this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
208 points (94.8% liked)
Futurology
2014 readers
106 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm a huge nuclear energy advocate, but if there is an even better way to get baseline power to fill in the gaps between solar and wind I am all for it. My only question would be the downsides (if any) of using the earths core to power things.
Like if every country starts slapping these things down all over the place would it even start cooling the core in any meaningful way? Would that potentially lead to problems later?
My gut says no, but I would rather at least ask the question and get laughed at than never consider it and have it bite us in the ass later.
My gut says yes. You subtract energy from a system. That energy did something, had a function. Now its not doing that thing anymore.
Same goes with wind: how much wind energy can you remove from the climate and ar which point does it affect the climate system? Handwavium. Never red a serious investigation about it.
Solar: same. That energy we're now converting into electricity, didn't that had another function? Is it cool we're using it differently now?
Coal and oil: that has been answered! Releasing the stored energy captured in those, expelling the contaminations and radiating of the excess heat did something!
You've never seen anything about solar and wind because it's a zero sum game. Both are dependent on the light and heat output of the sun, which is estimated to burn for more than 4 billion years more. So, basically it comes down to earth's ability to retain the light/heat of the sun versus the sun's output on the grand scheme of things. And on the local side (the energy consumer) it comes down to the first law of Thermo dynamics: Energy can't be created or destroyed, only reformed and/or transferred. So basically, since the amount of energy is set by the dynamic of the sun Vs isolation, for humans it equals out, because all we do is reforming energy and transferring it.
So then, how about geothermal and fossil energy (and nuclear)? Well, for both of them, they are stored energy. Fossil is stored sunlight from 500 million years ago, as in stored in chemical compounds created by the life that existed at that time by eating plants that harvested the sunlight by photosynthesis. (The same things our silar panels are doing after all).
For geothermal it becomes a bit more complicated, as it is part chemical energy of the matter that makes up the earth, and part kinetic energy left overs from the creation of the planet. Only very well isolated by the crust.
And here is the crux of the question: how much energy is stored in the core and will human intervention be able to change anything in the equilibrium of the core? In a way I want us to be able and in a way I don't. Because if the human outtake of energy is miniscule it won't matter and then the problem is moot. However if we are able to affect the core, we could possibly charge the core and its ability to deflect the solar wind, which might come in handy...
Regardless, for all of them, they release more energy into the atmosphere than the sun put there and thus will affect the energy equilibrium. But that is probably such a small problem that it might not do any difference in total. What is it they say? 1% of the energy that hits the earth from the sun would supply all our energy needs? So probably not that much of effect.
You say probably a lot. And that was my point. We dont know. We say "probably".
And the whole law of thermo dynamics was also my point: you cant reuse energy twice magically. It does something, now, in our climate. We are removing that energy and converting it into something else. So what it did before, whatever purpose it was, doesn't happen now. Does it matter? Probably not. We dont know for sure.
What's the problem with only 1 degree median temperature rise? Probably nothing, we said.
Well... That's come back and kicked us right in the nuts now didn't it?
There was a time, once not very long ago, when we also said "it probably will not matter if we burn this oil."
We dont know. Were fucking around with systems we dont understand and which exist in a current state of equilibrium. And we dont know how much we can wiggle the scales. So we say: it will be fine, probably.
Am I saying to not do it? Nope, the other options are proven to be bad so lets try something else. All for it.
Yeah, I did say it twice about the same thing. You got me there. However, energy is not created by solar or wind. It is merely transformed. And is transformed again when it's used. You don't have to question that. It's still doing the same thing it did before, we merely rerouted it a bit.
There has never been a serious investigation into how much wind or solar you need to remove from the climate system before causing a noticeable impact, because it isn't a serious concern. There is probably some theydidthemath type content to show how ridiculous the idea is.
Especially solar… light -> heat. We know that, so with solar it’s light -> electricity -> heat just like nothing every happened lol
With me not being climatological, climate change caused by our greenhouse gasses is trapping energy from the sun as heat, heating things up. Some of this energy becomes wind. So using wind power and solar power is helping rebalance the system.