Single day record for solar energy use, Germany:

Originally posted by googlefudge
I was thinking of long distance DC lines myself, until and unless we invent room temp
superconductors that are both strong and cheap enough to replace current cables, or
their successors, cost effectively then superconductors are just too expensive and
unreliable. We can't have a power grid that breaks down in warm weather, like [say]
whenever it gets over 80 Kelvin in the shade...

We can't have a power grid that breaks down in warm weather, like [say] whenever it gets over 80 Kelvin in the shade...

But on Titan it would be fine.
This point leads me to a strange possibility. Suppose the recent theoretical advance did lead to a new type of superconductor that was suitable for this, at least in winter, we set up superconducting long distance power transmission with copper wire for backup, but global warming from legacy power production causes the average temperature to go above the transition temperature for most of the year rendering them useless except in such northern or southern latitudes that not enough population is covered for it to be worthwhile.

Originally posted by DeepThought

We can't have a power grid that breaks down in warm weather, like [say] whenever it gets over 80 Kelvin in the shade...

But on Titan it would be fine.
This point leads me to a strange possibility. Suppose the recent theoretical advance did lead to a new type of superconductor that was suitable for this, at least in winter, we set up super ...[text shortened]... ch northern or southern latitudes that not enough population is covered for it to be worthwhile.

I think that if we get a 'near room temp' superconductor then the question becomes whether,
when factoring in material and construction costs, the energy saved by using superconductors
minus the costs of cooling, saved more money than the extra costs of a superconducting grid.

The problem is that question is unanswerable without knowing the material and manufacturing
costs of the hypothesised superconductor.

Although, thinking about a +4 degree warmer world... Most of the worlds populations would have
to move to the extreme north/south anyway, so the proportion of the population covered might
not be as small as if you were trying to implement the technology today.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think that if we get a 'near room temp' superconductor then the question becomes whether,
when factoring in material and construction costs, the energy saved by using superconductors
minus the costs of cooling, saved more money than the extra costs of a superconducting grid.

The problem is that question is unanswerable without knowing the materi ...[text shortened]... ulation covered might
not be as small as if you were trying to implement the technology today.

It's extremely unlikely that high-Tc superconductors would be used to make an electrical grid. The losses in the grid simply aren't that big - they are significant, sure, but unless the superconducting wires will be cheap (and they won't be) it's just not worth the money. There are other applications, though.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's extremely unlikely that high-Tc superconductors would be used to make an electrical grid. The losses in the grid simply aren't that big - they are significant, sure, but unless the superconducting wires will be cheap (and they won't be) it's just not worth the money. There are other applications, though.

I agree that a superconducting grid is unlikely [although not impossible] to be
cost effective. But it's really going to depend on what they are made of and how
hard it is to make them. It's possible that they could turn out to be cheap as chips.
It's just highly improbable.

Originally posted by googlefudge
We can't have a power grid that breaks down in warm weather, like [say]
whenever it gets over 80 Kelvin in the shade...

The simple solution is to put it underground. This costs more than overhead lines, but costs a whole lot less than active cooling. Generally the underground temps are not affected significantly by day to day weather, but only seasonal variation.

But I agree with others that until we have cheap room temperature superconductors, this is hardly even worth discussing.

Originally posted by DeepThought
First it is not clear there will ever be room temperature superconductors. Second, even if there can be room temperature superconductors they are sufficiently far in the future that they cannot be included in the assessment of the viability of a super-grid - which is what you were trying to do. In any case these things are basically up and runni ...[text shortened]... are no radiative losses and you don't blow the smaller of the two grids with phase differences.

Second, even if there can be room temperature superconductors they are sufficiently far in the future that they cannot be included in the assessment of the viability of a super-grid - which is what you were trying to do.

No I am not! I just said “a super grid doesn't HAVE to have superconductors “ which is the post you just responded to and CLEARLY implies the exact opposite so not sure where you got that from! Unless you misread "doesn't" as "does"? -an easy mistake to make I admit and one I admit to have done a few times myself when reading too fast.

And why would I be against using copper wire in a supergrid? although in the VERY far future, when manufacturing eventually becomes so advanced that cheap defect-free graphene cable can be manufactured to have lower resistance than copper, copper would be replaced by graphene cable assuming there isn't an even better materiel. Such graphene cable would have to be carefully covered with air-tight fire-proof insulation because else that graphene could burn in air.
But that might take a long time to develop thus, in the mean time, we use copper.

