D
Dean Hoffman
Guest
Maybe someone here will be interested.
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
Jan Panteltje
Guest
On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:03:13 -0800 (PST)) it happened Dean
Hoffman <deanh6929@gmail.com> wrote in
<acefbd21-2d70-451c-94fa-ace9212d4694n@googlegroups.com>:
Yes I\'ve read that a while back.
May even work.
Seems we are finally leaving the math equation dictatorship
and moving more and more to a neural net simulation
Can go badly wrong too..
\"Look how nice its working, no idea how though!\"
BANG
oops
Hoffman <deanh6929@gmail.com> wrote in
<acefbd21-2d70-451c-94fa-ace9212d4694n@googlegroups.com>:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Yes I\'ve read that a while back.
May even work.
Seems we are finally leaving the math equation dictatorship
and moving more and more to a neural net simulation
Can go badly wrong too..
\"Look how nice its working, no idea how though!\"
BANG
oops
J
Jeff Layman
Guest
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
<https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?
--
Jeff
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
<https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?
--
Jeff
D
Don Y
Guest
On 2/23/2022 1:11 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
As with AI: \"In the next decade...\" :>
> I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Yes. The Krell. :>
OTOH, Athena posited the idea of \"a VAX of your own\" long before it was
practical for every home to have one.
Taking that as a model, it seems like \"endless energy\" would end up being used
\"for entertainment purposes\"!
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
As with AI: \"In the next decade...\" :>
> I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Yes. The Krell. :>
OTOH, Athena posited the idea of \"a VAX of your own\" long before it was
practical for every home to have one.
Taking that as a model, it seems like \"endless energy\" would end up being used
\"for entertainment purposes\"!
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
J
Jeroen Belleman
Guest
Jeff Layman wrote:
Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.
Jeroen Belleman
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?
Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.
Jeroen Belleman
J
Jeff Layman
Guest
On 23/02/2022 08:16, Don Y wrote:
And look what happened to them; \"Monsters from the id!\" My favourite SF
film; it never ages, and the special effects are years ahead for its time.
I was thinking more that if energy becomes endless, the limiting factor
for production would be raw materials. Would that mean neutrality for
places liked the sea bed and perhaps even the Moon would be over?
--
Jeff
On 2/23/2022 1:11 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
As with AI: \"In the next decade...\" :
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Yes. The Krell. :
And look what happened to them; \"Monsters from the id!\" My favourite SF
film; it never ages, and the special effects are years ahead for its time.
OTOH, Athena posited the idea of \"a VAX of your own\" long before it was
practical for every home to have one.
Taking that as a model, it seems like \"endless energy\" would end up being used
\"for entertainment purposes\"!
I was thinking more that if energy becomes endless, the limiting factor
for production would be raw materials. Would that mean neutrality for
places liked the sea bed and perhaps even the Moon would be over?
--
Jeff
D
Don Y
Guest
On 2/23/2022 2:56 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
Yup. One of the first movies I purchased on laser disc. Though it is odd
to see Leslie Nielsen in a non-slapstick role.
I always thought it would be wicked cool to have a Robbie \"prop\"...
If the universe is limitless...
I prefer, instead, to think about what *actually* would be done with
(practically) unlimited energy (barring \"illegalities\" -- whatever THOSE
might be). I suspect there is a practical limit on energy required for
\"needs\". OTOH, entertainment/frivolity/play is probably limitless.
On 23/02/2022 08:16, Don Y wrote:
On 2/23/2022 1:11 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
As with AI: \"In the next decade...\" :
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Yes. The Krell. :
And look what happened to them; \"Monsters from the id!\" My favourite SF film;
it never ages, and the special effects are years ahead for its time.
Yup. One of the first movies I purchased on laser disc. Though it is odd
to see Leslie Nielsen in a non-slapstick role.
I always thought it would be wicked cool to have a Robbie \"prop\"...
OTOH, Athena posited the idea of \"a VAX of your own\" long before it was
practical for every home to have one.
Taking that as a model, it seems like \"endless energy\" would end up being used
\"for entertainment purposes\"!
I was thinking more that if energy becomes endless, the limiting factor for
production would be raw materials. Would that mean neutrality for places liked
the sea bed and perhaps even the Moon would be over?
If the universe is limitless...
I prefer, instead, to think about what *actually* would be done with
(practically) unlimited energy (barring \"illegalities\" -- whatever THOSE
might be). I suspect there is a practical limit on energy required for
\"needs\". OTOH, entertainment/frivolity/play is probably limitless.
M
Mike Monett
Guest
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Fusion is Fraud
It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,
but it will never be commercially practical, especially with the
plummeting cost of renewable sources like solar and wind.
The solution is Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. This was
demonstrated in the 1960\'s and ran for years with no significant
problems. It was discarded since the focus at that time was
pressurized water reactors for submarines, and the production of
plutonium for atomic bombs. However, there is a recent resurgence in
Molten Salt, which offers continuous power when the sun goes down
and the wind stops blowing.
Here is some more information on continuous energy sources:
1. Fusion
How close is nuclear fusion power?
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY
Fusion Has Major Problems That No One Is Telling You About
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrUWoywZRt8
Former fusion scientist on why we won\'t have fusion power by 2040
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JurplDfPi3U
In defense of \"Q-plasma\" - a response to Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtqC8W0_Ups
ITER: The $65BN Power Plant of the Future
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCpWPJrH7TA
ITER: The World\'s Biggest Nuclear Fusion Mega Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4puRMttZho
2. Molten Salt Works and is cheaper than coal or nuclear power
1957 to 1960 Oak Ridge The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o
Thorium Lifters Could Power Civilization for BILLIONS of Years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74iiaXIVtZI
TC No. 6 - Kirk Sorensen: \"Thorium - A Global Alternative\" Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IjC7vuJ3iE
China Is Building a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EFfxMx6WJs
3. Molten Salt can burn conventional nuclear waste
Elysium Just Made A Nuclear Waste Eating Reactor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6BGLgJY0Wg
This Molten Salt Reactor EATS Nuclear Waste
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6BGLgJY0Wg
4. Nuclear Waste: Fission Products, Decay Products, Transuranics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neU0KGgQ0Z4
Among the fission products are xenon, neodymium, zirconium, and molebdenum.
- xenon is used in satellite propulsion
- neodymium is used in electric cars
- zirconium is strong, malleable, corrosion resistant, with many uses
- molebdenum is used in carbides and high-strength alloys and superalloys
- molebdenum is a trace element essential for life
5. Radioactivity
5A. Isotopes of xenon
Naturally occurring xenon (54Xe) consists of seven stable isotopes
and two very long-lived isotopes. Double electron capture has been
observed in 124Xe (half-life 1.8 +/- 0.5(stat) +/- 0.1(sys) x1022
years)[1] and double beta decay in 136Xe (half-life 2.165 +/-
0.016(stat) +/- 0.059(sys) x1021 years),[2] which are among the
longest measured half-lives of all nuclides. The isotopes 126Xe and
134Xe are also predicted to undergo double beta decay,[4] but this
has never been observed in these isotopes, so they are considered to
be stable.[5][6] Beyond these stable forms, 32 artificial unstable
isotopes and various isomers have been studied, the longest-lived of
which is 127Xe with a half-life of 36.345 days. All other isotopes
have half-lives less than 12 days, most less than 20 hours. The
shortest-lived isotope, 108Xe,[7] has a half-life of 58 ?s, and is
the heaviest known nuclide with equal numbers of protons and
neutrons. Of known isomers, the longest-lived is 131mXe with a
half-life of 11.934 days. 129Xe is produced by beta decay of 129I
(half-life: 16 million years); 131mXe, 133Xe, 133mXe, and 135Xe are
some of the fission products of both 235U and 239Pu, so are used as
indicators of nuclear explosions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_xenon
5B. Isotopes of neodymium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Naturally occurring neodymium (60Nd) is composed of 5 stable
isotopes, 142Nd, 143Nd, 145Nd, 146Nd and 148Nd, with 142Nd being the
most abundant (27.2% natural abundance), and 2 long-lived
radioisotopes, 144Nd and 150Nd. In all, 33 radioisotopes of
neodymium have been characterized up to now, with the most stable
being naturally occurring isotopes 144Nd (alpha decay, a half-life
(t1/2) of 2.29x1015 years) and 150Nd (double beta decay, t1/2 of
7x1018 years).
All of the remaining radioactive isotopes have half-lives that are
less than 12 days, and the majority of these have half-lives that
are less than 70 seconds; the most stable artificial isotope is
147Nd with a half-life of 10.98 days. This element also has 13 known
meta states with the most stable being 139mNd (t1/2 5.5 hours),
135mNd (t1/2 5.5 minutes) and 133m1Nd (t1/2 ~70 seconds).
