Does the world really need 'more power'?

[iollmann]

Notably, we will eventually (very long term) need more power of the right kind. The Earth is in thermodynamic equilibrium with space. If we generally a lot more power here on the surface to power machinery and whatnot, that energy eventually all becomes heat, and shifts the Earth's thermal equilibrium towards hotter. This is no different from excess CO2 causing more heat from the sun to be trapped in our atmosphere resulting in global warming. We can have the same effect if we just generate enough power from power plants.

If the power plant is generating "new" energy that would not otherwise have been on planet Earth, then it heats up the earth. Examples might be fossil fuels, nuclear, and geothermal. If the power plant is using energy that is already at the surface of the Earth, such as wind, hydro or solar, then we are just using the energy that would have become heat to do work before it ultimately becomes heat. So those are more benign. But there are exceptions. We would not want to put large solar mirrors in space to increase solar power generation down here on earth, because that would be directing new radiant energy onto the surface that otherwise would not have been here, thereby increasing the total heat load. If we came up with some way to shed vast amounts of heat into space, then we could afford to go crazy with these other sources of power, but I am not sure what that would be. Maybe someone will build a 200 mile high thermoelectric generator + space elevator. :-)

Fortunately, the amounts of energy here are very very large. Solar irradiance on Earth is about 173,000 TW. Global electricity power production (doesn't include fossil fuels used directly for non electricity production) is currently around mean 3 TW. So it is pretty small at the moment, around .002%. But it is not inconceivable that our power needs might climb to 5-10 times what they are today in our lifetimes, and certainly could go much higher than that. It has doubled in the last 20 years. At that rate, maybe in 200 years, it will be around 2% of total solar irradiance and starting to cause big problems if it is not endogenous energy. The good news is that there is still a huge amount of unclaimed energy hitting the Earth in terms of solar radiation, and we should be able to power healthy economic expansion with that for some centuries to come. It just means papering more of the surface of the Earth with solar panels.

 

[iollmann]

But, but, I don't want to be a herbivore. Well, except, Beyond Burgers and Morning Star "meats" aren't bad. I suppose I could survive on those...

 

[iollmann]

Ultimately the question in the OP comes down to a value judgement because of the word "need". How we decide to live and use our resources is a choice based on what we want for a standard of living.

As far as I know, most if not all developed countries are currently reducing their energy intensity (energy use per person), but developing countries have a long way to go to reach the energy intensity and level of development of the developed countries. But even the developed countries could increase their energy intensity in the future if energy gets cheaper and cleaner. We can always find new ways to expend energy.

We can burn unlimited amounts mining for bitcoin and other make-work problems.
Enforcing scarcity via make-work should be banned.

 

[iollmann]

On technology; power and transportation are probably our most important and best yardsticks. They've been issues/barriers since the dawn of humanity and inventions of new methods can be cited as benchmarks. From walking, to pulling something, to the wheel, to the steam engine, to the rocket ship, we're always asking "what can I power with this?" or "what can I do with this if I have more power?" To me, the slowdown and even pullback of transportation technology in the past 50 years is telling regarding scientific/technological barriers. What is the next technological advancement to rival the inception of the jet age or space travel 60 years ago? It was 66 years from the Wright Flyer to Apollo 11. It's been 51 years since Apollo 11.

I feel that we are in for a dramatic expansion in energy demand. The gating problem right now is the inadequacy of robot general purpose AI to successfully function in the real world. Once that problem is solved, labor is no longer a limiting factor. We can have robot cars, robot domestic servants, robots taking care of robots, robots mining more raw materials to make robots, and robots mining yet more raw materials to make those robots, and ultimately robots to achieve modest efficiency improvements by squishing those humans not needed for robot continuance and using them for axle grease.

Not to mention off world travel, faster offworld travel and relativistic off world travel.

Get labor scarcity out of the way, and the sky is the limit! (or not, since we are talking space travel here..)

 

[cmb]

Notably, we will eventually (very long term) need more power of the right kind. The Earth is in thermodynamic equilibrium with space. If we generally a lot more power here on the surface to power machinery and whatnot, that energy eventually all becomes heat, and shifts the Earth's thermal equilibrium towards hotter. This is no different from excess CO2 causing more heat from the sun to be trapped in our atmosphere resulting in global warming. We can have the same effect if we just generate enough power from power plants.

If the power plant is generating "new" energy that would not otherwise have been on planet Earth, then it heats up the earth. Examples might be fossil fuels, nuclear, and geothermal. If the power plant is using energy that is already at the surface of the Earth, such as wind, hydro or solar, then we are just using the energy that would have become heat to do work before it ultimately becomes heat. So those are more benign. But there are exceptions. We would not want to put large solar mirrors in space to increase solar power generation down here on earth, because that would be directing new radiant energy onto the surface that otherwise would not have been here, thereby increasing the total heat load. If we came up with some way to shed vast amounts of heat into space, then we could afford to go crazy with these other sources of power, but I am not sure what that would be. Maybe someone will build a 200 mile high thermoelectric generator + space elevator. :-)

Fortunately, the amounts of energy here are very very large. Solar irradiance on Earth is about 173,000 TW. Global electricity power production (doesn't include fossil fuels used directly for non electricity production) is currently around mean 3 TW. So it is pretty small at the moment, around .002%. But it is not inconceivable that our power needs might climb to 5-10 times what they are today in our lifetimes, and certainly could go much higher than that. It has doubled in the last 20 years. At that rate, maybe in 200 years, it will be around 2% of total solar irradiance and starting to cause big problems if it is not endogenous energy. The good news is that there is still a huge amount of unclaimed energy hitting the Earth in terms of solar radiation, and we should be able to power healthy economic expansion with that for some centuries to come. It just means papering more of the surface of the Earth with solar panels.

I don't believe we will get to the point where our own heat outputs make a measurable difference, as an actual heat source.

There is also about 20 TW coming out of the Earth (natural nuclear power .. cf https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-Earth's-heat/ ) and so we are in the middle of petawatts in and dozens of terawatts out, and those two heat fluxes have to find an equilibrium with 'the rest-of-universe', which is therefore totally dominated by the radiation processes away from, and reflected off, our planet.

Whatever we do, and whatever the actual reality of those heat fluxes, we either work with them or .. we kill ourselves off. So we're not really going to change them on a millennia-averaged timescale, which I think is your "eventually (very long time scale)". Either we have little to no effect (and seek to change our behaviours if we are having an effect), or as a species we die off. Pretty simple choices, really, take your pick.