Originally posted by humy

Second, even if there can be room temperature superconductors they are sufficiently far in the future that they cannot be included in the assessment of the viability of a super-grid - which is what you were trying to do.

No I am not! I just said “a super grid doesn't HAVE to have superconductors “ which is the post you just responded to a ...[text shortened]... fully covered with air-tight fire-proof insulation because else that graphene could burn in air.

Look. I hope we sometime are able to make cheap defect-free graphene in mega-meter+ lengths
in the future, I really do...

But when you say

... when manufacturing eventually becomes so advanced that cheap
defect-free graphene cable can be manufactured to have lower resistance than copper, ...

I want to 'head-desk'...

IF manufacturing becomes so advanced...

It is not a given that it is possible to do this, or that we will achieve it even if it is theoretically
possible.


I think graphene is really exciting and has all kinds of potential... But it's IF we develop the technology
and not when.

And even then, we will replace copper cables with graphene ONLY IF it makes economic sense to do so,
which is ALSO not a given.

Originally posted by humy

Second, even if there can be room temperature superconductors they are sufficiently far in the future that they cannot be included in the assessment of the viability of a super-grid - which is what you were trying to do.

No I am not! I just said “a super grid doesn't HAVE to have superconductors “ which is the post you just responded to a ...[text shortened]... burn in air.
But that might take a long time to develop thus, in the mean time, we use copper.

No I am not!

Oh yes you are. If you include a statement along the lines of "and with superconductors it will be even better." then you are including them as a reason for going for the project. Otherwise why bring them up?

Originally posted by DeepThought

No I am not!

Oh yes you are. If you include a statement along the lines of "and with superconductors it will be even better." then you are including them as a reason for going for the project. Otherwise why bring them up?

If you include a statement along the lines of "and with superconductors it will be even better." then you are ...

But I didn't say this and wouldn't say this. I would say IF room temperature superconductors are possible and IF and when room temperature superconductors are sufficiently cheaply made then if room temperature superconductors are used, it would be better. But note that there is some ifs there and I wouldn't make the over simplistic claim "and with superconductors it will be even better." because that just depends.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Look. I hope we sometime are able to make cheap defect-free graphene in mega-meter+ lengths
in the future, I really do...

But when you say

... when manufacturing eventually becomes so advanced that cheap
defect-free graphene cable can be manufactured to have lower resistance than copper, ...

I want to 'head-desk'...

[b]IF ma ...[text shortened]... pper cables with graphene ONLY IF it makes economic sense to do so,
which is ALSO not a given.[/b]

IF manufacturing becomes so advanced...

It is not a given that it is possible to do this, or that we will achieve it even if it is theoretically
possible.

I don't understand -WHY is it NOT theoretically possible? because it is obvious that it IS theoretically possible and even highly probable! Science and technology is improving all the time and so is manufacturing methods and manufacturing tools. Is there a barrier that will or could credibly stop technology getting any more advanced so that it is very close to as efficient as it could be? and why would that level of efficiency still be so inefficient that the manufacture of graphene is still relatively 'expensive' when, in particular, there is no physical barrier preventing artificial enzymes eventually being designed in the far (at least assumed far ) future that can make defect-free graphene with conductivity better than copper (which must be possible because measurements show that defect-free graphene IS a better conductor! ) and do so at room temperature and pressure (enzymes CAN normally operate at room pressure and temperature ) and with something like, say, ~80% energy efficiency (some of the enzyme processes in nature ARE more efficient that so this MUST be possible! ) from whatever reactants are used (sugar is an example of such a reactant because sugar contains carbon although I am not implying this would be the best one to use or even a particularly good one ) ? Then it would surely be quite cheap to manufacture because you would then have;

1, cheaply available reactants to extract carbon out of (there are examples of cheap sources of carbon )

and

2, no energy going into creating temperature/pressure extremes and the process being very energy efficient.

-so you will have both low cost of raw materials and low energy costs. Surely this generally means it will be cheap -right?
So what BARRIER is there stopping us (humanity) eventually making this happen? would people suddenly say, "well, it is good enough now so lets give up making it even better"? or does the laws of physics somehow conspire to make this impossible to happen and, if so, exactly which laws and how so? Or what exactly?

Originally posted by humy

IF manufacturing becomes so advanced...

It is not a given that it is possible to do this, or that we will achieve it even if it is theoretically
possible.