The primary decay modes before the most abundant stable isotope,
142Nd, are electron capture and positron decay, and the primary mode
after is beta decay. The primary decay products before 142Nd are
element Pr (praseodymium) isotopes and the primary products after
are element Pm (promethium) isotopes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_neodymium
5C. Isotopes of molybdenum
Molybdenum (42Mo) has 33 known isotopes, ranging in atomic mass from
83 to 115, as well as four metastable nuclear isomers. Seven
isotopes occur naturally, with atomic masses of 92, 94, 95, 96, 97,
98, and 100. All unstable isotopes of molybdenum decay into isotopes
of zirconium, niobium, technetium, and ruthenium.[2]
Molybdenum-100 is the only naturally occurring isotope that is not
stable. Molybdenum-100 has a half-life of approximately 1x1019 y and
undergoes double beta decay into ruthenium-100. Molybdenum-98 is the
most common isotope, comprising 24.14% of all molybdenum on Earth.
Molybdenum isotopes with mass numbers 111 and up all have half-lives
of approximately .15 s.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_molybdenum
5D. Isotopes of zirconium
Naturally occurring zirconium (40Zr) is composed of four stable
isotopes (of which one may in the future be found radioactive), and
one very long-lived radioisotope (96Zr), a primordial nuclide that
decays via double beta decay with an observed half-life of 2.0x1019
years;[3] it can also undergo single beta decay, which is not yet
observed, but the theoretically predicted value of t1/2 is 2.4x1020
years.[4] The second most stable radioisotope is 93Zr, which has a
half-life of 1.53 million years. Thirty other radioisotopes have
been observed. All have half-lives less than a day except for 95Zr
(64.02 days), 88Zr (83.4 days), and 89Zr (78.41 hours). The primary
decay mode is electron capture for isotopes lighter than 92Zr, and
the primary mode for heavier isotopes is beta decay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_zirconium
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?
Fusion is Fraud
It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,
but it will never be commercially practical, especially with the
plummeting cost of renewable sources like solar and wind.
The solution is Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. This was
demonstrated in the 1960\'s and ran for years with no significant
problems. It was discarded since the focus at that time was
pressurized water reactors for submarines, and the production of
plutonium for atomic bombs. However, there is a recent resurgence in
Molten Salt, which offers continuous power when the sun goes down
and the wind stops blowing.
Here is some more information on continuous energy sources:
1. Fusion
How close is nuclear fusion power?
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY
Fusion Has Major Problems That No One Is Telling You About
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrUWoywZRt8
Former fusion scientist on why we won\'t have fusion power by 2040
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JurplDfPi3U
In defense of \"Q-plasma\" - a response to Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtqC8W0_Ups
ITER: The $65BN Power Plant of the Future
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCpWPJrH7TA
ITER: The World\'s Biggest Nuclear Fusion Mega Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4puRMttZho
2. Molten Salt Works and is cheaper than coal or nuclear power
1957 to 1960 Oak Ridge The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o
Thorium Lifters Could Power Civilization for BILLIONS of Years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74iiaXIVtZI
TC No. 6 - Kirk Sorensen: \"Thorium - A Global Alternative\" Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IjC7vuJ3iE
China Is Building a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EFfxMx6WJs
3. Molten Salt can burn conventional nuclear waste
Elysium Just Made A Nuclear Waste Eating Reactor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6BGLgJY0Wg
This Molten Salt Reactor EATS Nuclear Waste
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6BGLgJY0Wg
4. Nuclear Waste: Fission Products, Decay Products, Transuranics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neU0KGgQ0Z4
Among the fission products are xenon, neodymium, zirconium, and molebdenum.
- xenon is used in satellite propulsion
- neodymium is used in electric cars
- zirconium is strong, malleable, corrosion resistant, with many uses
- molebdenum is used in carbides and high-strength alloys and superalloys
- molebdenum is a trace element essential for life
5. Radioactivity
5A. Isotopes of xenon
Naturally occurring xenon (54Xe) consists of seven stable isotopes
and two very long-lived isotopes. Double electron capture has been
observed in 124Xe (half-life 1.8 +/- 0.5(stat) +/- 0.1(sys) x1022
years)[1] and double beta decay in 136Xe (half-life 2.165 +/-
0.016(stat) +/- 0.059(sys) x1021 years),[2] which are among the
longest measured half-lives of all nuclides. The isotopes 126Xe and
134Xe are also predicted to undergo double beta decay,[4] but this
has never been observed in these isotopes, so they are considered to
be stable.[5][6] Beyond these stable forms, 32 artificial unstable
isotopes and various isomers have been studied, the longest-lived of
which is 127Xe with a half-life of 36.345 days. All other isotopes
have half-lives less than 12 days, most less than 20 hours. The
shortest-lived isotope, 108Xe,[7] has a half-life of 58 ?s, and is
the heaviest known nuclide with equal numbers of protons and
neutrons. Of known isomers, the longest-lived is 131mXe with a
half-life of 11.934 days. 129Xe is produced by beta decay of 129I
(half-life: 16 million years); 131mXe, 133Xe, 133mXe, and 135Xe are
some of the fission products of both 235U and 239Pu, so are used as
indicators of nuclear explosions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_xenon
5B. Isotopes of neodymium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Naturally occurring neodymium (60Nd) is composed of 5 stable
isotopes, 142Nd, 143Nd, 145Nd, 146Nd and 148Nd, with 142Nd being the
most abundant (27.2% natural abundance), and 2 long-lived
radioisotopes, 144Nd and 150Nd. In all, 33 radioisotopes of
neodymium have been characterized up to now, with the most stable
being naturally occurring isotopes 144Nd (alpha decay, a half-life
(t1/2) of 2.29x1015 years) and 150Nd (double beta decay, t1/2 of
7x1018 years).
