Talk:Kardashev scale/Archive 3

Criticism?
barely touches on a few criticism of this seemingly dated idea. A few obvious question marks include:
 * The scale seems to ignore the steady gains in energy efficiency in every (present-day) modern economy. Technological progress decreases the energy input per unit of GDP over time. One way to measure the techological stature of a culture is by its energy efficiency, not just its crude energy dissipation. The future of technology appears to be about getting more and more from less and less. One measure of this phenomenon is the way GDP growth outstrips growth in production of basic energy-intensive commodities such as Portland cement.
 * The scale ignores the steadily dropping cost of information (Moore's Law), along with the deflating energy requirements of computing, and the ripple effects of energy deflation as the decreasing cost of information causes it to be substituted for energy as a factor of production wherever possible. For example, instead of flying around in business jets, executives can get the same work done by videoconferencing, at a cost in energy which steadily decreases over time. Telecommunication technology improves by leaps and bounds while using progressively less energy per unit of information transmitted, while the real cost of flying jets seems bound to increase due to Peak Oil.
 * The energy industry is a mature industry, and thus its pace of innovation is slow. The "action" today is in information technology. Don't expect portable cold fusion power generators to appear any time soon, and by the time they might appear, molecular computers may have made computing so energy-cheap that we will barely need them. Moore's Law might make information almost "too cheap to meter," but no present trend suggests the same will be possible for energy, despite the early optimistic claims of nuclear-power promoters.
 * The scale ignores the demographic transition which appears to be holding, for now at least, in every technologically-advanced population. Those human populations which have managed to harness present-day advanced technology are no longer exponentiating. Japan and Western Europe even seem poised to undergo long-term declines in population. The United States is the only developed nation which is still increasing in population, mostly due to immigration from still-rapidly-breeding third-world populations. Only primitive civilizations still obey the population dynamics of microbes and insects, automatically expanding to match the food supply. This trend was probably not clear to Kardashev in the 1960's while the Baby Boom was still going.
 * Moore's Law might help bring the demographic transition to impoverished third-world nations sooner than it occurred in developed nations (i.e., before third-world nations attain first-world per capita energy expenditure, if that would even be possible), by reducing the energy cost of creating an educated populace in which women have a say in reproductive choice.
 * A civilization which managed to divert the entire energy budget of a planet would turn that planet into an ecological wasteland, the global equivalent of the industrial areas of New Jersey and the strip mines of West Virginia. All other life forms would be exterminated because the civilization would be consuming all of its planet's net primary productivity.
 * The scale neglects the need for an energy sink. The early stages of growth in energy consumption were made possible by the fact that most of the world was uninhabited, so it was easy for early civilizations to dispose of wastes, and migrate to fresh lands after despoiling their habitats. Humans diverted a negligible fraction of the world's energy, so there were no problems with using the world as a heat sink. As civilization bites off larger portions of NPP, there are fewer places to throw the garbage.
 * Instead of reshaping worlds to fit their naturally evolved weaknesses, maybe intelligent creatures will re-engineer themselves to be tougher and less in need of highly artificial environments. For example, humans might genetically engineer themselves to be as tough as trees. Then they would not need buildings and vast amounts of energy to maintain artificial semi-tropical habitats for themselves during cold winters.

Perhaps an advanced civilization will find solutions to all the ecological problems of diverting an entire planetary energy budget for its own use. But it might be simpler for that civilization to limit its numbers, and shrink the size and heat/waste dissipation of its artifacts. Kardashev wrote at a time when technology was only just beginning to provide civilization with some effective tools to limit its population growth. Before then, rising prosperity had always meant rising birth rates, lower death rates, and  population increase. Today there are indications that advanced populations are getting tired of mindless growth. Third-world populations, which have all the growth, seem unlikely to build Dyson spheres or interstellar space cruisers powered by warp drives any time soon. --Teratornis 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is documenting this "outdated idea". While your ideas sound like a better way to measure a civilization, they are your ideas and therfore original research.  Because of this, they couldn't be included in this article.  However, if you can find published criticisms of the Kardashev scale, then they could be included. Val42 02:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The scale is based off the ultilization of energy, and as such is perhaps poorly named as a "scale of technological development", but is still perfectly applicable. Although some of the predictions made along side the scale are out of date, the general scale is still rather useful. You just need to look past the pure "technology" interpretation. As above, if you wish to add these to the article, find some good references and ideally suggestions for alternatives to supercede 82.36.72.45 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that "increased energy usage != progress" is a reaction that many readers will have, and the article will probably appear biased to them if the issue isn't addressed, either through a "criticism" section, or by explicitly attributing this connection to Kardashev or someone else other than Wikipedia editors. Can any experts weigh in? -- Beland (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that... whether technology makes a civilization advanced is a matter of perspective, so if anyone wants to find a 'politically correct' way in dealing with it, I support.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, regarding the argument that:-
 * "The scale ignores the steadily dropping cost of information (Moore's Law), along with the deflating energy requirements of computing, and the ripple effects of energy deflation as the decreasing cost of information causes it to be substituted for energy as a factor of production wherever possible. For example, instead of flying around in business jets, executives can get the same work done by videoconferencing, at a cost in energy which steadily decreases over time. Telecommunication technology improves by leaps and bounds while using progressively less energy per unit of information transmitted, while the real cost of flying jets seems bound to increase due to Peak Oil."


 * refer to the article summarised at http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19726372.700-can-we-stop-the-internet-destroying-our-planet.html . Computing activites are already equalling the power consumption of air travel. If one assumes consumption will continue to double every five years (a very crude & hopefully ridiculous assumption), then computing will use around 50% of all power within 25 years!


 * Secondly, for a civilisation spread across the solar system (implied by a scale rating between K1 & K2), speed-of-light delays will make teleconferencing impossible. At the very closest approach, there will be a 1,000 second delay when talking between Earth & Mars. If a K1+ civilisation can be assumed to extend out to the Oort cloud (???) then the round-trip time would be measured in days.


 * Thirdly, as space technology allows reduced trip times, it will come at the expense of increased power consumption. One could assume that the ultimate travel experience would be provided by a one-gee-all-the-way spaceship (with turnover at the half-way point). Can anyone calculate the power consumption of such a ship assuming that it has the same passenger-carrying capacity as one of the big ocean liners, and is travelling out to the Oort cloud. My intuition tells me the figure will be Terawatts or Petawatts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HexAmp (talk • contribs) 08:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But Kardashev's scale isn't based from an earth perspective... It doesn't matter what our consumption or production levels are. Only when we try to find our place on the Kardashev scale does our total production potential and consistency have any basis. Kardashev doesn't care about whether we can manage our power levels, or become more efficient in our power usage, we only use the scale as a measurement of power levels. That's why Moore's law and power consumption is not a focus of the article.


 * The power need by a civilization to make round trips to the Oort cloud, can not be done here under WP:NOR. I don't have a information on scientists doing calculations of power needed to travel to the Oort cloud, the topic of humans going to the Oort cloud are currently in the realm of science fiction, but without any of it's import, to the Kardashev scale.--Sparkygravity (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent civilizations are almost certain to run into constraints on energy consumption long before they get the opportunity to exploit energy potentials on a Type I scale. Early Type 0 civilizations tend to use brute-force solutions that quickly get exhausted and turn counterproductive. Profligate use of energy results in either the depletion of resources (peak oil) or into the ruin of an environment (where does one put all the depleted uranium, or how does one put all the nuclear waste, and how does a planetary civilization with Type I consumption of energy avoid setting off a harsh greenhouse effect that turns an planet from one amenable to life to one not so amenable? That is, how much global warming turns a planet with temperatures characteristic of San Francisco to the summer daytime temperatures of Death Valley -- which would ruin agriculture -- even if such does not set off a runaway greenhouse effect that turns an Earth-like planet into a Venus-like planet?)

As said above, information technology seems to be surpassing energy use as a means of getting things done other than feeding people, moving people and things about, and heating or cooling buildings. Although it is unlikely that major increases in food output per person are likely, population is likely to stabilize. Nothing says that humanity can't do better at the cruder uses of energy -- transportation and heating and cooling. (I can imagine a near-Type I civilization modifying the planetary climate to some optimum that vastly reduces the need for heating and cooling. That might be much like San Francisco or Mexico City on a large scale, as opposed to places like Kiev, Beijing, and St. Louis that have harsh summers and winters that must be met with heating and cooling. Virtual reality could substitute well for peak experiences and destroy the reality of scarcity even of Great Master paintings.

Heavy use of energy per top life form (humanity in 2008) may be analogous at a certain level of sophistication of civilization to civilizations that relied entirely upon gold, silver, and copper for metals. It could be that until a civilization begins colonizing other solar systems that it can never approach a Type I civilization.

A society that fails to meet the need to constrain its resource use will become the malign invaders of Independence Day and eventually inflict or receive consummate tragedy.Paul from Michigan (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Interview with Dr. Kaku
There has been discussion about if the Borg is, or is not, a Type III civilization by the editors here at wikipedia. While it is nice we discuss this, the man with true knowledge in this field (Dr. Kaku) has stated in various interviews and in his book "Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension" that the Borg are in-fact a 'true type-III civilization"

Per a transcript of his first interview with Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM back in 1997, Dr. Kaku states:

"...but my point is that for a civilization like a Type-II, um a civilization that can harness the power of a star, like in Star Trek by the way; The Federation of Planets with Captain Kirk and company is a typical Type II civilization. Uh, the Borg by the way, the enemy of the Federation is a Type III. Uh, that's why Captain Picard fears the Borg so much because they are a genuine Type III galactic civilization." - Dr. Kaku on Coast to Coast AM, 8/22/1997 (excerpt from time code 44:10-44:33)

Concidering the Dr. has stated this in one of his books and in an interview (as well as other interviews but I don't have the time at the moment to find this also find all the references. I also found that he said this multiple times after the above quote in that interview but for brevity I haven't included them.), I think we are arguing opinions of editors while the reputable and notable Doctor has already stated this as 'fact'.


 * Edit::

I also wanted to point out for those who wish to argue the point, in Star Trek:Voyager, the voyager was thrown into the Delta Quadrant. It was stated many times that it would take over 75 years for the crew to get back to the Alpha Quadrant at maximum warp of the ship (Warp 9.997).

The Borg's first formal contact with Starfleet occurred in 2365 by interference from Q in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, "Q Who?". Q transported the Enterprise-D to System FGC-J25, in the deep reaches of the Delta Quadrant just long enough to expose them to the Borg.

The Borg set a course for Earth from the Delta Quadrant. They were able to cover the same distance in under a year.

-- Brian ( view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 14:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The borg don't control the whole milky way galaxy, or even the whole delta quadrant they are not type III The snare 06:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense snare, but when one of the most intelligent men alive today, Dr. Kaku, says they are when talking about his field of study, your or my opinion doesn't mean anything. The guy built a circular particle accelerator when he was in highschool, teaches at the graduate level, and has more scientific respect and knowledge than most wikipedians combined. If he says they are a type III, they are a type three.

Per a transcript of his first interview with Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM back in 1997, Dr. Kaku states:

"...but my point is that for a civilization like a Type-II, um a civilization that can harness the power of a star, like in Star Trek by the way; The Federation of Planets with Captain Kirk and company is a typical Type II civilization. Uh, the Borg by the way, the enemy of the Federation is a Type III. Uh, that's why Captain Picard fears the Borg so much because they are a genuine Type III galactic civilization." - Dr. Kaku on Coast to Coast AM, 8/22/1997 (excerpt from time code 44:10-44:33)

You want to argue this point with Dr. Michio Kaku? He graduated (summa cum laude) from Harvard University, He went on to the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley and received a Ph.D, Currently holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at City College of New York, where he has taught for more than 25 years, has been a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, as well as at New York University. Sorry, I'll take the word of the Dr. over any wikipedians. -- Brian ( view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 08:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling him the "one of the most intelligent men alive" is a bit over the top, don't you think? Especially when he's going on about how much power the Borg Collective is able to generate, a fictional civilization using fictional technology. A Harvard degree doesn't allow one to read the minds of TV scriptwriters. Does anyone know of any references to episodes, books, or anything else within the Star Trek milieu to indicate what the power generating capacity of the Borg is? That's the only source that can really establish the Kardashevicity of the Borg with certainty, IMO the best we can do with Kaku's comment is a "The Borg are described by some to be K-III" comment. Bryan Derksen 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your committing what's called the appeal to authority fallacy, he says it, he has a Harvard Degree so it must be true! Mr Kaku could explain the logic behind it if he were here, he would tell me why instead of just saying he has a big degree, but you're not him. A type 3 civilization can harness all the energy in an entire galaxy, that means every star, every planet, every nebulae and everything else. The borg don't control every star, planet, nebulae and everything else in the Milky Way galaxy or even one-fourth of it. I know this just as well as Michio Kaku does. No one said he was infallible! The snare 06:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy. It is an appeal to an unreliable authority which is fallacious.  If one were to say that there are such things as "wandering black holes", because Michio Kaku said so, it would be a more believable statement than if an arbitrary Wikipedian were cited as saying it.  This appeal to authority is convincing, because Dr. Kaku is an expert in the field that the proposition is concerned with.  However, because Dr. Kaku is an expert of science does not mean that he is an expert of science fiction .  It would be more useful and perhaps more convincing if Gene Roddenberry or one of his successors were to supply an opinion on this matter. 24.17.164.47 12:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As an avid trek fan, I felt the need to throw my two cents in to this debate. Firstly, it is fallacious to cite Kaku's opinion as fact, since it is only his opinion.  His opinion is certainly informed, but it is still just his consideration.  To say Michio Kaku views and has argued that the Borg are type III is acceptable.  To state the Borg are type III simply based on one man's educated view is quite another, and in my opinion is overreaching.  If you know your trek, you know the Borg have little influence in the Gamma quadrant, and don't appear at all in DS9 apart from flashbacks to Wolf 359.  DS9 is farther into Alpha quadrant territory, so presumably any Borg incursions have been repelled before getting that far.  In addition, There was a point in Voyager when the Voyager entered "Borg space", or rather the region where the Borg have established the beginnings of a type III civilization.  Before entering that region, the Voyager encountered numerous civilizations which appeared to have no contact with the Borg.  In addition, many of the Delta quadrant species featured in the beginning of voyager seemed far less developed than the federation, so it is improbable these cultures outwitted or outgunned the Borg.  In any event, the Borg do not meet basic qualifications of the type III scale, in spite of Kaku's statement.72.92.17.135 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Update
I really like the layout of the article and the flow of the text in the current revision. It is logical, clear and just plain interesting and verfiably accurate. Well done, Sparky! There's always room for improving things, but it is much harder for me to see where this could be done now. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Classifying fictional civilizations
At the moment, very few of the civilizations listed in the Kardashev scale section give any indication that their classification is not in violation of No original research or No original synthesis. Many of these universes are not particularly "hard" science fiction, making it doubtful that the author even considered power consumption important. Would anyone disagree to paring this list to include only those civilizations which have been discussed in context of the Kardashev scale? Arguably, references like the Stapledon which explicitly mentions power consumption (and sustaining it in an entropy-increases universe) are allowable as obvious deduction. I am not, however, convinced of the utility of such references even leaving aside the bloat-control issues. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going back and forth about just junking the whole section as speculative/original research/fancruft. These fictional civilizations do shed some light on the issue, helping us imagine what extraterrestrial civilizations might look like, and the universes mentioned are notable enough to have their own articles.  But to stay on solid footing, I agree, they should be limited to cases where a writer has explicitly considered the question of where the civilization falls on the scale, or there is a raw number or other very obvious marker.  And each instance should have a reference to the writer's analysis, or episode or page or something.  I'm happy to leave a "citation needed" tag until someone does some research, but policy says it's OK to move unreferenced text to the talk page and whatnot. -- Beland (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree that many of the fiction examples don't cite or mention their connection with the scale. However if you were to take the borg and starship federation from star trek for example... These are two fiction examples which don't relate directly to the scale nor does the tv show really make reference to Kardashev's scale. However these were two examples of science fiction that Dr. Kaku picked to illustrate an example or different scale types. Which why I think the fiction section has any real value of reference. It's not to point out specific examples of when the Kardashev Scale is mentioned but rather the way the Kardashev scale is applied to classify fictional examples. I see it as a way to connect with the readers of this article. That being said if we wanted to chop the list down to 4 examples per type or even 3, and then do our best to see that those examples do mention the Kardashev scale directly or have direct power examples, I think that would be great.
 * One thing that I've been thinking about is the creation of a list... it seems that people want to add their two cents, but that their input is restricted and then reverted by our efforts to minimalize the violations of WP:Style and Embedded lists. So with the creation of a list people would have a place to add Warhammer 40000 and the different races of Star Wars if they so choose. Then the debate on fictional civilizations and the references to kardashev could be moved to that page. It would create an beneficial outlet for the seemingly never ending sci-fiction fan additions.--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * List of fictional civilizations by Kardashev value with a main link from an abbreviated version here? Suboptimal, but I would not oppose such a creation. What if instead we maintain the sense of connection provided through use of concrete (referenced for preference, or at the very least more solid than 'they can do xxx, is that not cool?') examples by weaving them into the text? A more complete list could still be listed prominently under See also. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right I would want at least some explanation why a fictional civilization was a type I, II, or III. Currently that would be under power, but I have long maintained that the Kardashev scale while established through power has been changing to define many attributes by which a civilization would be technologically capable of achieving a higher level of technology (for examples see physicists Kaku, or Dyson). So if a fictional civilization was able to achieve a level synonymous with type II capabilities, as long as they were able to reference that from the novel or game, whatever, I'd be fine with that. I just want an reasonable explanation, let the sci-fi buffs argue it out on the lists talk page.--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at the page and it definitely seems that something needs to happen cuz the example section is looking more like a list every week. I haven't created the "list page" because your absolutely right... it's suboptimal. However, I'm currently despairing the organization of examples and a bit desperate for a solution either a rewrite without the style of a list or the creation of forementioned page.... What do you guys think?--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just excised the list bit. Maybe I am being too harsh here, but the descriptive examples under #Energy development seem to have the requirements and implications covered at least as well as the (often dubious) fictional examples. I would support fleshing out those descriptions with sufficiently useful examples. No hard feelings if anyone would like to revert this change for more thorough discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm the type of guy that doesn't like to take things away from articles... However, the classified section was definitely starting to violate WP:Style by being to much like a WP:Embedded list. I don't think the removal is a solution but I approve until I can think about what to do with the material, how to introduce it, reproduce it in a productive manner. Right now it stands at half example, half fan commentary... I'm still scratching my head with this problem.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional civilizations by Kardashev value
I stripped this section from articlespace. Here it is for reference or possibly a seed for a stand-alone list. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Classifying fictional civilizations

These categorizations are not firm, and are neither complete nor absolute. Most science fiction space opera writers do not specifically write their works with Kardashev classification in mind. Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question covers many of the same themes as Kardashev's papers, in its descriptions of the future use of energy and entropy by human civilization; however it does not mention the scale, as it was written in 1956.


 * Type I
 * The Pierson's Puppeteers from Larry Niven's Known Space books. Their society consumes so much power from Total conversion that surface temperatures are maintained, by waste heat, even after the planet is moved 1/10th of a light year away from its star. Power production must therefore be equivalent to the previous insolation. See Fleet of Worlds.
 * The Krell, the (extinct) inhabitants of Forbidden Planet. They left behind a facility of enormous power (described as 9,600 thermonuclear generators occupying 33,000 cubic kilometers), though the purpose was initially unknown.  However, a monster created by Dr. Morbius's id was able to tap into this power.  According to the power meters shown in the generating plant during the attack, energy use was about 1015 times that used by Dr. Morbius and his daughter under normal conditions.  Assuming normal use would be 1–10 KW, this puts them at Type I or slightly above.


 * Type II
 * The United Federation of Planets of Star Trek.
 * The People of the Worldsphere of Doctor Who first seen in The Also People.
 * The territory of Eelong in the Pendragon Series by D. J. MacHale utilizes all power from a belt of suns known as the Skaa.
 * The Galactic Empire of The Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov is a galaxy-spanning civilization which possesses the technology necessary to harness energy on a planetary level.  Combined with the large number of planets, this produces a Type II civilization.


 * Type III
 * The Asgard from the Sci-Fi series Stargate. Thor's race employs technology allowing them to cause time dialation. Their ships are capable of crossing the voids between galaxies in mere days to weeks.
 * The Galactic Republic of Star Wars by George Lucas is a galaxy-spanning society. It has constructed planet-destroying space platforms which expend energy consistent with a Type III civilization, albeit not continuously.
 * Dr. Michio Kaku has argued the Borg Collective of Star Trek represent a Type III civilization.
 * The Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon.  The stellar energy output of the whole galaxy is utilized by the Galactic Community of Worlds.
 * Manifold: Time, by Stephen Baxter — in the distant future, descendants of humanity maintain vast Dyson nets around the supermassive black hole remnants of galaxies until they evaporate via Hawking radiation, accessing the energy equivalent of multiple galaxies.
 * The Forerunners, of the Halo (series) and its universe, had the power to wipe out life on a galactic scale and had done so before to eradicate the parasitic species known as the Flood, wiping themselves out in the process. They also were able to create such megastructures as the dyson sphere and 'shunt' them into slipspace.
 * The Therians from AT-43, a science fiction themed strategy game by Rackham. The Therians have constructed dyson shells around a very large number of stars including every star in the Milky Way galaxy and an unknown number of stars from nearby galaxies.


 * Type IV and above
 * The Q Continuum and its individual members in the Star Trek mythos
 * The Time Lords of Doctor Who — in the story The Gallifrey Chronicles the Time Lord Marnal claims "The Time Lords were the Type 4 civilization. We had no equals. We controlled the fundamental forces of the entire universe. Nothing could communicate with us on our level. Most races pray to lesser beings than the Time Lords".
 * The Dancers at the End of Time by Michael Moorcock - a past civilization is described which consumed all the energy in all the stars in the universe (saving Earth's own sun) in order to fuel an existence where the inheritors of the Earth lived as nigh-omnipotent gods.
 * The Ancients from the Stargate mythos invented a machine to harness all the power of this universe and other universes, by using Zero-point energy. Unfortunately it never worked properly, creating a large amount of uncontrollable exotic particles. The Ancients did finally achieve powers over the universe by Ascending to another plane of existence. This is an example of Transhumanism in fiction.
 * In Isaac Asimov's science fiction novel "The Last Question", humanity is able to harness the power of the entire Universe.
 * In Stephen Baxter's Xeelee Sequence, the Photino Birds harness the power of all of stars in the universe and the Xeelee, another universe spanning civilization, flee to other universes.
 * In the video game series Half-Life, the Combine is an alien empire that spans an undefined number of parallel universes, due to the unique ability to control inter-dimensional travel (by means of Dark Fusion reactor). The Combine expands its empire by invading worlds and enslaving the dominant species to be exploited as it sees fit.

Equivalences
The table expressed the amount of energy produced by human civilization in terawatts per hour, since at the same time it expressed it in mtoes per year, quads per year, etc etc... any other way they are not equivalent.

For example:

In the year 2010 the world will produce 16terawatts per hour ...

16 terawatts per hour = 140,160 terawatts per YEAR, which is equal to 12,100 millions of tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoes) per YEAR....

12,100 mtoes = 12,100,000,000 toes

kardrak (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved from my talk. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

man youre wrong...

use an energy converter like this: http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conversion_calculators/energy-conversion.shtml

now tell me if those numbers of quads, mtoes etc per year are eqivalentwith the numbers expressed in terawatts in that table...

a year has 8760 hours.... divide mtoes per year/8760 then convert that result in terawatts and you will see the coincidence...

or multiply terawatts per 8760 and then that result convert it in mtoes....

kardrak (t) 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note how when converting one unit of energy to another unit of energy, that converter uses watt-hours, not watts. This is because watt-hour is a unit of energy; this is contrasted with watt, which is a unit of power. This is why light bulbs are rated in watts but you pay for kilowatt-hours based on for what length of time the bulb draws its 100 watts of power.
 * Consider 21 exajoules/year (energy per time). This converts to 5,833,333,333,333,333 watthours/year (((energy per time)*time)/time). Multiply by 1/8766 years/hour (time/time) to get 0.665 * 1012 watts (energy per time), as given. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Watt = work / time, thats it... and is a unity of power not of energy.

kardrak (t) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Look...

The table is about Energy production not about power production, but the electrical amount of energy is not expressed by the unity of power alone...

If you wish to know the amount of electrical energy produced you need a unity of time always..

Terawatts are expressed in instantaneous power production but not in amount of energy... to be expressed in amounts of energy you need the unity of time...

thats the way it is in electricity.

kardrak (talk) 23:08, 3 Aug 2008 (UTC)

The units are wrong for Terawatts/year - they should be terawatts. Terawatts are joules/second (unitwise). Terawatts/hour might describe how fast energy use is increasing (as in the world's energy production is increasing by one terawatt/year) but it's the wrong units for energy consumption for a year.

To convert from exajoules/year to terawatts, just divide the number of exajoules by the number of seconds in a year. This is correct both numerically and unit-wise. LouScheffer (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case the correct would be terawatthour/year and you should multiply by 8760. kardrak (talk) 01:28, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here between terawatt-hours (a unit of energy) and terawatt/hour, a term is formally a rate of change of power, a unit that makes little sense here.

So there are two possibilities for what might be in the table. Both make physical sense, it's just a matter of preference:
 * The average consumption in terawatts = number of joules / (seconds in a year) / 10^12. This is the number that is currently in the table.
 * Total yearly consumption in terawatt-hours. The number above multiplied by 8760, the number of hours in a year.
 * The current heading, terawatt/hour makes no sense.

LouScheffer (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm agree with your 2nd proposal terawatt-hour x 8760, this way we'll have the amount of electrical energy produced a year by human civilization in equivalence with the other units of energy in the way they are expressed in that table.

kardrak (talk) 04:33, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Ok, forget it, bring back only terawatts, now I see your point and Eldereft is right. The point is, to have the power output of energy on an average of intensity and not the amount of equivalent electrical energy; which we could have also but its not the true point of the table. In fact both assumptions are right, its only the point to have only terawatts for the conversion to a kardashev index.

kardrak (talk) 05:23, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Article protected
Since the article doesn't have very high activity, I have protected the article for 18 hours instead of issuing blocks. Please use this time to discuss the dispute. If either party return to edit warring when the protection is automatically lifted, I will instate a 24 hour block on you both. Seraphim&hearts; Whipp  23:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Isnt this mistaken?
"Anti-matter production is still beyond our civilization's ability to utilize as a power source..." (on how could a civ reach Type 2 section)

Can anti-mater be a power source? Using laws of conservation of energy, we would atleast get the same energy used to produce it by colliding it with matter, isnt that right?

--189.102.144.200 (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)