Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Tunicate
May 15, 2012

I agree we should spend a lot of money on fusion research.

Because even if we don't crack that nut there's a lot of super useful ancillary stuff to come out of understanding high-energy plasma physics.

And if we do crack that nut we get a cheap power source that runs on water.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tunicate
May 15, 2012

rudatron posted:

There's also a certain level of return on investment you can't really go below, because there's an implicit cost associated with the level of specialization and industrial capacity necessary to even make sonething like a pv cell in the first place.

Another point: Silicon is actual pretty extensive to make energy wise, because you need it to be a pure crystal, which means you have to melt it. But the energy you get from the cell from solar radiation isn't that much, so it had to sit there in the sun for like a couple of years, before you actually start paying that back.

That delay in surplus means that economic growth under a pure solar economy has a hard limit imposed on it, by the fundamental energy accounting process. Any expansion of the energy supply is going to take decades to actually afford, ergo economic activity & growth will be bottle necked by the supply of energy.

Yeah, solar panels as a technology break even on energy sometime this year.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728

Breakeven on greenhouse gasses is sometime next year

Tunicate
May 15, 2012

rudatron posted:

Kaczynski was a reactionary nutter who killed people because he failed at life.

He was a subject of a psych "experiment" at Harvard trying to experimentally determine the long-term effects of being a horrible rear end in a top hat to someone for years (which may have been CIA-backed interrogation research).

Turns out that's not a great idea

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/06/chase3.htm

Tunicate
May 15, 2012

Concordat posted:

hydro has it's own problems, sedimentation, local environmental destruction when creating reservoirs, and most notably, the one you mentioned.


Also occasionally killing a couple hundred thousand people

  • Locked thread