All of the remaining radioactive isotopes have half-lives that are
less than 12 days, and the majority of these have half-lives that
are less than 70 seconds; the most stable artificial isotope is
147Nd with a half-life of 10.98 days. This element also has 13 known
meta states with the most stable being 139mNd (t1/2 5.5 hours),
135mNd (t1/2 5.5 minutes) and 133m1Nd (t1/2 ~70 seconds).
The primary decay modes before the most abundant stable isotope,
142Nd, are electron capture and positron decay, and the primary mode
after is beta decay. The primary decay products before 142Nd are
element Pr (praseodymium) isotopes and the primary products after
are element Pm (promethium) isotopes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_neodymium
5C. Isotopes of molybdenum
Molybdenum (42Mo) has 33 known isotopes, ranging in atomic mass from
83 to 115, as well as four metastable nuclear isomers. Seven
isotopes occur naturally, with atomic masses of 92, 94, 95, 96, 97,
98, and 100. All unstable isotopes of molybdenum decay into isotopes
of zirconium, niobium, technetium, and ruthenium.[2]
Molybdenum-100 is the only naturally occurring isotope that is not
stable. Molybdenum-100 has a half-life of approximately 1x1019 y and
undergoes double beta decay into ruthenium-100. Molybdenum-98 is the
most common isotope, comprising 24.14% of all molybdenum on Earth.
Molybdenum isotopes with mass numbers 111 and up all have half-lives
of approximately .15 s.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_molybdenum
5D. Isotopes of zirconium
Naturally occurring zirconium (40Zr) is composed of four stable
isotopes (of which one may in the future be found radioactive), and
one very long-lived radioisotope (96Zr), a primordial nuclide that
decays via double beta decay with an observed half-life of 2.0x1019
years;[3] it can also undergo single beta decay, which is not yet
observed, but the theoretically predicted value of t1/2 is 2.4x1020
years.[4] The second most stable radioisotope is 93Zr, which has a
half-life of 1.53 million years. Thirty other radioisotopes have
been observed. All have half-lives less than a day except for 95Zr
(64.02 days), 88Zr (83.4 days), and 89Zr (78.41 hours). The primary
decay mode is electron capture for isotopes lighter than 92Zr, and
the primary mode for heavier isotopes is beta decay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_zirconium
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is \"economic growth cannot continue indefinitely\", and gets immediately replaced by the \"energy scale expanding into the future\". These are not the same things at all.
I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist\'s position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the 80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine before. We find new technology that allows better products using less material and energy. We discover new means of medical diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.
None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption. The entire argument is specious.
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is \"economic growth cannot continue indefinitely\", and gets immediately replaced by the \"energy scale expanding into the future\". These are not the same things at all.
I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist\'s position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the 80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine before. We find new technology that allows better products using less material and energy. We discover new means of medical diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.
None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption. The entire argument is specious.
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:27:16 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett wrote:
It has to be scaled up to start actually generating power.
You\'ve got to dissipate the waste heat after you\'ve used to do whatever you want to. Anybody who has ever worked with power electronics should be conscious of that particular limit.
> Fusion is Fraud
Twaddle. The sun has been working fine for the past few billion years. Getting a scheme that can produce less energy, in a smaller space, with better control, is taking a while, but nobody has been promising that it can be made to work overnight. There\'s no fraud involved . You might prefer that the investment was directed to what you imagine might be more promising projects, but that\'s a personal opinion.
> It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will never power cities.
Why ?
The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work, but it will never be commercially practical, especially with the plummeting cost of renewable sources like solar and wind.
