E=MC^2. Another ridiculous hypothetical...

Aren't we testing that now? Success, at least in evolutionary terms, isn't about limitless growth, which inevitably leads to population crashes. It's about balance.

 

But that's kind of the point isn't it? We wouldn't need to use the earth's mass to colonize other planets. If your imaginary magic energy machine could use any form of mass, then we'd just scoop up the mass as we go. A bit of asteroid here, a bit of planet there, a little comet on the side, and perhaps catch as much of the solar wind as possible along the way. Wherever we settled the destination planet would provide the mass for all the energy needs to get a colony established and to support the growth of the colony until a decision was made to move on. Humans would be the locust swarms of the universe. Eating our way through all of space leaving nothing but emptiness and energy in our wake.

 

virtually unlimited energy supply that is not detrimental to us can allow us to do many things that we currently do not do simply because the energy cost is prohibitive. rewiring the entire highway system for POV maglev would have cost trillions, but the support would have been several hundred billion a year... free energy makes support costs nominal...

add computer control and traffic jams, accidents, etc... would be a thing of the past... life would be much better...

but there is a balance in the universe. with every good, comes bad just as big and equal. it is how we deal with the downside of technology that ultimately determines our quality of life... and to put it to you bluntly, we have done a very very piss poor job of it.

with the rapid advancement of technology in the past 20 years... it will take another 20 years to fully evaluate the effects of the "personal computer" age.

i think, there will be a lot of questions as to how valuable it all really was...

 

Maybe not, after you factor in all the heat produced by this unlimited source of energy.

 

If you can accelerate continuously at 1 G up to halfway there, and decelerate at 1 G. the other halfway, the solar system becomes manageable.

Er, no. Physics as we already know it permits interstellar travel. It just requires it to be difficult, expensive, and slow.

 

Physics Answer - All the rest of the laws of physics still apply, so there are consequences. It is a human aspect to call those consequences good or bad.

Engineering Answer - If properly managed, the good outweights the bad.

Real Answer - Look at History. There is your answer. Our fuels progressed from forest, coal, oil, nuclear, to ???? Each one was claimed as an advance with no to little downside.

 

that is right... oil companies did "claim" that oil had no downsides...

coal companies did the same...

surprised that they actually got anyone to believe them

 

Inherently, solar has few downsides. Done wrong it can:
1) Use of water fed cooling techniques could result in massive water wastage in the desert to maximize energy efficiency.
2) Result in clearcutting and leveling sensitive areas to make it fit (parabolic trough farms need very flat land).
3) Poor engineering or operation can result in solar areas totally damaged by high winds or fire of the mineral oil.

But this is the worst I can come up with. Not in the same league as nuclear waste and CO2 pollution.

 

Its not dependable, therefore it needs to be backed up with other conventional methods, (nuclear and global warming as you put it).

 

Fusion, in the form of sunlight, is the current mode of "unlimited" energy. Effective use requires attention to conservation and efficiency. Use of fossil fuels (coal, oil) has made us lazy in the "just go get more" mode. Energy efficient structures, i.e., Enertia.com, require no supplemental heat, even in very cold climates. These stuctures are climate appropriate to achieve maximum thermal mass and comfort. Everyone keeps expecting a magic fairy to come wave a wand and make it all better.

We need to get out of the "least cost, first use" (short-term) mode of cheap, quick and ephemeral and move to the "least cost, end use" (long-term) invest in the community thinking.

 

The nine SEGS plants in the Mojave Desert have been in operation for decades. (First one online in 1985). Twenty Three years of continous operation is rather hard to argue with. Their availablity has been as good as any conventional plant. Why do you say they are not dependable?

 

Agree, except the point about everyone expecting a magic fairy. There are quite a few that have not reached the point of realizing a magic fairy will be a high priority in the very near future.

 

Clouds, smog, volcano ash, meteor cloud, sand storms, hail storms and night time.

No sun light, no workie.

 

O.K. As long as we are talking "fantasy", how about Water as fuel? An over unity method is discovered, it burns very cleanly, and the exhaust is re-claimed and fed back to the "tank" via condenser(s). Would allow virtually unlimited electricity generation, virtually unlimited range for all earthbound vehicles(land, sea and sky). All nations could/would share or pirate the technology for their own use. Governments would have to "tax" the rain.

 

Fantasy is accurate, why not try a magic solution.

the water molecule doesn't like being taken apart, therefore it takes lots of energy to seperate h from o. Have you seen the hydrogen fuel stations for "water" cars? They look like substation with all the transformers needed to handle the power for the electrolysis process. Its a super wasteful process.

 

Do you know about the thermal storage system of the SGES I that allowed to operate through these events?

 

Yes, and they've got about as much reserve as an out of gas prius.

What happens if you have another Mt St Helens dump cubic kilometers of dust/ash into the atmosphere? You're going to need something to fill in while your solar is off line or at reduced capacity for months.

I'm not saying solar can't be used somewhere within the grand scheme of things. But I certainly wouldn't put a lot of focus on it.