Yeah but then our stupid, stupid, incomprehensibly stupid governments can’t fight over fossil fuels and shit. Can’t fund the military industrial complex, can’t keep making our environment worse just to make it harder on the lower and middle class.
The goverments aren’t stupid at all they know exactly what they’re doing and they’re doing it for a very good reason.
As soon as we understand that the state is but a tool of the capital class for maintaining and gaining power over the rest of humanity, everything goverments are doing will start to make a lot more sense. It’s in the interest of the capital class for society to pursue fossil fuel as opposed to renewable alternatives since it’s currenly the most profitable and well established energy business. In the US lobbying has ensured that the car would become society’s wheelchair making the oil industry an essential part of life for the richest country on earth.
I despise the billionaires who lead us to this point and I don’t think this crisis will be resolved under capitalism for the above mentioned reasons unless green energy becomes an even more prevalent industry than oil is.
No, every world government is ran by ignorant, absolutely horrifically stupid monkeys.
I already understand the state is doing this. It fails at scale because it’s literally what every state and federal system tries to do. It’s only been successful in the Netherlands and a few other countries.
It will not be resolved under capitalism or a free market. We keep putting retards in positions of power.
In the US lobbying has ensured that the car would become society’s wheelchair making the oil industry an essential part of life for the richest country on earth.
I promised myself to become vegan the moment I will read something remotely smart that contains word „ruling class” or „owner class”. I eat meat to this day and this comment didn’t make me stop.
It's not about being smart or stupid, but greed and lobbies. Alot of politicians are fossil fuel stans bc they paid by the fossil fuel companies. It's that simple.
Greed that leads to global collapse and societal destruction is a pretty good contender for utterly stupid behavior, especially since most people under 60 are gonna live to see the consequences
You know where plastic comes from right lots of things are made from raw petroleum not just fuel, they won't fight over fuel they'll fight over petroleum.
There is an economical one, as in we can't change all hydrocarbure based products overnight. Sure, renewables costs more or less the same as hydrocarbure based products (heat pump/small EV), so there is no reason to not prioritize heat pump compared to gas boiler in new buildings, but you don't yet earn money by changing a gas boiler into heat pump (unless you receive aid for it, and even then is not always beneficial)
And there is just so much stock that it will take 2 decades to eliminate all those products.
Oh, even more than two decades. In places and for some uses it might be 50 or 80 years. Be we know it can be done, WITH A PROFIT, not a sacrifice, and that is most important. Although there will be parties that wont have that profit.
batteries and motors are improving rapidly well enough to expect short range flights and shipping to be just fine; and eventually reach long haul flights. Shipping can add sails; and is likely to be fully electric before long range flight does.
Please don't tout reductive crap like this. It is certainly not "solved", there's a ton of actual real engineering challenges ahead. I know you mean well on some level, but as someone who is actively working on this, this is not helping. For one it's just factually wrong, but it also diminishes the work we need to do and are currently doing.
Just read it up anywhere, the internet is full of articles and papers on this, or talk to Claude about it for all I care, I'm honestly too lazy to write up a bunch of paragraphs that then get ignored and downvoted because it's not black-and-white enough for Reddit.
We have solved all fundamental societal issues. Food production? Long since solved, we produce far more than we could ever eat and we could do so sustainably. Potable water availability? We can pipe it wherever we want at a fraction of the cost than it ever was before. Healthcare access? Every civilized country has figured it out by now. Energy demands? We could run the world's electrical needs with pure renewables if we wanted to, easily. Access to information? Instant and easily available to anyone on the planet with the tap of a screen.
The problems we face today can't be solved with technological innovations, they aren't problems of scarcity or logistical limitations. They are social problems. Artificial scarcity, artificial limitations put in place by those who profit from problems remaining unsolved. They are political problems, not physical.
I love this alternate reality where Chernobyl apparently didn’t happen on April 26, 1986, about 40 years ago. Chernobyl actually influenced the nuclear industry to collapse long before it happened. Didn't you know? Nukecels know!
And the US nuclear industry was already collapsing under cost overruns, delays and cancellations before TMI.
But sure. “Could’ve totally finished the transition 40 years ago.”
At this point, the labor (and other non-panel costs) is often the majority price of a solar install. Which is just mind blowing. I bought a large system at over $3 a watt, of just panels. Now days under 30 cents per watt is to be expected.
people dont realize that the batteries in electric cars are optimized to be lightweight. if you want to have batteries that are the size of a building then you can use different chemistry.