Having physicists design the equipment isn\'t a way to get something cheap or simple. ITER is a proof of principle machine, and it has to be flexible enough to cover a range of operating conditions. Once you have got something that works you can start refining the design to make it work well at whatever the optimal operating conditions turn out to be, and leave out most of the bells an whistles that tell you exactly what\'s going on and all the knobs that graduate students love to twiddle.
> The solution is Thorium Molten Salt Reactors.
It might be a solution, but it has most of the problems of U-235 based reactors, which do seem to be hideously expensive
And much the same sort of radioactive waste as regular U-235 based reactors.. It\'s not the same waste - the U-238 in regular reactors isn\'t there to make it\'s contribution - but it\'s bad enough to need the same kind of care for a couple of hundred thousand years.
> Here is some more information on continuous energy sources:
<snipped - life\'s to short to spend it sorting through propaganda>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"
It has to be scaled up to start actually generating power.
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?
You\'ve got to dissipate the waste heat after you\'ve used to do whatever you want to. Anybody who has ever worked with power electronics should be conscious of that particular limit.
> Fusion is Fraud
Twaddle. The sun has been working fine for the past few billion years. Getting a scheme that can produce less energy, in a smaller space, with better control, is taking a while, but nobody has been promising that it can be made to work overnight. There\'s no fraud involved . You might prefer that the investment was directed to what you imagine might be more promising projects, but that\'s a personal opinion.
> It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will never power cities.
Why ?
The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work, but it will never be commercially practical, especially with the plummeting cost of renewable sources like solar and wind.
Having physicists design the equipment isn\'t a way to get something cheap or simple. ITER is a proof of principle machine, and it has to be flexible enough to cover a range of operating conditions. Once you have got something that works you can start refining the design to make it work well at whatever the optimal operating conditions turn out to be, and leave out most of the bells an whistles that tell you exactly what\'s going on and all the knobs that graduate students love to twiddle.
> The solution is Thorium Molten Salt Reactors.
It might be a solution, but it has most of the problems of U-235 based reactors, which do seem to be hideously expensive
This was demonstrated in the 1960\'s and ran for years with no significant
problems. It was discarded since the focus at that time was
pressurized water reactors for submarines, and the production of
plutonium for atomic bombs. However, there is a recent resurgence in
Molten Salt, which offers continuous power when the sun goes down
and the wind stops blowing.
And much the same sort of radioactive waste as regular U-235 based reactors.. It\'s not the same waste - the U-238 in regular reactors isn\'t there to make it\'s contribution - but it\'s bad enough to need the same kind of care for a couple of hundred thousand years.
> Here is some more information on continuous energy sources:
<snipped - life\'s to short to spend it sorting through propaganda>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
There\'s validity to that objection, but historically the
energy - wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.
The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit
that we become 16* more energy efficient by some \"magic\"
(Arthur C. Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by
4 doubling generations. And that\'s not enough to invalidate
the basic observations.
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> But
even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and thinks the
physicist\'s position is wrong.
The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is \"economic
growth cannot continue indefinitely\", and gets immediately replaced by the
\"energy scale expanding into the future\". These are not the same things at
all.
I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist\'s position. Seems
that was a common belief among economists in the 80s and 90s. What it fails
to take into account is the ability to do more with less. Computers are a
perfect example. They have allowed us to replace relatively inefficient
humans with machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine
before. We find new technology that allows better products using less
material and energy. We discover new means of medical diagnosis and
treatment extending and improving life.
None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption. The entire
argument is specious.
There\'s validity to that objection, but historically the
energy - wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.
The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit
that we become 16* more energy efficient by some \"magic\"
(Arthur C. Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by
4 doubling generations. And that\'s not enough to invalidate
the basic observations.
S
server
Guest
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
economists. Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
dishonest. Coder thinking. It\'s amusing, so I\'m not complaining.
The conversation in your link was obiously fabricated to show the
author\'s superiority and to make article filler. \"The conversation
recreated here...\" One sees a lot of that.
The guy is missing some crucial points that make his fictitious debate
moot. He\'s not thinking ahead.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
economists. Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
dishonest. Coder thinking. It\'s amusing, so I\'m not complaining.
The conversation in your link was obiously fabricated to show the
author\'s superiority and to make article filler. \"The conversation
recreated here...\" One sees a lot of that.
The guy is missing some crucial points that make his fictitious debate
moot. He\'s not thinking ahead.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
S
server
Guest
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
\"wasted until it no longer is\" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse
mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
production of energy?
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?
Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.
Jeroen Belleman
\"wasted until it no longer is\" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse
mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
production of energy?