I don't understand -WHY is it NOT theoretically possible? because it is obvious that it IS theoretically possible and even highly probable! Science and technology is improving a ...[text shortened]... re to make this impossible to happen and, if so, exactly which laws and how so? Or what exactly?

You have it backwards.

It is incumbent upon you to prove that as yet uninvented technology is possible, and economic.

Simply claiming that you can't think of any reason why it wont work is not sufficient.

Enzymes make mistakes ALL the time, which is why biology includes so many correction mechanisms.

Defect free graphene is an incredibly high bar, and it's not in any way a given that enzymes are
a viable, let alone the best, method for making it, if it is possible.


And if you are projecting too far into the future then you simply pass beyond the point where it
makes any kind of sense to make any predictions about future technology or economics.


How can you possibly talk about a possible future economics where [for example] all manufacturing
is done by non-sentient AI with minimal sentient supervision and everything is essentially free.

Where we build with whatever materials come to hand in a space faring society powered by fusion,
Anti-matter, and the Stars themselves.

It doesn't even make sense in such circumstances to talk about what is or is not economic.

So we can only talk about the future as far ahead as something resembling our present still exists.

And as such, I see no reason just to assume that these technologies are possible or economic.


And you still have not explained how you make trillions of trillions of enzymes build highly complex
products with materials presently only capable of being manufactured at extreme temperatures and
pressures using elements toxic to life... And do so to the exacting standards required... And be
simpler and more effective than more conventional technology.
And you haven't accounted for the sheer intellectual effort required to design enzymes to make
simple everyday products we already make cheaply. Why spend tens of billions on research to
design enzymes to make a frying pan. We can already make cheap frying pans.


Being POSSIBLE [which you have not shown] is not the same as easiest, or cheapest.


It's possible for all the air molecules in a room to all suddenly rush into one corner.

But it's never going to happen because it is so vastly improbable that the precise series of events
will occur that will allow it.

Not being able to see a law of physics that prohibits something, is not sufficient to claim we could [ever]
actually do it. Let alone claim that it will be cheap or easy.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You have it backwards.

It is incumbent upon you to prove that as yet uninvented technology is possible, and economic.

Simply claiming that you can't think of any reason why it wont work is not sufficient.

Enzymes make mistakes ALL the time, which is why biology includes so many correction mechanisms.

Defect free graphene is an incredibly high ...[text shortened]... icient to claim we could [ever]
actually do it. Let alone claim that it will be cheap or easy.

It is incumbent upon you to prove that as yet uninvented technology is possible, and economic.

Simply claiming that you can't think of any reason why it wont work is not sufficient.

This is clearly false.
Suppose there is NO known reason to believe that a yet uninvented hypothetical technology T cannot ever be invented. That includes NO known physical reason why it couldn't happen i.e. there is NO known reason anyone can currently explain why it would directly/indirectly break the laws of physics in some way i.e. there is no natural law is known to make it impossible so we are not talking about 'magic' nor 'miracles' nor the supernatural here.
That also includes NO known disincentive here that is so significant that it would credibly stop anyone EVER doing it even if it IS definitely physically possible to do. That exclude something that include something we KNOW is impossible or something that assumes something totally ridiculous like magic etc.
That includes NO known reason to think it would be too expensive or physically impractical (as opposed to physically impossible ) or just too problematic to do or too dangerous.
In fact, other than only merely the CURRENT technological barrier, NO know barrier, whether physical, economic, practical, political or social or some kind of other barrier. Other than only merely the CURRENT technological barrier, NO known barrier of ANY kind, period!

OK, then you add to that an incentive to do it as there clearly is in this case.

Now, with all the above being true, assuming humanity doesn't go extinct in the foreseeable future nor civilization end in the foreseeable future, T would almost inevitably be invented eventually and will almost inevitably be used at some point at least until if and when it then becomes either obsolete (because of, say, a better alternative invented ) or until if or when there is no longer an incentive to use it. The reason why it would almost certainly be invented and used is because the only known barrier is merely the CURRENT technological barrier and technology INEVITABLY evolves and becomes more advanced with time until that sole KNOWN barrier will eventually be breached!

Of course, there could be a yet UNKNOWN barrier that makes it impossible! I do not deny that BUT, and here is the most important point I make here in this whole post, surely, because of Occam's razor, the default assumption should be that such an UNKNOWN barrier doesn't exist until if or when there is some evidence or reason to think the contrary.
Think about that! to assume some UNKNOWN barrier without evidence or reason is as irrational as assuming anything else without evidence or reason! If that was rational then it is rational to assume the existence of ghosts or a god or a supernatural teacup orbiting Mars DESPITE not having any known evidence or reason to think that true!