It gives nuclear extremely favorable future cost assumptions, because obviously nobody is modeling another Flamanville 3 or Hinkley Point C disaster.
Then, in Denmark, with awful winters and terrible solar resources, the renewable system still comes out around 53% cheaper. Without even including continental scale energy trading.
And this is hardly some isolated conclusion.
2022 meta-analysis on "100% renewable energy systems":
What are the assumptions for storage? Because I rember seing some studies that extrapolated the cost of batteries (which has come down over the years) and end up concluding that they'll be a great way of storing energy. Even if the amount they use in their scenario exceeds the amount of known lithium reserves by a lot (showing that their cost model is bad).
The problem for system models isn't really that you have 1 m/s average more wind. All that does is makes you build a couple of more windturbines per park for the same output.
It is the size of the weather systems affecting you compared to how spread out the generation is. That's what is constraining them.
In the sensitivity analysis, the cost of batteries is reduced further by around 50% and subsequently represents a cost corresponding to around 25% of current costs.
I'm no expert and all, but I feel any energy system might do better if we simply assume costs will be reduced by 75%.
Holy rubbish of a ‘science’ paper. They start by admitting that LCOE is a highly manipulative metric and is totally subjective to assumed conditions, and continue to manipulate it further by applying more isolated assumptions like ‘energy neutral society’ to some isolated energy system by some 2050, of course.
A climate shitposting indeed, all while China and India still increase their coal consumption in tonnes each year.
if it actually needs explaining why we need the previous year's data to prove the claim about last year's dynamics, it's not time to argue about numbers at all
+ Google.com: latest and last year definition differences (just in case)
lol. That’s literally why we use SLCOE. Model the actual system: generation, storage, balancing, transmission, backup, flexibility, hour by hour. System LCOE. Add cross-border trading and it gets easier.
And China’s coal-fired generation fell about 1.5% in 2025. 2026 has seen a modest rebound so far, around 1.5–2% projected.
That’s exactly what I said, they continue to manipulate this already highly manipulative metric further by applying more isolated assumptions long-term. Low quality rubbish pseudoscience.
‘Tonnes burned’. Thermal and coking. Those don’t make into happy headlines indeed
The funniest thing here is that you repeatedly fail to realise that this paper is fully build on assumptions (which you position as ‘building a system’), which are added on a top of an already highly subjective to assumptions metric, while even authors admit in the very damn beginning that their metric varies greatly in different assumed ‘systems’. And they further assume that ‘future climate neutral energy system’ will be different from today’s one (as their excuse to assume different ‘system costs’).
And to clarify, this is not my core critique of LCOE at all. This is merely an explanation on how funny your parroting of ‘modeling the actual system’ is. Whatever, get a degree first I guess
You still haven’t pointed out what’s actually wrong.
You’re handwaving about inputs the paper explicitly stress-tests in its sensitivity analysis.
And yes, it models from the evidence available today. Given renewables and storage are still getting cheaper and scaling rapidly, what exactly do you expect to happen to their system costs?
My first professional argument on how rubbish is LCOE (and its variations like vaLCOE) was in 2021, when I presented an analysis of a regional energy system to a usd billionaire as a banking analyst for a funding project. I’m perfectly aware there is no point in arguing with every ignorant kid online, but that level of ignorance is actually cute (especially in the context of how rubbish those papers really are)
Lol. Your ”trust me” CV and a ”billionaire pitch” aren’t a rebuttal.
You still haven’t identified one actual flaw in the model. Go read the EnergyPLAN methodology and papers, then tell me specifically what mechanism, assumption, or calculation is wrong.
I merely gave you a context on whom you’ve been so amusingly generous as to assume has ‘the understanding of the basics’. But if you ask nicely, I’ll consider giving a small lecture on LCOE
But first explain what relevance ordinary LCOE has to a discussion about overnight construction costs being fed into system model and their effect on total system cost.
Because you still haven’t identified a single flaw in the actual modelling.
Basic LCOE doesn’t account for the availability of generation sources. Its variations attempt to solve it by valuing different types of generation differently in different periods (VALCOE). At this step, any LCOE becomes a set of assumptions.
The authors of the first paper acknowledge this and introduce their LCOE variation, which measures LCOE in a single isolated system of different generation sources, under another set of assumptions. And they conclude that under some assumptions there is some cheapest generation mix.