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:30:40 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
Why can\'t you see the very obvious fallacy in that argument? The energy *estimate* grew exponentially for a few centuries not because we used more energy per individual, but because the human population grew exponentially. In the last couple of hundred years technology has extended life span, improved farm productivity and otherwise enabled faster population growth... until more recently where the more affluent countries have reduced their population growth.
At the same time, the per capita energy use has increased... until the last 50 years when it also has leveled off in the more affluent parts of the globe.
So the combination of leveling off of population and the leveling off of per capita energy use means we will continue to improve the quality of life as well as economic growth into the foreseeable future.
--
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> But
even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and thinks the
physicist\'s position is wrong.
The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is \"economic
growth cannot continue indefinitely\", and gets immediately replaced by the
\"energy scale expanding into the future\". These are not the same things at
all.
I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist\'s position. Seems
that was a common belief among economists in the 80s and 90s. What it fails
to take into account is the ability to do more with less. Computers are a
perfect example. They have allowed us to replace relatively inefficient
humans with machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine
before. We find new technology that allows better products using less
material and energy. We discover new means of medical diagnosis and
treatment extending and improving life.
None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption. The entire
argument is specious.
There\'s validity to that objection, but historically the
energy - wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.
The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit
that we become 16* more energy efficient by some \"magic\"
(Arthur C. Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by
4 doubling generations. And that\'s not enough to invalidate
the basic observations.
Why can\'t you see the very obvious fallacy in that argument? The energy *estimate* grew exponentially for a few centuries not because we used more energy per individual, but because the human population grew exponentially. In the last couple of hundred years technology has extended life span, improved farm productivity and otherwise enabled faster population growth... until more recently where the more affluent countries have reduced their population growth.
At the same time, the per capita energy use has increased... until the last 50 years when it also has leveled off in the more affluent parts of the globe.
So the combination of leveling off of population and the leveling off of per capita energy use means we will continue to improve the quality of life as well as economic growth into the foreseeable future.
--
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:47:46 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
If nothing else, there is a practical limit to energy use because all energy used must be disposed of. I suppose we could use more energy to get rid of the energy we\'ve used, like the energy used for cooling server farms being more than the energy used in the electronics itself. But at some point even if the energy is \"free\", it becomes a problem in itself. Much like money. At what point does money become a detriment rather than an improvement to the quality of life? Yeah, you can spend money to deal with having money, but ultimately there is a point where it becomes more of a problem than a solution.
--
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On 2/23/2022 2:56 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 23/02/2022 08:16, Don Y wrote:
On 2/23/2022 1:11 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
As with AI: \"In the next decade...\" :
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Yes. The Krell. :
And look what happened to them; \"Monsters from the id!\" My favourite SF film;
it never ages, and the special effects are years ahead for its time.
Yup. One of the first movies I purchased on laser disc. Though it is odd
to see Leslie Nielsen in a non-slapstick role.
I always thought it would be wicked cool to have a Robbie \"prop\"...
OTOH, Athena posited the idea of \"a VAX of your own\" long before it was
practical for every home to have one.
Taking that as a model, it seems like \"endless energy\" would end up being used
\"for entertainment purposes\"!
I was thinking more that if energy becomes endless, the limiting factor for
production would be raw materials. Would that mean neutrality for places liked
the sea bed and perhaps even the Moon would be over?
If the universe is limitless...
I prefer, instead, to think about what *actually* would be done with
(practically) unlimited energy (barring \"illegalities\" -- whatever THOSE
might be). I suspect there is a practical limit on energy required for
\"needs\". OTOH, entertainment/frivolity/play is probably limitless.
If nothing else, there is a practical limit to energy use because all energy used must be disposed of. I suppose we could use more energy to get rid of the energy we\'ve used, like the energy used for cooling server farms being more than the energy used in the electronics itself. But at some point even if the energy is \"free\", it becomes a problem in itself. Much like money. At what point does money become a detriment rather than an improvement to the quality of life? Yeah, you can spend money to deal with having money, but ultimately there is a point where it becomes more of a problem than a solution.
--
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
D
David Brown
Guest
On 23/02/2022 17:00, Rick C wrote:
I wonder if you read the article in detail? (It was quite long.) All
your points are covered there.
Yes, population has increased - but energy usage has increased at a
higher rate. (And yes, that has levelled off somewhat in the past few
decades, in developed countries.)
Yes, efficiency - what we can do with the same amount of energy - has
improved. But in many use-cases, we are relatively near the limit. All
the big leaps have already been made in some areas. The efficiency of,
say, driving an electric motor, or a petrol motor, or lighting houses,
is all within spitting distance of optimal. Being generous and saying
efficiency could be doubled, and that still won\'t last long against
exponential increase.
