> Have you heard of this new concept called recycling?
Yes, I have. If you have absurdly good 90% recycling - unheard of in this area - and a cycle period of 10 years, you run through material once entirely in less than 500 years.
Sure the Si part is readily available, but what about the metal used for building the thing that transports the thing to the other thing that transports your solar panels for recycling? What about waste products of smelting when recycling? What about the ground water use? And here is the real killer, what about the cost? Show me a design that scales to even 1 billion people, without forcing the rest into slave like conditions.
Our technology, is not sustainable period. Practically none of it is. That thought does not bring joy to me. I used to subscribe to the technology and ingenuity will fix it mindset. But the harsh reality is, 999/1000 needles point in one direction. It's desperation to cling to that one last little maybe, the verdict has been reached. Physics doesn't care about our sentiments or arguments, our politicians can't reason with physics or bribe it.
In Tom Murphy's words:
> Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life.
With enough energy you cook the surface of the earth, if we keep up the current growth in energy use we reach 100C surface temperature in less than 500 years. I don't know about you that's not the place I want to be. Sustainable doesn't mean a sterile world where some billionaires live in 100 million dollar apocalypse shelters. Saying our technology can be sustainable, is akin to saying our research can unlock faster than light travel. I mean sure, how would I prove it can't? But very much like faster than light travel we haven't even figured out the basics. Our recycling doesn't work across million+ cycles like it does in nature. Our engineered materials require enormous waste and land usage. Our economies and societies are built on the premise of endless growth. We don't know how to do any major part of the myriad parts that power modernity for 10k+ years, let alone the whole tree of dependencies. Even if we had progressed past the fundamental theory phase, execution isn't easy, especially if it requires every government in the world cooperating.
So I don't know about you, but I wouldn't bet the well being of our children on humanity discovering and commercializing faster than light travel within our lifetime. Because that's what you are suggesting.
"if we keep up the current growth in energy use we reach 100C surface temperature in less than 500 years"
Citation needed.
"Our economies and societies are built on the premise of endless growth"
Like any life. It grows until it runs out of ressources. Then it stagnates. New technology moves the limits.
"So I don't know about you, but I wouldn't bet the well being of our children on humanity discovering and commercializing faster than light travel within our lifetime. Because that's what you are suggesting"
And no I am not, because I really doubt your numbers and assumptions.
Interesting calculation and I did not read your assumption carefully.
"keep up the current growth in energy use "
But this was not what I was talking about at all.
Energy comes to earth via sun, whether we use it, or not. For all our practical matters, it will be plenty to recycle all of our solar panels.
Because human population growth won't continue, like it did after industrialisation moved the limits of growth.
Discovering (allmost) speed of life travel would again moved those limits.
Till then humans will mate, as long as they see a future for their babies. As long as there is food and space. If there isn't, they largely won't reproduce. It is a common effect, can also be studied in rat populations in a lab. Self regulation.
"Have you seen what happens to slime molds once they run out of resources?"
They try to find a better habitat. Some succed, some fail.
Yes, I have. If you have absurdly good 90% recycling - unheard of in this area - and a cycle period of 10 years, you run through material once entirely in less than 500 years.
Sure the Si part is readily available, but what about the metal used for building the thing that transports the thing to the other thing that transports your solar panels for recycling? What about waste products of smelting when recycling? What about the ground water use? And here is the real killer, what about the cost? Show me a design that scales to even 1 billion people, without forcing the rest into slave like conditions.
Our technology, is not sustainable period. Practically none of it is. That thought does not bring joy to me. I used to subscribe to the technology and ingenuity will fix it mindset. But the harsh reality is, 999/1000 needles point in one direction. It's desperation to cling to that one last little maybe, the verdict has been reached. Physics doesn't care about our sentiments or arguments, our politicians can't reason with physics or bribe it.
In Tom Murphy's words:
> Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life.