From: hal@finney.org
Date: Tue Aug 31 1999 - 10:22:41 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury, <bradbury@www.aeiveos.com>, writes:
> That is what Hal has been complaining about, he wants the difference
> between the NM limit of ~10^4 W (10kg of nanobots) and ~10^7 W.
> Those 3 orders of magnitude let him build that mansion much faster.
> [Of course if he gets the entire power budget, we don't have any plants
> and very few animals left.]
>
> I would generally agree with Hal, in that I think we can get almost
> an order of magnitude more power without too much trouble.
> More than that and it is going to start creating problems
> until we have a lot of computer power to simulate the potential
> effects.
The interesting point remains that this limit exists and is relatively
low, within about one order of magnitude of 10^5 kW per person.
This is based either on renewable energy, if we assume less than perfect
efficiency, or in any case on avoiding destroying the natural energy
distribution of the earth and allowing most existing plants and animals
to remain in existence. I had not seen this limit stated explicitly
before and it is very interesting and sobering to realize that even with
nanotech we will be constrained in this way.
Things get worse, probably, if we use nonrenewable energy sources, so
that our heat is added to the existing solar energy. There's plenty
of deuterium in the sea if we can get D-D fusion working, and we may
even be able to find new fossil fuel deposits with improved drilling
and mining technology. (Robert Freitas presented the picturesque image
of diesel-powered nanobots; I pictured a Drexlerian assembler chugging
along with puffs of black smoke coming out.)
> But I suspect you can get probably 2-4 orders of magnitude
> better by doing more efficient assembly (i.e. chemical reactions
> that utilize/reuse the free energy effectively), reusing building
> blocks (so once you have invested in building them, you don't rebuild
> them) and going to more efficient nanodesigns. So we are probably
> wasting mental energy on the wrong side of the problem.
Yes, plus these calculations are assuming that you are building stuff
all the time (or at least using all that nanomachinery in a highly
energy intensive mode). In practice people may build things and then
use them for a while before they get tired of them and want something
new. During the usage phase probably only a fraction of the materials
need to be nanotechnically active. Even a utility fog is mostly only
doing stuff in the part that's within a few inches of you; the rest of
it (assuming you even need more than that) is just sitting there.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:58 MST