text (3315): I'm not so sure.

In the near term, the inverse square law means that photoelectric-effect surfaces are only practical within a certain distance of a star.

If we want to colonize the solar system, that would place a lot of volume, and a lot of interesting resources, out of reach of anything relying on photoelectric tech, even of a hypothetical future photoelectric tech which is 100% efficient (not likely).

When comparing power technologies for the future, we don't want to make the mistake of comparing current tech to current tech, or the even worse mistake of comparing future tech to current tech.

We have to compare future tech to future tech, which is impossible to do definitively, because this means we are speculating.

Currently, solar panels are expensive, resource intensive, and fragile, fusion containment doesn't really work yet for any practical purpose, and radiothermal steam generators are cheap, efficient, and safe, but face a regulatory burden that would justify a second American revolution all by itself.

Proponents of solar often say "we need only cover 1% of the Sahara desert with solar panels to supply the world's energy". (Or whatever the % is nowdays.)

This, however, carries an implied fallacy.

A very large number does not become magically smaller if you compare it an even larger number... it only makes it look smaller.

Covering ten thousand, or a hundred thousand, square miles with solar panels is still covering that much space with solar panels. And then maintaining them. And defending them.

We don't really know everything we need to about manufacturing panels at that scale.

But the point is, this is all current tech.

The equation changes if we learn to make photoelectric surfaces that can simply be sprayed on.

And it changes again if we master fusion containment.

And it changes again if develop zero point energy harvesters, or can synthesize quantum black holes and harness the Hawking radiation from throwing literally anything into them.

Take it from a science fiction author... future tech is extremely hard to predict. You're generally lucky if you get one thing right. And the further into the future you try to look, the harder it is to be right about much of anything at all.

And when we speak of climbing the Kardashev scale, we are speaking in terms of becoming a very technically advanced civilization indeed. Who knows what that looks like?

However, if I had to guess, I suspect we will never build Dyson spheres. Not because we will never be able to, but because by the time we are able to, the whole idea of a Dyson sphere will seem hopelessly quaint and old-fashioned, like the use of film recording on a Mercury colony in Isaac Asimov's "The Dying Night".

By that point, stars themselves might be obsolete, something we take apart for mass to build bigger and more powerful computational networks.

In the near term, however, on Earth, not speaking of the Kardashev scale, radiothermal steam generators are probably the cheapest and most compact, if the politicians can be prodded or guillotined out of the way.

While solar offers advantages in terms of decentralization, localization, grid independence, and reduced grid load, if we can solve various production problems associated with manufacturing at scale.

text quote (275):Once you understand Kardashev Scale, it becomes utterly obvious that essentially all energy generation will be solar.

Also, just do the math on solar on Earth and you soon figure out that a relatively small corner of Texas or New Mexico can easily serve all US electricity.

id (19): 1839654691451580481

id orig (19): 1839467241261121630

id orig quote (19): 1839439841337225277

uid (27): 1464280101638799360 akrmn21

uid orig (34): 1675940718345617413 Devon_Eriksen_

uid quote (17): 44196397 elonmusk