To be honest, I would not be shocked if with constant layering, there eventually comes a point where lowest levels are just flat out abandoned, nobody living there and left to rot until something on upper levels falls down and forces people to pay attention.

Sure, but the problem is then to ask WHY it's so built up. Trantor covered in American suburban sprawl would house 315 billion people. A lot more than the 40 billion that Asimov proposed. And it's explicit that Trantor is completely covered. Sure, they need lots of non suburban support infrastructure, but they're already packing the population in infinitely more densely than suburbia.*

It's not really a big deal of course. Just normal internet nitpicking and authors lacking a sense of scale.

* Upping the population density to that of Manhattan would get us comfortably over ten trillion if I'm doing the math right.
 
Last edited:
40 Billion is literally NOTHING when Trantor canonically is covered in a mile deep layer of skyscrapers that forms a near solider layer of metal. Like compared to Trantor, new York city uses almost none of its airspace.
For reference an ecumenopolis covering earth's surface area of 509.6 million square kilometers with a population density comparable to the following regions would have a total population of:

France=52 billion (higher than Trantor!)
Houston=707 billion (and this is a city infamous for sprawling suburbs)
Singapore=4 trillion
New York City=15 trillion
Kowloon Walled City=968 trillion (KWC maxed out at 14 stories. Mile high city with half a thousand stories could fit that density without being as cramped)

The numbers get pretty crazy. By the time you hit 326 billion people you are exceeding the biomass of all animals on modern day earth combined. By 82 trillion people you are exceeding all living biomass combined. At KWC levels you need 3.6 Lake Michigans a day just for drinking water. At KWC levels you can fit nearly the entire population of the USA into DC.

So just going to do some napkin math on this, and I COULD be wrong.
Dividing USA's annual electricity consumption by population gives 12,916 kilowatt hours per person per year, or 35 kilowatt hours a day. Electricity consumption is only about a 1/3rd of total power grid energy consumption though, so make that 100 kilowatt hours a day.

Ergo at 100% efficiency you need 12.2 square meters to support an average American's energy consumption. 33% is a hard limit for conventional panels though, and 20% a more realistic nameplate capacity, which would put at more 61 square meters. Given that there are 1 million square meters per square kilometer, that puts a ceiling of around 16,393 per square kilometer. NYC is about 11,313 people per square kilometer, so it'd pass, but that's just energy consumption from powerplants we're talking about here. Returning to the food example:

1: Humans need 2000 calories a day translates into 2.32 kwh a day.
2: If humans were robots plugged in to 20% efficient solar panels would translate into 11.6 kwh a day. The thing is humans aren't robots.
3: Our food chain starts at planets, for whom photosynthesis is about 1-2% efficient, putting things at 116-232 kwh a day.
4: Of course that's "energy to feed" not "feed to edible calories" as a lot of energy goes to upkeep or inedible parts. Assuming soil->plant is comparable to plant->chicken, we're up to 464-928 kwh.
5: For modern farm animals the 'feed to edible calories' ratio is somewhere between 4 and 25, so assuming you include meat in your diet it will be even worse.

Taking that into account and combining it with the machine energy consumption figure, the average American probably depends on 1000+ kilowatt hours a day, which would set a ceiling of 1,000 people per square kilometer, less than a tenth the density of NYC. Now to be fair I suspect there is tremendous room for improvement, but my point is that present-day cities are already exceeding their usable solar budget per square meter. Let alone some insane Coruscant style ecumenopolis that is as dense per square meter as KWC that has to deal with the 'feed people' and 'power machines' but also has exciting new issues like 'how do stop waste heat from literally cooking the population?' or 'I emptied the world's oceans into my plumbing system to make room for more 500 story condos is that gonna be a problem?'
 
Last edited:

Cool. None of this has to do with your original positing about heat rejection since most ecumonopolis in scifi assume they can bring in external energy resources SOMEHOW. Which is its own entirely different kettle of fish (or several hundred teraton kettles of fish actually) that is usually left to 'magic spaceships'.

You can probably hit at least the 15 trillion mark just fine without the planet being cooked by the mere existence of the city.

Although it will raise the equilibrium temperature, I doubt 0.5% would be enough to render the planet uninhabitable on its own (It would definitely be noticeable, though).

A whole host of other things are likely to make the planet city unlivable at this point right down to the sheer entropy of maintaining such a staggeringly vast and complex system in which any major breakdown in the supply chain is liable to be catastrophic. But not the mere thermal energy its denizens output.

Once you get toward the really insane Kowloon numbers that changes of course.
 
Last edited:
Cool. None of this has to do with your original positing
If an ecumenopolis needs significantly more energy than it can get from the sun, then it will necessarily be importing a planetary temperature altering amount of energy from space or the planetary subsurface.

Even outside of that cities already have the urban heat island effect. Tokyo is 3 degrees C hotter than its surroundings, and that's with surroundings it can discharge some of its waste heat into. At face value that implies a worldwide Tokyo would at minimum be 3 degrees C hotter, and probably significantly more than that. Push the wet bulb temperature in equatorial regions above 35 C and its no longer survivable by humans, who will be unable to control body heat. You could use air conditioning but that just uses more energy and generates more heat.
 
If an ecumenopolis needs significantly more energy than it can get from the sun, then it will necessarily be importing a planetary temperature altering amount of energy from space or the planetary subsurface.

No it won't. Or rather it will, but not on the scale you're implying. Because all of the agricultural inefficiencies are happening someplace else off world. You're only importing the refined calories i.e. the sub one 1% of energy that is useful from the agricultural chain, everything else stays where it was produced. Plus any waste heat from their transportation that occurs during the final leg of transport within the planet's atmosphere, of course. And those calories are going to be exactly equal to the output of your citizens because that's what converts them form embodied energy to thermal energy via metabolism. Otherwise you're double counting.

Even outside of that cities already have the urban heat island effect. Tokyo is 3 degrees C hotter than its surroundings, and that's with surroundings it can discharge some of its waste heat into. At face value that implies a worldwide Tokyo would at minimum be 3 degrees C hotter, and probably significantly more than that.

Well no, it doesn't, because heat finds it easier to escape upwards under most circumstances rather than spreading outward indefinitely. Which is why heat islands are so localized. So while having a countryside to defuse into is helpful, it's not THAT helpful when we're talking about cities the size of Tokyo much less a planet.

Also, if an ecuminopolis is being fed by offworld agriculture. Just mirror the surface or bring in a sun shade in orbit and you can pretty trivially give yourself a fairly large budget of additional thermal waste. I mean, it's trivial on the scale of a planet city being fed by thousands of agro worlds anyways.
 
Last edited:
Well no, it doesn't, because heat finds it easier to escape upwards under most circumstances rather than spreading outward indefinitely. Which is why heat islands are so localized. So while having a countryside to defuse into is helpful, it's not THAT helpful when we're talking about cities the size of Tokyo much less a planet.
The atmosphere isn't infinitely tall, though. It still has to start spreading out at some point. As the air gets more thin due to the elevation, its heat capacity per cubic meter also decreases, so this isn't quite as straightforward as it seems.
 
Yeah but that's because we're using fossil fuels, oil wars are noticeably absent from Star Wars :p
Incorrect! Kashyyyk's siege was about the CIS wanting to secure its vast oil fuel industry (admittedly probably some form of sci-fi oil than literal crude oil), which is a big reason Kashyyyk had become such a key player in galactic politics.
 
We're cooking the planet right now with a lot less than fifteen trillion people about.

Yeah, because we're changing the equilibrium re-radiation of thermal energy into space by altering the composition of the atmosphere over the past 100+ years. What we're doing on Earth is, in a lot of ways, way worse than just generating more heat.

The atmosphere isn't infinitely tall, though. It still has to start spreading out at some point. As the air gets more thin due to the elevation, its heat capacity per cubic meter also decreases, so this isn't quite as straightforward as it seems.

True. But eventually you get to altitudes where radiative transfers takes over from convection and at that point we're more and more talking about expelling the heat to space.

I'm not saying it has no effect. Just that I doubt it's a strongly multiplicative as all the green house gasses were dumping into the atmosphere right now. But I really don't want to reteach myself finite element modeling just to work out the exact effects.
 
Last edited:
Incorrect! Kashyyyk's siege was about the CIS wanting to secure its vast oil fuel industry (admittedly probably some form of sci-fi oil than literal crude oil), which is a big reason Kashyyyk had become such a key player in galactic politics.

I mean Kashyyyk is a megafauna forest planet. It stands to reason that they'd have gigantic oil reserves built up by millions of years of super-redwoods. Maybe some super concentrated kind or just so fucking much of it that even a sci fi civilisation feels obligated to exploit it.

Still comes off as a dumb excuse to attack a planet, though that's probably because it's less about the strategic value and more a Palpy ploy to pull Yoda away from Coruscant.
 
I mean Kashyyyk is a megafauna forest planet. It stands to reason that they'd have gigantic oil reserves built up by millions of years of super-redwoods. Maybe some super concentrated kind or just so fucking much of it that even a sci fi civilisation feels obligated to exploit it.

Still comes off as a dumb excuse to attack a planet, though that's probably because it's less about the strategic value and more a Palpy ploy to pull Yoda away from Coruscant.
Also Kashyyk is a hyperspace nexus of a ludicrous scale. To put it into perspective. Eriadu Tarkin's homeworld is known as a trade hub/major transportation lane for having two major hyperspace lanes going through it and planets like that are rare, especially in the outer rim. Kashyyk has six known major routes in the outer rim. And the Wookie's also know a bunch of secret hyperspace lanes that connect all over the galaxy and are faster then most hyperspace routes. So whoever controls Kashyyk will at minimum be able to control most lines of supply and logistics in that galactic area
 
I mean Kashyyyk is a megafauna forest planet. It stands to reason that they'd have gigantic oil reserves built up by millions of years of super-redwoods. Maybe some super concentrated kind or just so fucking much of it that even a sci fi civilisation feels obligated to exploit it.

Still comes off as a dumb excuse to attack a planet, though that's probably because it's less about the strategic value and more a Palpy ploy to pull Yoda away from Coruscant.
I mean... are there many more on paper better excuses to attack a planet in the middle of a war than to secure fuel resources? Like that's one of the classics so far as industrialised warfare goes.
 
Incorrect! Kashyyyk's siege was about the CIS wanting to secure its vast oil fuel industry (admittedly probably some form of sci-fi oil than literal crude oil), which is a big reason Kashyyyk had become such a key player in galactic politics.
I completely missed that. Interesting, I guess the franchise trend of featuring Kashyyyk slavery plots completely overshadowed the planet's other advantages in my mind lol
 
I mean Kashyyyk is a megafauna forest planet. It stands to reason that they'd have gigantic oil reserves built up by millions of years of super-redwoods. Maybe some super concentrated kind or just so fucking much of it that even a sci fi civilisation feels obligated to exploit it.

I mean, it works as a handwave, though it doesn't necessarily follow: Oil is not in fact continuously built up. Oil is not renewable even over timespans of tens of millions of years. All fossil fuels we have on earth come from one time period, the Carboniferous. It was basically a one time event. The reason for that is evolution: Nowadays, microorganisms will perfectly use up all old trees before they can become fossilized. Back then, there was too much dead plant biomass at once, and not efficient enough microlife yet to use it all up.
 
Kashyyk is a logistics/travel hub/hyperlane hub.That's the main reason why it's attacked in almost every star wars source I read.
And it usurped that position from previous regional capitals off the back of its glut of industrial fuel resources and production. It was very much a matter of two factors but the specific target at the time was the fuel.
 
Also, cow farts are the source of about 15% of all global warming-inducing greenhouse gases. There are not 15 trillion cows in the world.
 
Has anyone ever encountered this - the lead actor is also the producer, and all the characters in the movie talk to him as if he is GOD in the flesh? Because I have a feeling that some of Vin Diesel's recent movies have this problem.
 
Back
Top