If history is anything to go by, it would be almost inevitable that this hypothetical T would be invented and used. For example, just after the rocket was invented, there was no known reason why it would eventually be possible to build a machine that could go to the moon. That includes NO known physical reason. The only barrier was the current technological barrier back then but then that barrier was inevitably breached because technology becomes more advanced with time!
If you lived back then, would you have been one of those that said it should be the default assumption that it would ALWAYS be impossible? -DESPITE the fact that technology is coming more advanced all the time and DESPITE the fact there is no known reason or barrier to make it imposable? If so, you would have had egg in your face as technology not only results in someone going to the moon but MANY other things that couldn't be done previously where done because the technology wasn't advanced enough to make it happen earlier. And going to the moon is just one example -there is a large number of other examples including the television, radar, infrared cameras and so on.

Originally posted by humy

It is incumbent upon you to prove that as yet uninvented technology is possible, and economic.

Simply claiming that you can't think of any reason why it wont work is not sufficient.

This is clearly false.
Suppose there is NO known reason to believe that a yet uninvented hypothetical technology T cannot ever be invented. That inclu ...[text shortened]... is a large number of other examples including the television, radar, infrared cameras and so on.

Whether or not that is true.

It does not apply in this case.

I keep pointing out problems that I CAN see with using enzymes and you are ignoring them.


The big one being that you don't just want enzymes to sit in a chemical soup and turn it from
starter materials into product materials. You want them to actually self assemble highly complex
structures.


I mean lets look at an equivalent of carbon fibre.

Carbon Fibre Composite gets it's strength from the weave, the careful and specific arrangement, of all
the individual carbon fibres.

A material made of carbon nano-tubes composite will likewise get it's strength from the specific arrangement
of the carbon nano-tubes.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you design an enzyme that can make carbon nano-tubes.

It sits in a chemical soup and takes from that soup the precursor chemicals and fuel it needs to make
the carbon nano-tube. And it sits their randomly floating around churning out a carbon nano-tube.
Along with several trillion brethren doing the same thing.

What you get is a soup of carbon nano-tubes along with a load of waste products and spent enzymes.

This might well be useful as you can then potentially extract the nano-tubes and do stuff with them.


However it is an enormous jump to go from that to actually growing carbon nano-fibre composite.
Where the enzymes cannot just sit around they must self organise and build a very specific macro-structure
with nano-scale details and complexity.

THAT is what strikes me as being both incredibly hard if not impossible to practically do.
AND is what strikes me as being highly unlikely to be the most efficient and economical method of construction
for many products.

And I still don't see enzymes as being sufficiently robust to build many substances which require large energy
input to break and remake chemical bonds.

And the second law tells us that building highly complex structures is always going to take lots of energy.

ect ect ect.

You don't just want this technology to be possible, you want it to be the most economic.

I do not buy that and will not buy that unless you can demonstrate that it is actually simpler to program
living things to make inorganic products, when compared to more conventional or other alternative construction
techniques. And that this reduced cost will be so great that it causes us to give up on making things out of
half of the periodic table.

And you cannot possibly do that.

Because you are trying to pre-empt future economics you cannot possibly understand and you are telling me about
the capabilities and performance of technologies that have not been invented yet and you have not demonstrated
are practically possible.

And it's no good you saying you can't see how it wont work because I can.


You are looking dreamy eyed into the far far future and making predictions about what will make sense in times you
cannot possibly have any conception of.

It would be like the ancient Egyptians trying to make predictions about the year 2020. [whatever that would have been
on their calendar] We do not know enough about the far future to make the kind of predictions about technology and
it's use. Hell we can't even do a good job predicting 50 years into the future.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Whether or not that is true.

It does not apply in this case.

I keep pointing out problems that I [b]CAN see with using enzymes and you are ignoring them.


The big one being that you don't just want enzymes to sit in a chemical soup and turn it from
starter materials into product materials. You want them to actually self assemble highly co ...[text shortened]... technology and
it's use. Hell we can't even do a good job predicting 50 years into the future.[/b]

The big one being that you don't just want enzymes to sit in a chemical soup and turn it from
starter materials into product materials. You want them to actually self assemble highly complex
structures.