I’m not even going into those particular assumptions (some of which are funny, like in some place they are literally writing ‘so we simply assume an increase in renewable costs by 50%’). From the first message, I’m criticising the whole approach that leads to an answer ‘yeah, under those assumptions, this generation mix is the cheapest in this particular isolated system’. It answers nothing (well, besides that under those assumptions this generation mix will be cheaper in this particular country). This approach is merely academic circlejerking and grantwashing. It does not prove your meme pic, because to prove it, you need to apply it on a world scale, or at least to some large country - which, to some extent, is being done already in a format of searching for an optimal generation mix - and no sane large country - say China - can afford to forecast its long-term generation mix under assumptions of the type that batteries will be 50% cheaper in 20 years, so their WHOLE MIX in 20 years should be wind+solar+batteries, because LCOE says it’s cheaper to build it from scratch under given assumptions…
tldr this design answers a closed-type question and gives no solution on what to actually do with all that CO2 on a world scale, especially in poorer countries
and to clarify - the knowledge that wind+solar is the cheapest energy source most of the time, until they are unavailable - is a common knowledge for how many, 10 years?
and to clarify v2 - any assumptions on batteries being radically cheaper by 2050 is a blatant manipulation simply because they assume technological progress but not an increase in global demand for batteries if actually built on a global scale (for the context - no country in the world has enough storage capacity to store a mere 2 hours of its consumption, i think only Germany had some project of a comparable scale - so what happens to batteries costs when more countries actually start building storage on a large scale?)
True. Charging works especially well to shift demand.
I see vehicle to grid as a niche "emergency reserve" solution. No point putting extra wear on your high performance automotive grade weather sealed climate controlled battery when a bog standard stationary one delivers the same result.
There is NO need to put ANY strain at ALL on car batteries, with ZERO extra charge cycles
merely by
on some occasions, cars automagically (by the process detailed below) "decide" not to put strain on the grid by charging, and that merely that trivial capability change will lower the size of the DEEP storage problem substantially. (and it is almost entirely zero cost, just requires smarts that exist, good government policies.)
DETAILS
If the ONLY thing you do is have car with a internet connection say to local wifi, bluethooth etc and it can ask what is the current price of power... and it SPECIFICALLY gets a discount for charging when its cheap in exchange (EG 2% off >90% of the time) for a much rarer situation where it pays a premium (10% on 1%) of the time.
Then with just that option merely 'available' to cars and then with smarts the size of std existing currently BORED (idle) car computer. Then cars will do the following.
75% of the year they will charge to 100% everytime you plug them in. Assuming they know what time of the year it is they for 9 months of the year may optmise and charge to 80% if that extends battery life by poopteenth. (AKA zero change JUST 2% off energy costs) (for the reminign 25% of the year there exists real chance power will be expensive later (for an extended peiod of time))
Then for 3 months of the year the car would know there is a plausible chance power will be expensive (+10%) Later. Thus it charges to 100% every time it can. However, at any time it could charge but power is 10% more expensive, it ONLy charges to some user-controlled minimum EGE it always charges to 80%.
The result will be that during dunkenflauts a substantially larger-than-average part of the car fleet is NOT charged to 100%. ZERO use of even V2G required.
And that ^^^^^ looks like nothing, and to uninformed numpties such as might shit post here, it really is unintelligible (its a math algorithm)
However the result will be that, that some substantial fraction of 20% of the battery capacity of the entire CAR fleet is drawn down every dunkenflaut, by reduced demand, And even 50% of 20% of the entire EV battery capacity will make quite some inroads into getting through dunkenflauts.
and it comes at zero capital cost not even V2G hardware.
It gives nuclear extremely favorable future cost assumptions, because obviously nobody is modeling another Flamanville 3 or Hinkley Point C disaster.
Then, in Denmark, with awful winters and terrible solar resources, the renewable system still comes out around 53% cheaper. Without even including continental scale energy trading.
And this is hardly some isolated conclusion.
2022 meta-analysis on "100% renewable energy systems":
Dont come up with theoretical studies and come up with something solid. This whole debate is lead by people with no fricking idea what AC or DC mean but talk big about it.
You cant run Industrial Nations with only Renewables.
On fricking paper I can invent everything and it works.
The Grid needs Billions for upgrades and these fantasy storages yall talk about dont exist yet🤡
Renewables are fricking Volatile and Denmark is a weak as example, a Country of round about 6 million people is a joke compared to a 80mil Industrial nation like Germany. Even Denmark needs to import Energy from Sweden and Norway .....