Efficiency is limited. Energy production is limited. Therefore,
productive work is limited, and economic growth cannot continue
unbounded. That is the gist of the argument, and it is inescapable.
However, there is no physical law hindering slower growth that tails off
- with a growth rate that slows. Exponential economic growth cannot
continue indefinitely, but we could have an S-shaped curve rather than
expecting the J-shaped curve to continue. Then economic growth can
continue into the foreseeable future - but we would not expect to see
\"x% annual growth\".
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:30:40 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is
nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times
the amount of energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of
\"endless\" energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is
\"economic growth cannot continue indefinitely\", and gets
immediately replaced by the \"energy scale expanding into the
future\". These are not the same things at all.
I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist\'s
position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the
80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to
do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have
allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with
machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine
before. We find new technology that allows better products using
less material and energy. We discover new means of medical
diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.
None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption.
The entire argument is specious.
There\'s validity to that objection, but historically the energy -
wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.
The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit that
we become 16* more energy efficient by some \"magic\" (Arthur C.
Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by 4 doubling
generations. And that\'s not enough to invalidate the basic
observations.
Why can\'t you see the very obvious fallacy in that argument? The
energy *estimate* grew exponentially for a few centuries not because
we used more energy per individual, but because the human population
grew exponentially. In the last couple of hundred years technology
has extended life span, improved farm productivity and otherwise
enabled faster population growth... until more recently where the
more affluent countries have reduced their population growth.
At the same time, the per capita energy use has increased... until
the last 50 years when it also has leveled off in the more affluent
parts of the globe.
So the combination of leveling off of population and the leveling off
of per capita energy use means we will continue to improve the
quality of life as well as economic growth into the foreseeable
future.
I wonder if you read the article in detail? (It was quite long.) All
your points are covered there.
Yes, population has increased - but energy usage has increased at a
higher rate. (And yes, that has levelled off somewhat in the past few
decades, in developed countries.)
Yes, efficiency - what we can do with the same amount of energy - has
improved. But in many use-cases, we are relatively near the limit. All
the big leaps have already been made in some areas. The efficiency of,
say, driving an electric motor, or a petrol motor, or lighting houses,
is all within spitting distance of optimal. Being generous and saying
efficiency could be doubled, and that still won\'t last long against
exponential increase.
Efficiency is limited. Energy production is limited. Therefore,
productive work is limited, and economic growth cannot continue
unbounded. That is the gist of the argument, and it is inescapable.
However, there is no physical law hindering slower growth that tails off
- with a growth rate that slows. Exponential economic growth cannot
continue indefinitely, but we could have an S-shaped curve rather than
expecting the J-shaped curve to continue. Then economic growth can
continue into the foreseeable future - but we would not expect to see
\"x% annual growth\".
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 23/02/22 15:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
You have poo-poohed the physics in that article several
times in the past, in particular the thermodynamics of
the earth being a reasonable approximation to a black
body radiator. \"Assume a spherical cow...\" and all that.
Of course it is a fabricated conversation, a classic
gedankenexperimenten. From the introductory first paragraph...
\"Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, âeconomic growth
cannot continue indefinitely,â just to see where things would
go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical
constraintsânot for the first time, but here it was up-close
and personal.\"
Of course, there are /many/ presumptions there; it isn\'t a prediction!
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
economists. Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
dishonest. Coder thinking. It\'s amusing, so I\'m not complaining.
You have poo-poohed the physics in that article several
times in the past, in particular the thermodynamics of
the earth being a reasonable approximation to a black
body radiator. \"Assume a spherical cow...\" and all that.
The conversation in your link was obiously fabricated to show the
author\'s superiority and to make article filler. \"The conversation
recreated here...\" One sees a lot of that.
Of course it is a fabricated conversation, a classic
gedankenexperimenten. From the introductory first paragraph...
\"Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, âeconomic growth
cannot continue indefinitely,â just to see where things would
go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical
constraintsânot for the first time, but here it was up-close
and personal.\"
The guy is missing some crucial points that make his fictitious debate
moot. He\'s not thinking ahead.
Of course, there are /many/ presumptions there; it isn\'t a prediction!
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 23/02/22 16:21, David Brown wrote:
Beat me to it!
I suspect the introductory paragraph was speed-read...
\"Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, âeconomic growth
cannot continue indefinitely,â just to see where things would
go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical
constraintsânot for the first time, but here it was up-close
and personal.\"
Even if you radically reduced the inefficiency of the physical
processes, that would only delay the conclusion by a few years.
