| I originally argued against the statement that we will have a "lower energy budget" in 90 years. In short, I am arguing about developments that will come home to roost in less than a decade -- and disprove your statements. Even if these developments take five times as long, you are still vertigo-inducing wrong... You are arguing like some sort of inverse Kurzweil. :-) >>Solar cells are promising They will never help much where I live. But not many live here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8386460.stm People in the highly populated parts of Europe will literally need a reason to not put them on the house -- in just a few years. Then add 80 more years of tech development... Consider how much energy you'll get from solar cells in a city's total roof area. 1 square meter under the equator is 1 kW. If every person have 10 square meters of solar cells, it should be enough for all energy use (below the polar circle). (The same goes for energy storage, developed over 90 years.) >>Uranium is non-renewable. Check up on Thorium reactors (and also on more modern versions of normal reactors, which burns a larger fraction of the fuel). Then add 90 more years of development... There is lots of Uranium in the ground. Raise the prices and it will come up. >>And fusion is yet to prove it can provide enough energy. We will know about e.g. General Fusion, Polywell and TriAlpha in just a few years. Realistically, I'd not give that large chance for the individual projects (10%? 20%?). But I'd be surprised if nothing like that comes along in 90 years. Just consider space based solar, with the next-next-next-next generation of super cheap launch systems. |
Given increasing population, how much more energy do you expect to be able to use? While true we may be able to increase our energy usage, I doubt most of mankind will be able to use as much as we do.
Also, do you realize how much effort (and energy expenditure) would it be to manufacture 10 square meters for every human being alive? Count 10 billion people - that's 100 billion square meters, not counting replacing damaged solar cells.
Nuclear fission is also a point that could be much improved, but it is pretty much a dead end unless we discover some new laws of physics. Nuclear facilities are horrendously expensive to build and to safely manage. There are safer designs, but how much safe is safe in a world you have to guard nuclear fuel (and waste) and keep if from people who are willing to blow themselves up?
As for fusion, you could add the chances of success if they were completely different approaches, but they are not. Also, giving them even a 10% chance of success is very optimistic.
There is no reason to panic, but there is reason to proceed carefully and think through what we are doing and what we are going to do.