, and geothermal. PS: Or ~1.5% with 33% efficient solar panels. Which might seem like a lot, but we already use a lot of land to generate energy.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 14y ago

We require multiple worlds of resources for the human population to live at what we presently deem a good quality of life. For some reason we assume this means collapsing our living standards down to the third world. More reasonable, I believe, is acknowledging that there are an infinite supply of worlds.

noonespecial 14y ago
And nice bite sized, pre chunked world nuggets known as asteroids.