You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Open Thread April 16 - April 22, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Tenoke 16 April 2014 07:05AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (190)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 April 2014 04:43:53PM 1 point [-]

At any level of technology.

I am not going to believe that. Both because at the caveman level the fossil fuels are pretty much useless and because your imagination with respect to future technology seems severely limited.

"Unit of infrastructure" ~= amount of energy and effort and capital needed to get at it.

This entirely depends on the technology level. And how are you applying concepts like "energy-dense" to, say, sunlight or geothermal?

Comment author: Nornagest 23 April 2014 05:00:19PM *  0 points [-]

how are you applying concepts like "energy-dense" to, say, sunlight or geothermal?

Energy density refers only to fuels and energy storage media and doesn't have much to do with grid-scale investment, although it's important for things like transport where you have to move your power source along with you. (Short version: hydrocarbons beat everything else, although batteries are getting better.)

The usual framework for comparing things like solar or geothermal energy to fossil fuels, from a development or policy standpoint, is energy return on investment. (Short version: coal beats everything but hydroelectric, but nuclear and renewables are competitive with oil and gas. Also, ethanol and biodiesel suck.)