That\'s the \"wonder\" of exponential growth!
On 23/02/2022 17:00, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:30:40 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is
nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times
the amount of energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of
\"endless\" energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is
\"economic growth cannot continue indefinitely\", and gets
immediately replaced by the \"energy scale expanding into the
future\". These are not the same things at all.
I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist\'s
position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the
80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to
do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have
allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with
machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine
before. We find new technology that allows better products using
less material and energy. We discover new means of medical
diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.
None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption.
The entire argument is specious.
There\'s validity to that objection, but historically the energy -
wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.
The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit that
we become 16* more energy efficient by some \"magic\" (Arthur C.
Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by 4 doubling
generations. And that\'s not enough to invalidate the basic
observations.
Why can\'t you see the very obvious fallacy in that argument? The
energy *estimate* grew exponentially for a few centuries not because
we used more energy per individual, but because the human population
grew exponentially. In the last couple of hundred years technology
has extended life span, improved farm productivity and otherwise
enabled faster population growth... until more recently where the
more affluent countries have reduced their population growth.
At the same time, the per capita energy use has increased... until
the last 50 years when it also has leveled off in the more affluent
parts of the globe.
So the combination of leveling off of population and the leveling off
of per capita energy use means we will continue to improve the
quality of life as well as economic growth into the foreseeable
future.
I wonder if you read the article in detail? (It was quite long.) All
your points are covered there.
Beat me to it!
I suspect the introductory paragraph was speed-read...
\"Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, âeconomic growth
cannot continue indefinitely,â just to see where things would
go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical
constraintsânot for the first time, but here it was up-close
and personal.\"
Yes, population has increased - but energy usage has increased at a
higher rate. (And yes, that has levelled off somewhat in the past few
decades, in developed countries.)
Yes, efficiency - what we can do with the same amount of energy - has
improved. But in many use-cases, we are relatively near the limit. All
the big leaps have already been made in some areas. The efficiency of,
say, driving an electric motor, or a petrol motor, or lighting houses,
is all within spitting distance of optimal. Being generous and saying
efficiency could be doubled, and that still won\'t last long against
exponential increase.
Efficiency is limited. Energy production is limited. Therefore,
productive work is limited, and economic growth cannot continue
unbounded. That is the gist of the argument, and it is inescapable.
However, there is no physical law hindering slower growth that tails off
- with a growth rate that slows. Exponential economic growth cannot
continue indefinitely, but we could have an S-shaped curve rather than
expecting the J-shaped curve to continue. Then economic growth can
continue into the foreseeable future - but we would not expect to see
\"x% annual growth\".
Even if you radically reduced the inefficiency of the physical
processes, that would only delay the conclusion by a few years.
That\'s the \"wonder\" of exponential growth!
S
server
Guest
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
More outright lies. In quotes yet. Cite.
You\'re a coder, a typist, right? I deal with heat transfer constantly;
not just theory, but theory and design and experiment and products
that work.
How much power do you suppose I can dissipate on one of these boards,
each about 4\" x 14\"?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gr57bhafemypi63/P940_box_9.jpg?dl=0
Yup. Fabrication. Straw man to mock.
Fuzzy thinking on his part. Mindless insults on yours.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/22 15:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
economists. Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
dishonest. Coder thinking. It\'s amusing, so I\'m not complaining.
You have poo-poohed the physics in that article several
times in the past, in particular the thermodynamics of
the earth being a reasonable approximation to a black
body radiator. \"Assume a spherical cow...\" and all that.
More outright lies. In quotes yet. Cite.
You\'re a coder, a typist, right? I deal with heat transfer constantly;
not just theory, but theory and design and experiment and products
that work.
How much power do you suppose I can dissipate on one of these boards,
each about 4\" x 14\"?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gr57bhafemypi63/P940_box_9.jpg?dl=0
The conversation in your link was obiously fabricated to show the
author\'s superiority and to make article filler. \"The conversation
recreated here...\" One sees a lot of that.
Of course it is a fabricated conversation, a classic
gedankenexperimenten. From the introductory first paragraph...
\"Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, economic growth
cannot continue indefinitely, just to see where things would
go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical
constraintsnot for the first time, but here it was up-close
and personal.\"
Yup. Fabrication. Straw man to mock.
The guy is missing some crucial points that make his fictitious debate
moot. He\'s not thinking ahead.
Of course, there are /many/ presumptions there; it isn\'t a prediction!
Fuzzy thinking on his part. Mindless insults on yours.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye