张雅楠zeyarna的博客

从最近美国《资源充足性报告》上，看出美国当前的能源策略其实一种对于计划大力发展人工智能的应急能源策略，如果神经技术人工智能的廉价进入导致的大规模的无人机械设备和人形机器人通用自动生产，将导致更大规模的电力缺口。那么我们最终的能源方向是什么?
我想从能量不灭论的角度看，所有的生物能源均来自植物，而植物的生长则来自于太阳能。当目前光伏发电的太阳能板的太阳能转化率接近生物进化结果的光合作用60%的时候，我个人认为光伏发电的效率基本上已经达到极限。
那么我们的核电呢？很简单，我们的核裂变发电主要是浓缩放射性矿物质，一方面这种资源的奇缺性，另外一方面裂变后物质的放射性污染问题。也就是说我们把大自然的放射性都汇聚在了一起，后面就会出现地球坟场这种情况。至于经济性方面，我还没来得及继续评估，因为这种天然放射性物质是地球自身产生的，简单说是越来越少的，而且浓缩成本很高，大面积的矿石开采带来的生态破坏性很强。而类似太阳的核聚变，简单讲只能发生在原子力很小的轻核物质氢元素上，虽然蕴藏量很大，而且可以制成小型化聚变电池，并且没有环境污染，但释放出的氦气将会以气体的形式逃逸至太空，从能量不灭的角度讲其实是地球总能量的损失。氢气是星球诞生的基本物质，而且大规模开采氢气，加速温室效应和地球水资源循环问题是值得考虑和研究的。
总得来讲，从能量的角度，只有太阳能使用的是宇宙正能量，除了防止植物缺少阳光死亡外和氧气缺失外，不会出现其他衍生负面问题。毕竟我们有着40%陆地面积的沙漠和90%以上面积的海洋，而海洋反射的太阳能是非常可观的。
顺便说一句按照纤维素的结构式计算，大约CO2与H2O的使用比率在6：5，也就是植物吸收太阳能后固化了CO2与H2O。那么在生化资源燃烧后，进一步以CO2释放了碳元素，同时生成了水蒸气H2O，也就说生化燃料其实在生成和燃烧过程中就是释放了固化的太阳能。如果我们每天烧10吨的一棵树按照热能换算大约是5吨的汽油，相当于每天汽油发电12500千瓦时。每户每天用电量30千瓦时，烧掉一棵树可以满足一户2年的用电量。如果按照十年成树来估算，那么我们把太阳能电池板布置到7.5棵树冠大小的面积，每棵树树冠按照20平米计算，大约150平米，就可以完全满足这户的终身的用电量了。
而目前我们直接转化使用太阳能的话，转化率大约在30%左右，当达到光合作用的60%的时候基本可以认为达到生物进化的人工技术顶峰。目前30%的转化率的太阳能板每平米大约150瓦用电量，按照每天有效工作时间10个小时，200平米即可满足一户30千瓦时的一天用电量。而在60%转化效率下，只需要100平米。我们的屋顶，外墙都甚至是我们路面都是很好的去处，当然还有我们的海洋和沙漠。你会发愁我们的机器人和人工智能没有电力吗？
由此看出，与使用树木进行对比看，我们在达到60%转化率时两个的算法都证明是即便是处于了完全取代石化燃料效率的技术顶峰。
采用太阳能作为经济量纲是从能量环境角度和人工智能大面积应用角度都是一个非常有意思的话题。

From the recent U.S. “Resource Adequacy Report”, it can be seen that the current energy strategy of the United States is actually an emergency energy strategy for the plan to vigorously develop artificial intelligence. So what is our ultimate energy direction?
I think from the perspective of energy immortality, all bioenergy comes from plants, and plant growth comes from solar energy. When the solar energy conversion rate of photovoltaic solar panels is close to 60% of the photosynthesis result of biological evolution, I personally think that the efficiency of photovoltaic power generation has basically reached its limit.
What about our nuclear power? Quite simply, our nuclear fission power generation is mainly to concentrate radioactive minerals, on the one hand, the scarcity of this resource, and on the other hand, the radioactive contamination of fission materials. In other words, we bring together all the radioactivity of nature, and there will be an earth graveyard later. As for the economic aspect, I haven’t had time to continue evaluating it, because this natural radioactive material is produced by the earth itself, to put it simply, it is getting less and less, and the enrichment cost is very high, and the ecological damage caused by large-scale ore mining is very strong. Although the reserves are large, and can be made into miniaturized fusion batteries, and there is no environmental pollution, the helium released will escape into space in the form of gas, which is actually the loss of the total energy of the earth from the perspective of indestructible energy. Hydrogen is the basic substance for the birth of the planet, and large-scale hydrogen extraction, accelerating the greenhouse effect and the earth’s water cycle are worth considering and studying.
In general, from an energy point of view, only solar energy uses the positive energy of the universe, and there will be no other negative problems except to prevent plants from dying from lack of sunlight and lack of oxygen. After all, we have 40% of the land area of desert and more than 90% of the ocean, and the solar energy reflected by the ocean is very considerable.
By the way, according to the structural formula of cellulose, the ratio of CO2 to H2O is about 6:5, that is, the plant absorbs solar energy and solidifies CO2 and H2O. After the combustion of biochemical resources, carbon is further released with CO2, and water vapor H2O is generated at the same time, which means that biochemical fuels actually release solidified solar energy in the process of generation and combustion. If we burn a tree that burns 10 tons a day, it is equivalent to about 5 tons of gasoline according to heat energy, which is equivalent to 12,500 kWh of gasoline power generation per day. Each household consumes 30 kWh of electricity per day, and burning a tree can meet the electricity consumption of a household for 2 years. If we estimate according to the ten-year tree growth, then we arrange the solar panels to an area the size of 7.5 tree canopies, and each tree canopy is calculated according to 20 square meters, about 150 square meters, which can fully meet the lifetime electricity consumption of this household.
At present, if we directly convert to solar energy, the conversion rate is about 30%, and when it reaches 60% of photosynthesis, it can basically be considered to have reached the peak of artificial technology in biological evolution. At present, the solar panel with a conversion rate of 30% consumes about 150 watts per square meter, and according to the effective working time of 10 hours a day, 200 square meters can meet the daily electricity consumption of 30 kWh for a household. At 60% conversion efficiency, only 100 square meters are needed. Our roofs, facades, and even our pavement are great places to go, and of course, our oceans and deserts. Will you worry that our robots and artificial intelligence have no power?
Thus, when compared with the use of trees, both algorithms have proven to be at the peak of technology that completely replaces fossil fuel efficiency when we reach a conversion rate of 60%.
The use of solar energy as an economic dimension is a very interesting topic from the perspective of energy and environment and the large-scale application of artificial intelligence.