21–30 of 52 posts
How do you handle the heat? At the rate we're going the surface of the Earth would glow like a light bulb in a handful of centuries. > we’re too close to an astounding point for me to leave it unspoken. At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years from…
How do you handle the heat? At the rate we're going the surface of the Earth would glow like a light bulb in a handful of centuries. > we’re too close to an astounding point for me to leave it unspoken. At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years from…
Summary: If energy is free and doesn't impact anything then of course you would want to use more of it. I don't know why they think this is a unique perspective, I guess just pointing out that people don't discriminate by electricity source when they condemn extra energy use beyond what is needed to do a job. If the electricity source is free and does no harm there is no obvious way to label the electrons. I don't un…
My personal inclination makes me a natural devil's advocate and skeptic of political movements across the spectrum. To me, the average supporter of the green agenda sounds like this: We Americans / Europeans are sinful and wasteful with our conspicuous energy consumption, air conditioning and air travel. The only path to redemption is to see the light and worship the planet. Importantly, this means we must practice a…
From the point of view of someone who has rejected this axiom, then the slavish devotion to growth looks like a bizarre cult where the worshippers feed more and more of the very finite resources needed for humans to flourish into a machine that does nothing but bring suffering and enrich a few dozen sociopaths.
Just because a few centre-right statesmen like Biden pay lip service to the idea of not bringing armageddon as quickly as possible while lining their pockets doesn't discredit the century of science, or the very basic mathematical fact that line do not in fact go up indefinitely.
Summary: If energy is free and doesn't impact anything then of course you would want to use more of it. I don't know why they think this is a unique perspective, I guess just pointing out that people don't discriminate by electricity source when they condemn extra energy use beyond what is needed to do a job. If the electricity source is free and does no harm there is no obvious way to label the electrons. I don't un…
How do you handle the heat? At the rate we're going the surface of the Earth would glow like a light bulb in a handful of centuries. > we’re too close to an astounding point for me to leave it unspoken. At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years from…
How do you handle the heat? At the rate we're going the surface of the Earth would glow like a light bulb in a handful of centuries. > we’re too close to an astounding point for me to leave it unspoken. At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years from…
If we’re not using the equivalent of 100% of the total solar input striking earth in 400 years, we’ve gone down the wrong path
How do we handle the heat?
From the same link (as my previous comment):
> the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years. [Pained expression from economist.] And this statement is independent of technology. Even if we don’t have a name for the energy source yet, as long as it obeys thermodynamics, we cook ourselves with perpetual energy increase.
> I like an analogy I heard recently […] If a man is coming at you with the intent to do you harm, it hardly matters what technology he employs: hammer, gun, knife, mace, sword. The technology is neither the problem nor the solution. The fundamental problem is the intent of the assailant. Unless we radically change our intent on this planet, “unlimited” energy—by any technological means—only accelerates our demise. I…
Fortunately, we already have systems of mandatory education in place. Just add Responsible Energy Use 101 to the curriculum.
'... leave for work. On your commute ...' This reads like the jetsons. I agree we should aim for energy abundance, but for what? For a more intense version of the 20th century, with offices, commutes, dinner with the boss, etc? Bah, we need a bolder vision. We could use abundant energy to largely remove agriculture from the environment. It is the second biggest greenhouse emitter even only by official figures, and by…
Perhaps it is the largest industrial category with the largest % of its output turned directly into CO2 and methane? (food waste placed into the landfills instead of composted.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we’re not using the equivalent of 100% of the total solar input striking earth in 400 years, we’ve gone down the wrong path
That's beside the point. How do we handle the heat? From the same link (as my previous comment): > the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to…
Full stop.
Summary: If energy is free and doesn't impact anything then of course you would want to use more of it. I don't know why they think this is a unique perspective, I guess just pointing out that people don't discriminate by electricity source when they condemn extra energy use beyond what is needed to do a job. If the electricity source is free and does no harm there is no obvious way to label the electrons. I don't un…
My personal inclination makes me a natural devil's advocate and skeptic of political movements across the spectrum. To me, the average supporter of the green agenda sounds like this: We Americans / Europeans are sinful and wasteful with our conspicuous energy consumption, air conditioning and air travel. The only path to redemption is to see the light and worship the planet. Importantly, this means we must practice a…