It looks entirely specious to me. When collectively it is a problem, focus on individuals. When it is individually a problem (in the west we all live with ample energy available, but many cannot afford to access it), focus on the collective. It's just broken as an idea.

Conserve toothpaste by putting excess back into the tube.

https://www.businessinsider.com/hertz-orders-100000-tesla-largest-ev-purchase-ever-report-2021-10

Posted By: Andrew Palfreyman

Posted By: aber0derIt has a wooden floor in the rear

I had one of those. It was a 1935 Morris 8 for which I had paid £25 and it was my first car, so I proudly drove it home to Leicester from London and invited my Mum for a test drive. Expressing some reservation she insisted on riding in the back. Upon entering, she fell through the floor. I subsequently replaced the wood with something less rotten.

The wooden part is on top of the structual steel, I think to shield the underlying structure from mechanical wear and enabling the possibility to install some furniture. My 200D/8 was more like the Morris you described. The floor steel wås literally double layered because of all the patches that were welded in from the inside and outside over time. When the whole structure sank down while jacking it up its fate was sealed. The engine still worked, though.

This happened to you?

Posted By: AngusI agree with you. It's a historical observation. The prescription for the future has to be either
(A) make energy more easily available to all
Or
(B) use a smaller share.

So far the focus is on A, witness fusion for example, but the only practical solution is B

You may have summarized the options. But B means live a less prosperous life. Prosperity is not having wealth, it is USING wealth. The big Steorn lie is that we could enjoy the prosperity without limit -- front row tickets at everything for everybody. I would love to see it, but I don't expect it. People should be realistic about our choices as they are now, and smart about what we try to develop for the future. When it comes to climate-change mitigation by energy-use reducing I have not yet been able to find trade-off values to help me make any useful decisions. So, what do you all think? Visit or not visit my grandkids in Arizona (the only thing suggesting I not, would be my goal to use less energy personally, as my part of global climate change mitigation). Go or stay home and zoom? Then, can I go next year?

Posted By: Angus

Posted By: enginerdBut B means live a less prosperous life. Prosperity is not having wealth, it is USING wealth.

Right. Exactly. Genau. Vero.

The only way forward for humanity is to use less. This means each person using less, or fewer persons using the same amount. The first option inevitably leads to all persons having nothing to use, the second option is a pipe dream.

I think you have presented a false dichotomy, at least potentially. But probably a pragmatically true one, for the humanity in the near term (which near term might include hundreds of years).

.... And, you left out of your options, a lot lot more people using a lot lot less.

There is plenty of energy for many more humans to use much much more. We aren't positioned to use it at the moment. And much of what we can make use of is problematic. The opportunity is huge (without resorting to any sort of Steorn fluxes).

I once made a quick calculation using just the earth's orbital distance and the half surface of the earth to make a very conservative estimate of the amount of sun energy available to us, and what that represents of the total sun energy. I can't remember how the numbers came out except that they are what about what one would expect.

Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanKardashev

We don't use up energy, you know. We exploit it and degrade it, as we do with almost everything. It flows through our machines, hopefully causing something we wanted, and comes out in another form, finally as heat. If we were to capture all the sun's radiation it would amount to decreasing the earth's albedo to zero and turning it into a black body. Then whatever we do with the energy, the temperature would rise until we are radiating the same amount as the sun sends. It would likely be fairly uncomfortable. CO₂ global warming just isn't in it.

I note that people look for Dyson spheres in the infrared. The significance for their inhabitants seems never to be discussed. Kardashev I, II and III be damned!

Posted By: AngusI note that people look for Dyson spheres in the infrared. The significance for their inhabitants seems never to be discussed. Kardashev I, II and III be damned!

Isaac Arthur gets it, at least. But your point about increasing Earth's energy use is well-taken.

But that does not really justify the increased market cap, IMO, of course.