- 07 Dec 2016 03:55
#14746581
That is not truth. AI does not exist even today. If you have evidence of the contrary please provide.
Also not truth. In 1997 only 37% of households had computers. That is 22 years after 1975 (you said 20) and 53% less.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012 ... -2012.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-569.pdf
Although impressive these numbers are far less impressive than what you claimed. Also you ignore the fact that computers DID not have a competitor, let alone a cheaper competitor. Today we have energy competitors that are far cheaper (and will remain like that for a couple of decades). Furthermore the buy-in for solar is far more than the buy-in for computers (at least for the last 30 years).
So please if you going to continue arguing your points with false information tell me now so I refrain from wasting my time.
You said "probably" not definitely. And the fact of the matter is neither of us know for certainty (neither of us are experts in the fields of energy storage, battery technology, nuclear physics, etc) Neither technology exist today. What we are arguing here is when they do exist which one would be preferable.
Let me put it this way. Assuming both of them are possible today which one is more reasonable to use? The one that we can do basically anywhere or the one that we can only use efficiently in some parts of the country because of winter times, cloudy climate, etc.?
Most of which offers only a fraction of the energy storage/weight (energy density) as compared to lithium ion batteries. Also more expensive. As it stands today, graphene batteries seem to be the most sensible alternative since they are expected to hold anywhere between 3x and 5x the capacity of lithium ion (at least for first generation devices) but I doubt we will be seeing these for a while and when we do it will probably be in smaller devices such as phones and tablets and slowly work its way up into cars and eventually houses. Lithium (which does exist today) is not a good option for several reasons. While you might easily put it in 1-5% of the households, there is really not enough lithium in the earth to mine to put in every single house and car in the united states let alone the rest of the word (which is ultimately the final goal anyhow). So except for future technologies that might (or night not) show up in the future, graphene seems to be the only reasonable choice and that is still a while away.
Again. Just because energy is available in abundance does not imply that its exploitation is economically or practically feasible. There is more energy in 1 gram of water than a single house could use for a hundred years yet we cannot use it. And not because something is in nature's system means it is reasonable either. In fact fossil fuel is readily found in nature and the methods that we use to obtain energy from them are by "natural means" yet I think we can at least agree that we should try to cut their use.
That statement is nonsensical as it denies itself. All solar energy is fusion energy but not all fusion energy is solar. So Fusion energy > Solar now and forever period. But I get what you are trying to say (even though you are saying it wrong.)
Not even close. Furthermore not all clean energy is good for our environment. For instance wind turbines cause significant damage to birds. It might not be a big deal today since just a tiny portion of our energy is derived from wind but if lets say 20-30% was produced by these means the damage could (potentially) be rather catastrophically. (similar with damn/hydro electric, natural habitat disruption). The damage caused by these could ultimately be insignificant (and preferable) to the potential of destroying the whole planet. But if climate deniers are "dumb" for not even admitting climate change, we cannot fall into the same fallacy when it comes to reasonable steps to address this problem.
Ultimately I think changing our energy source will just have a minor impact on climate change. Energy production is one of the majors but not the only source of climate problems and even if we can go to 100% clean energy the other things that are contributing to climate change might be just as hard to change. Deforestation and habitat destruction for instance, farm animals methane production, etc. I think climate change will need ACTIVE containment and that we will have to come with technologies to recycle/capture greenhouse gases and other alternatives (there were NASA proposals to even put large diffusion lenses between our sun and our planet to help).
Ah, so has artificial intelligence. It's the combination of declining cost and increasing effectiveness that leads to widespread use.
That is not truth. AI does not exist even today. If you have evidence of the contrary please provide.
Really? In 1975, electronic computers had existed for over 30 years, but far less than 1% of households had one. Within 20 years, over 90% of households had one.
Also not truth. In 1997 only 37% of households had computers. That is 22 years after 1975 (you said 20) and 53% less.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012 ... -2012.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-569.pdf
Although impressive these numbers are far less impressive than what you claimed. Also you ignore the fact that computers DID not have a competitor, let alone a cheaper competitor. Today we have energy competitors that are far cheaper (and will remain like that for a couple of decades). Furthermore the buy-in for solar is far more than the buy-in for computers (at least for the last 30 years).
So please if you going to continue arguing your points with false information tell me now so I refrain from wasting my time.
But probably a lot closer than we are to practical fusion power.
You said "probably" not definitely. And the fact of the matter is neither of us know for certainty (neither of us are experts in the fields of energy storage, battery technology, nuclear physics, etc) Neither technology exist today. What we are arguing here is when they do exist which one would be preferable.
Let me put it this way. Assuming both of them are possible today which one is more reasonable to use? The one that we can do basically anywhere or the one that we can only use efficiently in some parts of the country because of winter times, cloudy climate, etc.?
There are lots of alternatives in the pipe, like flywheel storage, which has been proposed for cars, and capacitors.
Most of which offers only a fraction of the energy storage/weight (energy density) as compared to lithium ion batteries. Also more expensive. As it stands today, graphene batteries seem to be the most sensible alternative since they are expected to hold anywhere between 3x and 5x the capacity of lithium ion (at least for first generation devices) but I doubt we will be seeing these for a while and when we do it will probably be in smaller devices such as phones and tablets and slowly work its way up into cars and eventually houses. Lithium (which does exist today) is not a good option for several reasons. While you might easily put it in 1-5% of the households, there is really not enough lithium in the earth to mine to put in every single house and car in the united states let alone the rest of the word (which is ultimately the final goal anyhow). So except for future technologies that might (or night not) show up in the future, graphene seems to be the only reasonable choice and that is still a while away.
But solar is already reasonable, and has been for hundreds of millions of years: plants use it, and animals extract it from plants. What's really preposterous is thinking we can't make major advances on nature's system within the next few decades.
Again. Just because energy is available in abundance does not imply that its exploitation is economically or practically feasible. There is more energy in 1 gram of water than a single house could use for a hundred years yet we cannot use it. And not because something is in nature's system means it is reasonable either. In fact fossil fuel is readily found in nature and the methods that we use to obtain energy from them are by "natural means" yet I think we can at least agree that we should try to cut their use.
I'll bet you that solar accounts for a larger fraction of all human energy use than fusion as far into the future as it makes sense to speak of human energy use.
That statement is nonsensical as it denies itself. All solar energy is fusion energy but not all fusion energy is solar. So Fusion energy > Solar now and forever period. But I get what you are trying to say (even though you are saying it wrong.)
IMO most will be clean by 2050
Not even close. Furthermore not all clean energy is good for our environment. For instance wind turbines cause significant damage to birds. It might not be a big deal today since just a tiny portion of our energy is derived from wind but if lets say 20-30% was produced by these means the damage could (potentially) be rather catastrophically. (similar with damn/hydro electric, natural habitat disruption). The damage caused by these could ultimately be insignificant (and preferable) to the potential of destroying the whole planet. But if climate deniers are "dumb" for not even admitting climate change, we cannot fall into the same fallacy when it comes to reasonable steps to address this problem.
Ultimately I think changing our energy source will just have a minor impact on climate change. Energy production is one of the majors but not the only source of climate problems and even if we can go to 100% clean energy the other things that are contributing to climate change might be just as hard to change. Deforestation and habitat destruction for instance, farm animals methane production, etc. I think climate change will need ACTIVE containment and that we will have to come with technologies to recycle/capture greenhouse gases and other alternatives (there were NASA proposals to even put large diffusion lenses between our sun and our planet to help).
- By Unthinking Majority
- By Fasces
- By paeng