Why don't (man made) generators of heat from internal sources in earths system cause climate change?
$begingroup$
So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs etc... contribute to climate change, or even things like accelerated decay of radioactive material. Human caused factors. I'm fairly sure It's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space but I honestly have no idea.
A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way:
If every human had 100 100W fluorescent lightbulb (5% efficiency) each and were to leave it on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation
The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)
specific heat capacity of air:
SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html
$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$
$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$
Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100 x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.
atmospheric-science climate-science
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs etc... contribute to climate change, or even things like accelerated decay of radioactive material. Human caused factors. I'm fairly sure It's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space but I honestly have no idea.
A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way:
If every human had 100 100W fluorescent lightbulb (5% efficiency) each and were to leave it on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation
The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)
specific heat capacity of air:
SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html
$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$
$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$
Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100 x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.
atmospheric-science climate-science
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
$endgroup$
– jinawee
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs etc... contribute to climate change, or even things like accelerated decay of radioactive material. Human caused factors. I'm fairly sure It's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space but I honestly have no idea.
A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way:
If every human had 100 100W fluorescent lightbulb (5% efficiency) each and were to leave it on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation
The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)
specific heat capacity of air:
SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html
$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$
$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$
Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100 x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.
atmospheric-science climate-science
$endgroup$
So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs etc... contribute to climate change, or even things like accelerated decay of radioactive material. Human caused factors. I'm fairly sure It's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space but I honestly have no idea.
A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way:
If every human had 100 100W fluorescent lightbulb (5% efficiency) each and were to leave it on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation
The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)
specific heat capacity of air:
SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html
$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$
$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$
Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100 x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.
atmospheric-science climate-science
atmospheric-science climate-science
edited 3 hours ago
Ján Lalinský
14.8k1334
14.8k1334
asked 4 hours ago
SkidusheSkidushe
162
162
$begingroup$
Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
$endgroup$
– jinawee
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
$endgroup$
– jinawee
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
$endgroup$
– jinawee
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
$endgroup$
– jinawee
3 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.
With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.
There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.
Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.
Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising CO$_2$ I do not know. Probably it is ( as can be estimated from your calculation), but decreasing it is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
$endgroup$
– craq
5 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459462%2fwhy-dont-man-made-generators-of-heat-from-internal-sources-in-earths-system-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.
With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.
With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.
With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)
$endgroup$
The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.
With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
PieterPieter
8,11431432
8,11431432
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.
There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.
There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.
There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.
$endgroup$
The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.
There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.
answered 1 hour ago
BowlOfRedBowlOfRed
16.1k22440
16.1k22440
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.
Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.
Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising CO$_2$ I do not know. Probably it is ( as can be estimated from your calculation), but decreasing it is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
$endgroup$
– craq
5 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.
Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.
Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising CO$_2$ I do not know. Probably it is ( as can be estimated from your calculation), but decreasing it is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
$endgroup$
– craq
5 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.
Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.
Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising CO$_2$ I do not know. Probably it is ( as can be estimated from your calculation), but decreasing it is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.
$endgroup$
Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.
Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.
Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising CO$_2$ I do not know. Probably it is ( as can be estimated from your calculation), but decreasing it is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.
answered 3 hours ago
Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský
14.8k1334
14.8k1334
$begingroup$
Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
$endgroup$
– craq
5 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
$endgroup$
– craq
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
$endgroup$
– craq
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
$endgroup$
– craq
5 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459462%2fwhy-dont-man-made-generators-of-heat-from-internal-sources-in-earths-system-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
$endgroup$
– jinawee
3 hours ago