That's a big if. In fact things like deforestation increase albedo. And when we get closer to that point, we can start requiring actively increasing albedo of all human structures.
Projecting out our current habits along a trend line all the way to our doom is utterly naive... It's a bit like a lumberjack hundreds of years ago complaining that if we keep building log cabins, we'll run out of lumber. What actually happens is, when resources start to become constraints, THEN we suddenly start finding ways to conserve them, NOT before. And before it happens, it's not obvious to those looking ahead just how it can and will be dealt with.
> We should be finding ways for people in the west to live more like developing nations and still thrive, not trying to turn developing nations into the west.
"Developing nations" are among the worst polluters. That's probably not what you mean. Poor, underdeveloped nations have relatively small global environmental impacts, but very intense local impacts... Local deforestation and other resource exhaustion, for example. That's not a good model to copy, either.
There are possible technological solutions to deal with our impact, and on the time-scales we're talking about, possibilities like colonization of other worlds, and gradually towing the Earth out to a wider (and cooler) orbit.
Our psychic and material conditions are poised to get worse as we rapaciously exploit the natural resources of the planet and destroy the fabric of life across it (not just the casual culprits like extinction, but the general accruing debt of pollution and degradation across the biosphere). Further,our global civilization and the supply lines that enable it (gas, water + sewage, electricity, connectivity) exist in an equilibrium we're actively disrupting.
Another thing to consider is that our biology has adapted for a vastly different experience of environment and society than those we inhabit.
The patterns of human civilization need to change drastically for it to be extant and thriving in 100 years.
What makes you think so? What growth rates are you assuming? How long is your time horizon?
The only thing you can do with true waste heat on the scale of earth is to radiate it into space.
You might want to look into eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
Do you know how the Carnot cycle works, and more importantly, why no process to generate electricity from heat can be more efficient?
> If you’re generating energy at a rate greater than you have a use for,
Huh? Why would anyone do this? Just turn off the excess capacity.
(Do keep in mind that when we produce electricity, we necessarily have waste heat. That waste heat has energy, but it's not energy we can use.)
Any kind of heat engine essentially works like a water wheel: you take heat from a high temperature source (water from a source at big height), you send it through your apparatus, and out comes heat at a lower temperature (water at a lower height) on one side, and some electricity on the other.
> ... then you want to radiate it back into space, yes. Neutron beams would be a cool, perhaps fanciful yet potentially practical way of doing that in a concentrated manner.
Huh? If you can concentrate the waste energy, it's not waste heat. You'd want to use it instead of just bleeding it into space. Do you understand that?
You'd use that concentrated form to run another engine.
Equally interesting:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/
Pure thermal (ie. just energy, no GHG) climate change is right around the corner if energy use keeps going up exponentially and we keep reducing earth's albedo.
Ecosystems are still being obliterated for cattle and mining.
All ghg free electricity will do is buy a few decades to end (and in the west, reverse) growth. Possibly the only thing that will give civilisation a chance to find a solution, but not a solution.
We should be finding ways for people in the west to live more like developing nations and still thrive, not trying to turn developing nations into the west.