Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Yanlin]

How the hell would you accomplish that? Magic?

We know the universal gravitational constant.  It's fairly easy to measure the strength of gravity at many points on the surface of the earth.  With enough datapoints and fine enough measurements, we can get a pretty accurate measurement of the mass of the earth at any given time.  All that's left is waiting a few tens of thousands of years for the change to be noticeable.

Is it THAT inaccurate? I thought 500,000~ tons per year was a difference that could be measured!

[mainiac]

Is it THAT inaccurate? I thought 500,000~ tons per year was a difference that could be measured!

But it's 500,000 tons at an equivalent net distance of the earths radius (a bit more then 6000km).  That means the change is going to be very faint.

An easier way to think about it is to consider the percentage change.  We can assume the growth of the radius of the earth is very small and only consider the mass change.  The earth's mass is 6*10^29 metric tons.  Thus in a year where 500,000 metric tons is added, the gravitational pull of the earth only grows a sextillionth (10^-21) of a percentage point stronger.  It'll take a while to be noticeable behind the fluctuations from tectonic activity.  Maybe 10,000 years was too small a guess.

[Guy Montag]

Yeah, anyways, space dust isn't exactly an exploitable resource either. Its dirt. Try sifting out that 60 pound nickle-iron astroid dust in an area the size of Texas. Maybe in another 500 million years it will be a nice thin layer of exploitable resources, but as things stand, most of our exploitable resources like tin and oil and copper ores will be depleted before 2030.

Industrialized society only has one go at it. Once the earth's resources are spent, they are NOT going to come back in any time frame that humanity will exist.

But its OK, because robots and computers and science and communism will fix it! Just like the great ghost dance brought back the buffalo, amirite?

[Neonivek]

We got more sources then that. It is just that we don't have the technology to get it.

Well... and remain cost effective.

[mainiac]

Maybe in another 500 million years it will be a nice thin layer of exploitable resources

wind

Industrialized society only has one go at it. Once the earth's resources are spent, they are NOT going to come back in any time frame that humanity will exist.

Besides fossil fuels, very little of the industrial revolution is dependent on resources that aren't renewable or recyclable.  Not having coal would be a very large hindrance (natural gas and oil are less essential), but it wouldn't be impossible to industrialize without them, albeit slower.  There's plenty of renewable energy out there.

[Cthulhu]

I'm crossing my fingers and hoping for the Desperate Times Call For Desperate Measures ingenuity you only see in cartoons if(When?) we run out of non-renewable resources.

[Neonivek]

Well Wind power has already been found to be somewhat efficiant (if my sources are correct)

The Major source of power that has a LOT of potential but currently is weak is Solar. Our Solar Panels only convert around perhaps 7% maybe less and our hope is to double or tripple that soon.

[Yanlin]

Wind is REALLY inefficient. You need MASSIVE farms for it to generate enough power to run even one city. BUT, it is being done WRONG.

Mount these things on tall buildings and such. On roofs. A couple of them can power the house. But why stop there? We know tall buildings get strong winds in their faces. Not to mention the downdraft tight spaces between buildings cause. Mount wind turbines there. Voila. Lots of clean power that harms nothing.

It's all about self sufficiency. If each building (Including suburbs and tall buildings alike, offices or residential.) can provide for itself, crisis averted.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I believe wind power is too noisy to regularly mount on buildings right now, and because of the moving parts, it may be a safety hazard to mount over a city; I've seen video of a wind turbine exploding violently in a storm after the braking system failed. But, I saw solar power being used that way on rooftops in Istanbul.

[Aqizzar]

Oriental architects have designed concept buildings with wind turbines incorporated right into the structure, with building all around the wind gap.  They look horribly space inefficient, but it would at least minimize the damage of structural collapse.

I wouldn't be worried too much about a normal turbine flying apart anyway - not that it's not a danger, but that it happens at speeds and in problem cases (like brake failures), disaster situations cities already deal with in other infrastructure.  Acceptable risk.

[Yanlin]

That's why it needs to be ironed out. These are just bugs in the system. They CAN be fixed.

But personally, I believe most in geothermal reactors so far. Mainly because I know little about Thorium reactors and strongly hate regular nuclear reactors due to all the pollution they will EVENTUALLY (In about 5,000 years, when the casks break and everybody has forgotten about them.) cause.

[Aqizzar]

In 5000 years, I don't think we'll even need the Earth anymore.

Heck, I think there's big chunks of it we don't need now.  You want to store radioactive waste somewhere it'll never cause people problems?  Dump it in the South Pacific Basin.  Geologically stable, thousands of miles from human habitation, no ecosystem to mention let alone damage, and virtually cost free.

[mainiac]

Well Wind power has already been found to be somewhat efficiant (if my sources are correct)

The Major source of power that has a LOT of potential but currently is weak is Solar. Our Solar Panels only convert around perhaps 7% maybe less and our hope is to double or triple that soon.

Panels of up to 30% efficiency exist...

Mount these things on tall buildings and such. On roofs. A couple of them can power the house. But why stop there? We know tall buildings get strong winds in their faces. Not to mention the downdraft tight spaces between buildings cause. Mount wind turbines there. Voila. Lots of clean power that harms nothing.

Increasing the amount of drag that a large skyscrapper has against the wind means either making it at risk of falling over in a strong wind or substantially redesigning the entire building.

[Neonivek]

Panels of up to 30% efficiency exist

That just supplies a contradiction between two information sources.

Which I can only resolve by assuming that Efficiency in both cases means something different.

[Yanlin]

Well Wind power has already been found to be somewhat efficiant (if my sources are correct)

The Major source of power that has a LOT of potential but currently is weak is Solar. Our Solar Panels only convert around perhaps 7% maybe less and our hope is to double or triple that soon.

Panels of up to 30% efficiency exist...

Mount these things on tall buildings and such. On roofs. A couple of them can power the house. But why stop there? We know tall buildings get strong winds in their faces. Not to mention the downdraft tight spaces between buildings cause. Mount wind turbines there. Voila. Lots of clean power that harms nothing.

Increasing the amount of drag that a large skyscrapper has against the wind means either making it at risk of falling over in a strong wind or substantially redesigning the entire building.

It's not THAT MUCH drag.