Why is that a “problem”? Nature does it all the time! So it apparently isn't a "problem" for nature! So why cannot we (eventually ) ?
Think of natural bone! How is that NOT enzymes “ assemble highly complex structures” in nature?
And if nature can do it (and without a "problem" ) , I see no reason why we cannot (eventually ) do it (and without a "problem" ) -can you?

A material made of carbon nano-tubes composite will likewise get it's strength from the specific arrangement
of the carbon nano-tubes.

Isn't natural bone made of a “specific arrangement of” calcium phosphate molecules? If not, HOW not? If so, that proves that enzymes CAN make “specific arrangement of” molecules to make a 3D material.
Another example of that is wood! Wood is made by enzymes assembling a “specific arrangement of” sugar molecules by combining them to form cellulose and that cellulose formed in an extremely complex 3D structure! Again, this proves it possible.

None of your reasons stands up to close scrutiny mainly because NATURE proves something similar-enough to it can be done! And I see no barrier stopping us eventually merely imitating what happens in nature but greatly adapt it to do exactly what WE want it to do.

Originally posted by humy

The big one being that you don't just want enzymes to sit in a chemical soup and turn it from
starter materials into product materials. You want them to actually self assemble highly complex
structures.

Why is that a “problem”? Nature does it all the time! So it apparently isn't a "problem" for nature! So why cannot we (eventually ) ? ...[text shortened]... ds up to close scrutiny mainly because NATURE proves something similar-enough to it can be done!

no no no.

You are going right back to where we came in.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/BrainBugs.html

..... Either way, the popularity of the organic technology myth is somewhat baffling. One of the most baffling parts is the fact that it is assumed to be more "advanced". Here's a question for you: when did we produce the first armoured vehicle? Was it in World War 1, with the tank? Or was it centuries earlier, with the mounted knight? Did you know that the mounted knight was made possible through selective horse breeding (ie- organic technology), which produced horses big and strong enough to carry the heavy armoured riders into battle? Do you believe that sheepdogs were always like that? Dogs and horses could both be described as examples of bio-technological tools, engineered by humans for specific tasks through the use of applied evolutionary scientific principles (even if they didn't have a name for them at the time). Bio-weapons are nothing new either, having been used since at least medieval times (besieging armies would catapult diseased carcasses into a fortress). And what about bio-armour? Sorry, but all I can say is "been there, done that". Wooden ships had bio-armour, remember? Would you seriously want to pit bio-armour against the 120mm smoothbore gun of an M-1 Abrams? There is a reason we switched to steel, people! Think about it.

At no time have we ever seen a shred of evidence that biological systems can realistically supplant wholly artificial technologies in applications such as large-scale power generation, armour, naval or aircraft propulsion, military weaponry, bridges and buildings, etc. In fact, all of those technologies were developed to replace biological systems! Biological systems are chemically reactive and structurally feeble in comparison to metals and ceramics, and both of these characteristics can spell doom for a starship. Furthermore, there are strict limits to how much this will ever change, because chemical reactivity is a prerequisite for life! Moreover, living cells requires a constant supply of nutrients, which means that all living cells must always be semi-permeable. Compare this to a massive, inert piece of metallic or ceramic/metal composite armour, and you can quickly see the problem for organics.

.............


"Captain, I'm picking up an approaching ship."

"What can you tell me about it?"

"Oh my God, it's organic! What are we going to do, Captain?"

"There's not much we can do, Ensign. Organic technology is so far beyond our grasp that we can't even imagine the power they must have. All we have is high-powered guns, nuclear missiles, and our primitive metallic armour. What are you reading from their incredibly advanced bio-ship?"

"Their ship is soft and flexible. Its construction materials are semi-permeable and laced with a network of delicate circulation passages. Instead of using impermeable high-density materials, it's made from countless tiny thin-walled cells which tend to rapidly break down in the presence of corrosive chemicals or radiation."

"What? And we were supposed to be afraid of this? Open fire!"

SQUISH ...

I am perfectly prepared to accept that we could bio-engineer structures like living things... And even do a
better job than nature does, because we will design and not evolve our products.

But Like the author above I see absolutely no evidence or reason to suppose that the technology will reliably
or economically make products with the strength or quality of more conventional manufacturing.

Bone vs steel. Steel wins.

Which is why we makes tanks [and buildings] out of steel and not bone.

We can make better materials than steel sure... but those materials are also generally not materials suitable to being
bio-made.


EDIT: Also importantly for this discussion, I am not objecting to the idea that there might be SOME things suitable to
being bio-engineered... It's the idea that it will be the de-facto primary means of making just about everything that
I am objecting to.