undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstouset4y ago0 comments

If we find a cheap new way to generate orders of magnitude more energy, we'll use orders of magnitude more energy.

And you're right. We're only a bit over two hundred years away at 2.3% annualized growth in energy use from noticeably raising Earth's surface temperatures just from a thermodynamic perspective. And that's completely ignoring the effects of greenhouse gases.

0 comments

saiya-jin4y ago

You and parent project this in some theoretical universe where these effects would be ignored. Why on earth do you think so? With semi-unlimited energy at our palms, we can do serious geoengineering. We can put these furnaces into high orbits, or moon and beam down just raw output energy with lasers. Or whatever, even the sky isn't a proverbial limit.

stousetOP4y ago

Unlimited energy doesn't free us from the consequences of thermodynamics. Geoengineering doesn't help us. Where we generate the energy doesn't change anything if it's used here on this planet.

There are literal physical limits here that can't just be handwaved away by space magic. Higher energy use in a finite spherical volume fundamentally results in increased temperatures when your only way of getting rid of that heat is radiation (and not convection or conduction). And we can't just beam that heat away with space magic either thanks to entropy.

Thermodynamics gives us no tools to deal with this problem outside of increasing the spherical volume of Earth (and therefore its surface area).

root_axis4y ago

Fusion isn't magic, more energy doesn't suddenly obviate the burden of practical engineering constraints, we won't be "geoengineering" our way out of climate change for the foreseeable future.

willis9364y ago

A world where energy consumption increases by a factor of 10,000 is a far fetched fantasy. If we're starting with such premises, should they not be followed?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse