"Fusion and Space-based-solar"

Are a long ways off from being practical, let alone economic.

Yes, some fields such as computers have grown by leaps and bounds. But even they have to obey the laws of physics and the laws of economics.

Fusion research has been going on for decades yet we don't have a working system yet. Of course it should be pursued, but don't bet the farm on it.

Space-based solar is a pipedream unless at least two major problems are solved:

1) How to get all the hardware needed into geosynchronous orbit at a reasonable cost. We're talking many, many tons of equipment, just in solar panels.

2) How to get the energy collected down to earth surface safely and efficiently.

These are NOT simple problems; they're show-stoppers.

--

When I was growing up, we were told that nuclear power plants would make electricity "too cheap to meter". We'd all go to work for 25 hours a week in our George Jetson 400 mph jet cars and vacation on the moon. Our spacious all-electric homes would be kept clean and tidy by domestic robots, while cooking and shopping would be automated by packaged meals and instant cookers. That and much more were "just around the corner".

I remember when the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" first appeared in theatres in the mid-1960s. No one - absolutely NO ONE - questioned its view of what the world would be like in 30-odd years. Orbiting commercial space stations and commercial space flight seemed entirely reasonable, as did permanent lunar colonies and manned exploration of Jupiter. Even induced hibernation and artificial intelligences you could converse with seemed entirely plausible.

The reality has turned out somewhat differently.

For all the talk of technological advancement and our current predicament, there is no mention of the advances in two possible avenues for clean energy which are gathering momentum: Fusion and Space-based-solar.

Plenty will say they're still "pie in the sky" but they are as real as the revolution in memory and microcircuitry that has brought us a world of nanotechnology and quantum computation...and they are leading us to where energy will be so inepensive that rectifying past environmental wrongs and utilizing manufacturing techniques that by today's standards are dirty (cuz to make 'em clean would cost too much energy) will be not just the right thing to do, but it will be cheap since the energy required will be cheap.

This new energy revolution is at hand, which doesn't mean we can afford a misstep or to be ignorant and careless. There's still a good chance of missing the opportunity...and one way, aside form war on a global scale, to hobble these advances is to place the imaginative but largely un-substantiated claims of climate change in such a position that it makes building that bridge to the future all the more difficult. Let's use the trillions of dollars that climate change would cost and use it to develope the clean and abundant energy that is ubiquitious in our world. It's raining soup and all we need is a bucket...preferrably one with a functioning bottom.

"Ever compare electric percolators and drips with stovetop percolators? The stovetop model requires the entire pot of water be brought to a boil before the first drop begins to brew."

I'm talking about efficiency of distribution, you're talking about efficiency of application.

Boiling the whole pot of water takes more energy than boiling a tiny amount of water in an electric coffee maker, that's true. But the electricity isn't local, whereas the propane/natural gas COULD be.

The 50% loss from converting the heat into electricity at the power plant, followed by the 8%-15% loss of piping the electricity to the house costs a lot.

Compared to an electric stove, the coffee maker is an obvious winner. Compared to a gas stove, it's not at all obvious.

Also, keep in mind that the electricity for your coffee maker could be going to uses that actually REQUIRE electricity, like computers and switches and servers, but the heat off your stove can't be used to run a computer.

And finally, depending on the climate and time of year, the heat "wasted" when using a stove to heat your water *may* be recovered by heating your home.

To your point: if you want to offer a better example, I'd like to hear it.

"who thought the atom could be used for power in 1910? Only sci-fi authors."

And despite decades of work and billions of dollars, nuclear energy is neither cost-effective, clean nor efficient, when you consider the total system costs from mining to waste disposal. Look up how much the French pay for electricity, even with their standardized plant designs and years of experience.

"Space-based power/manufacturing - a classic bootstrap situation."

No, it isn't. Basic physics gets in the way.

"Yes, the initial investment is high for the first wave. But if you could manufacture solar cells on the moon, where no weather/atmosphere reduces the effectiveness of solar, and you can make as many panels as you want."

The initial investment is incredibly high, both in dollars and in energy spent. That's because absolutely everything has to be launched from Earth and soft-landed on the moon until a working base can be set up. Think of how many TONS of equipment and supplies would be needed to construct even a small factory on the moon. And all of it has to be able to function long term in the incredibly hostile lunar environment.

And after you get that all set up and working, there are still two big problems:

1) The lunar day is two weeks long - and so is the lunar night.

2) Anything you manufacture on the moon will have incredibly high shipping costs to get it back to Earth.

Making solar panels here on earth is easy; the problem is making millions of them at a low price.

"Computers - new tech (organic-based) can reduce power requirements, as could better software (instead of Windows bloatware) so computers can do more with the same power."

Current computers use about the same energy as their predecessors, but do far more. Turning them off when not in use can save enormous amounts of energy - but people have to do it!

The real question is: How many computers do we really need? Does EVERYTHING need a microprocessor?

In the excellent sci-fi spoof series "Red Dwarf", David Lister has a toaster with artificial intelligence. Made the point quite well.

"I think that there is plenty of optimism for techno-salvation. But, it requires some truly revolutionary thinking, and some real belt-tightening in the interim."

Agreed - but it also requires some truly reality-based thinking, not fantasies that defy or ignore basic laws of nature or technological realities.