• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

All Our Energy Problems will be Solved!

RecoveringYuppy said:
Except things requiring the energy level of harnessing a black hole.
Click to expand...
How many Dyson spheres equals the amount that could be harvested from a black hole? If it's only 2 or 3, then it's probably not worth it. If we needed that much energy it might be more efficient to build Dyson spheres around the next 2 or 3 nearest stars than it would to build a device around a more distant black hole.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
@ theprestige

Are you saying the energy required to harvest energy from a black hole would be meager, and an adequate analogy to our capabilities when we started depending on coal?
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying that the energy required to harvest from a black hole is probably a tiny fraction of the energy that will be harvested over the lifetime of the project. That the energy we get from the project will make the energy we used to start the project look tiny and insignificant in comparison.

The big thing your suggestion seems to be overlooking is the amount of energy a black hole puts out, compared to other sources of energy. You keep suggesting that we wouldn't need to harvest that energy, because we'd be getting equivalent amounts of energy from other sources.

But there are no other sources like a black hole. To get the kind of energy we'd need to start tapping a black hole would probably take a long time to stockpile, star by star. But once we have it, once we get started on the tapping project, growth will speed up pretty quick.

It's also beginning to seem like you have an unstated philosophical assumption here, which is informing your objection.
 
I never said equivalent and when did I object?

Yes. If our technology reaches the point where we could harvest energy from a black hole, why not do it?

It could be a side project while we construct Dyson spheres.. ( Sorry Art.. I wrote that before I saw your post...}

There..
 
Last edited:
"If we're to the point that we can use computers to design computer chips, we probably don't need to waste computing resources on such things; after all, we've already figured out how to design computer chips by hand," said no one ever.
 
"Why am I wasting all this energy on animal husbandry, just to breed oxen that can haul large loads, when I'm perfectly capable of hauling stuff myself," said no one ever.
 
arthwollipot said:
How many Dyson spheres equals the amount that could be harvested from a black hole? If it's only 2 or 3, then it's probably not worth it. If we needed that much energy it might be more efficient to build Dyson spheres around the next 2 or 3 nearest stars than it would to build a device around a more distant black hole.
Click to expand...
The matter to energy conversion efficiencies available from black holes are many times larger than fusion. The mechanism cited in the article in the OP is more "efficient" than matter-antimatter and that's even assuming that you could find ready made anti-matter. Quasar's, which are powered by supermassive black holes, can outshine their entire galaxies (but note those are usually associated with supermassive black holes so we'd be talking about the center of our Galaxy). The power emitted just by the jets of Cygnus X-1 is easily 1,000 times the power of our Sun. But note that we can find stars that have 1,000 times the power of our Sun or even higher so some stars could rival a black hole depending on how you are extracting the power and on the particulars of the black hole you are comparing to.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
The matter to energy conversion efficiencies available from black holes are many times larger than fusion. The mechanism cited in the article in the OP is more "efficient" than matter-antimatter and that's even assuming that you could find ready made anti-matter. Quasar's, which are powered by supermassive black holes, can outshine their entire galaxies (but note those are usually associated with supermassive black holes so we'd be talking about the center of our Galaxy). The power emitted just by the jets of Cygnus X-1 is easily 1,000 times the power of our Sun. But note that we can find stars that have 1,000 times the power of our Sun or even higher so some stars could rival a black hole depending on how you are extracting the power and on the particulars of the black hole you are comparing to.
Click to expand...

It's also worth noting that the black holes will be around long after all the stars have burned out. It might be a little early to be planning for "what do we eat when all the stars are gone", but life and civilization can extend its existence by orders of magnitude by harvesting black holes for power when that time comes.

Yeah, I'm talking about extending the lifetime of civilization from 10 trillion years or so to something like 10100 years.
 
arthwollipot said:
How many Dyson spheres equals the amount that could be harvested from a black hole? If it's only 2 or 3, then it's probably not worth it. If we needed that much energy it might be more efficient to build Dyson spheres around the next 2 or 3 nearest stars than it would to build a device around a more distant black hole.
Click to expand...

Here's a scenario: a civilization is slowly colonizing the galaxy. Something approximating Dyson Spheres are growing around an expanding region of stars. They find a black hole on the edge of that region.

(Currently the closest black hole known to us is 1000 light years away, but they're not that easy to spot, and I expect we'll find nearer ones)

The amount of energy they can extract per unit cost may be much higher for that black hole than for a star at similar distance from that expanding region of colonization. It's not like Dyson Spheres are cheap.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
The matter to energy conversion efficiencies available from black holes are many times larger than fusion. The mechanism cited in the article in the OP is more "efficient" than matter-antimatter and that's even assuming that you could find ready made anti-matter. Quasar's, which are powered by supermassive black holes, can outshine their entire galaxies (but note those are usually associated with supermassive black holes so we'd be talking about the center of our Galaxy). The power emitted just by the jets of Cygnus X-1 is easily 1,000 times the power of our Sun. But note that we can find stars that have 1,000 times the power of our Sun or even higher so some stars could rival a black hole depending on how you are extracting the power and on the particulars of the black hole you are comparing to.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I wasn't sure if this question was addressed in the article as it was blocked in my environment. It wasn't a tl;dr.

It sounds like it would depend on whether there are sufficiently powerful stars in our region to build Dyson spheres around.

I also want to make clear that we are talking about Kardashev Type 2 civilisations here, which is why I throw around Dyson spheres (which for practical purposes would have to actually be Dyson swarms) so casually. By some estimates, humanity is at best about at Kardashev Type 0.7.
 
Dyson spheres and swarms seem like exactly the kind of intermediate tech a K2 civ would build out as a stepping stone to BH harvesting and bootstrapping themselves to K3.
 
theprestige said:
Dyson spheres and swarms seem like exactly the kind of intermediate tech a K2 civ would build out as a stepping stone to BH harvesting and bootstrapping themselves to K3.
Click to expand...
OK if I be pedantic? K3 means a civilization that controls the entire energy of an entire galaxy. If you aren't using the black holes you aren't fully K3. Using the black holes isn't a means to the end it is a necessary part of the goal.
 
theprestige said:
Dyson spheres and swarms seem like exactly the kind of intermediate tech a K2 civ would build out as a stepping stone to BH harvesting and bootstrapping themselves to K3.
Click to expand...

RecoveringYuppy said:
OK if I be pedantic? K3 means a civilization that controls the entire energy of an entire galaxy. If you aren't using the black holes you aren't fully K3. Using the black holes isn't a means to the end it is a necessary part of the goal.
Click to expand...

Both very true.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
OK if I be pedantic? K3 means a civilization that controls the entire energy of an entire galaxy. If you aren't using the black holes you aren't fully K3. Using the black holes isn't a means to the end it is a necessary part of the goal.
Click to expand...

Why not both? Tapping that first black hole leapfrogs you closer to that K3 goal.
 
theprestige said:
Why not both? Tapping that first black hole leapfrogs you closer to that K3 goal.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. What I was trying to say is it has to be both. You can't be K3 without tapping the black holes since they are one of the energy sources in the galaxy. When you do it is just a tactical decision.
 
I suppose, to be serious for a minute, one way to get the terawatts of energy back to Earth to use it and in a timeframe not measured in centuries you could create a wormhole with one end at the black hole at the other near earth.

And then run a long extension cord through it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom