Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 07:01:09 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <c4db8c4e924fd1c7ff371d8eb51db362@www.novabbs.com>
References: <20240913a@crcomp.net> <ceff4cd0-7f16-0f42-588b-374e89acf00c@example.net> <vcfq1i$8o8k$2@dont-email.me> <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net> <vcvu4d$3hnv8$1@dont-email.me> <vd1td8$3qtr8$1@dont-email.me> <3ace1b93-9c34-9abb-844b-c83a66d767d5@example.net> <A5eJO.114346$15a6.92744@fx12.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3679095"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="5sGkkzIbbdADfSo2vvlQSyy6vQkiKbuCRuGoclDdANg";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 80dce3cebe7cf4e7a35bf1a47824d0d58e41b1b7
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$coCUkc0LFCLs6WutQKf5/OKW2zMTdi1lI.aq8XnyQKgyk6jpNdfCW
Bytes: 2901
Lines: 35

On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 14:21:20 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Leaving that aside, nuclear and hydro alone cannot supply sufficient
> energy to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels at the historic
> energy growth of 2.3% per annum.  Indeed, that's an exponential growth
> that will eventually hit a sharp and sudden upward curve which leads
> to all kinds of knock-on issues (scarcity, waste heat, etc.).  Consider
> that if energy use growth continues at 2.3% per annum, in 400 years
> the waste heat alone from energy generation will cause the earths
> average surface temperature to exceed the boiling point of water[*].
> Absurd,
> perhaps, to assume that that growth rate is sustainable, but there you
> are.

Maintaining an exponential growth rate in energy consumption is
indeed impossible, and that would remain true even if we had fusion
power.

Hydro has the drawback of only being available in locations where the
geography is suitable.

Wind and solar consume a lot of land per unit of energy produced.

Therefore, in the *short run*, if one wishes to reduce fossil fuel
use, but also wishes to have lots of energy available - say to
support heavy industry for fighting wars - nuclear energy seems to
be the no-carbon way to produce energy that won't run aground on
obvious political obstacles.

Of course we will eventually need to learn to live sustainably on
a static level of energy consumption. However, it will take some
time to do that. For one thing, world peace will have to be achieved
first. Hence, planning how to survive in the near and intermediate
term seems to me to be not without value.

John Savard