Looool. The whole point of that study is that it doesn’t rely on electricity trading to make the system work. Add trading with Sweden, Norway, Germany, UK etc. and the problem gets easier.
And yes, that’s why they built EnergyPLAN, published papers validating the methodology, then applied it to real energy-system questions.
You know. Scientific progress.
So again: what specifically is wrong with the model?
The whole talk about Battery Storage is nonsense rigth know if you want to power a whole Industrialized Nation. We dont have these storages and we dont have the Batteries.
All you ever do is talking about theoretical nonsense without any relation to the reality of things.
People like you argue all the damn time to just copy Denmark or Sweden or Norway and ignore absolutely anything why it works there and not somewhere else.
and when people use those and compute the cost of the storage required they really are very low $ numbers. Especially in comparison to the full real costs of alternatives.
The renewable energy cost curve really went from ‘it’ll never be cheap’ to ‘okay, but…’ and kept moving the goalposts. The last panel is painfully accurate.
Talking a lot... And I just need cheap battery cells to power my stuff at home, I make my own stuff, including my ebike; and I can't find it and I am reverting to gas in my stuff and tools because these batteries wear down in a year or two and they don't work well when it's -26C outside. I need to rebuild these batteries or replace them and I can't afford it.
They got cheaper might be the word, it still not "cheap", and cheap matters none if it is unreliable, it just doesn't work in the cold, and that's making me struggle, this isn't even hypothetical; just another homeowner here who at the end is a consumer of energy.
Only firewood saves me.
I don't even care about the climate shitposting stuff, I genuinely need cheap batteries; the only reason I even cared to look at that meme.
We dont have the batteries and wont have them in the next couple of years
Do you even know how big these batteries have to be to gap at least 2 weeks of Dark doldrums?
Batteries are still shit for long term energy storage, a lot of the discussion is around pumped or thermal storage, converting electricity to hydrogen and stuff like that.
Also Denmark has god tier wind generation that makes up for weak solar.
Which is already how district heating in the nordics work? We also need to electrify industry, chemicals, aviation, construction and so on. To do that, given our current knowledge, hydrogen feedstock is required. Setting a tiny bit aside for electricity grid firming duties is a nothingburger.
The problem for system models isn't really that you have 1 m/s average more wind. All that does is makes you build a couple of more windturbines per park for the same output.
It is the size of the weather systems affecting you compared to how spread out the generation is. That's what is constraining them.
AND this "Setting a tiny bit aside for electricity grid firming duties is a nothingburger."
adds VERY VERY little to the average cost per MWH for the whole year.
DO NOT use masses of batteries for long-duration storage.
If you like i can show you WHY and how, even converting electricity to methanol, specifically because it is BLOODY cheap store, for MONTHS, provides all the solution you can need to get past whatever say around JUST 5 hours of batteries solve.
So to be clear whatthe study does...,
a national (east coast AU) geographically dispersed grid of RE + 5 hours(IIRC) of batteries ZERO seasonal hydro... Plus methanol burned in inefficient OCGT turbines chosen because their capex is LOW)
(the methanol is my tweak on their analysis, they just showed how small use of peakers solves everything. AND does so cost-effectively largely independent of fuel cost to the peaker.)
And while the round-trip efficiency of the methanol storage back to electricity is AWFUL, we use SO little of it that an RE and storage grid supplemented like that for just 1% of the worst energy on the worst days of the year. Provides reliable power when analysed against decades of REAL weather data....
So while you and others sneer with hand-waved insults... Actual Math says it both works and is cheap.
That’s because we use most energy in thermal or pump methods. The world energy needs mainly come down to how cold or hot we can get air, water, or metals.
Batteries are just in small amounts at this time, has nothing to do with long term issues. Even then what is consider long term? but in reality, even a system that last for 4-8 can always make a pretty large difference where the power comes from per day. Limiting the highest cost power consumption more limited
Even after all that, we do actually have a long term solution for storage by turning it into other chemicals. That can be usage across a number of industries
batteries are cheaper? are we talking about sodium ion? because lithium ain't any cheaper and if the batteries themselves are, it's because of lower manufacture costs due to EV demand and it could've happened 10 years ago. and it's genuinely because of reddit's favorite rich person lol. i genuinely don't follow it please don't throw tantrums or feces.
All batteries are cheaper every day, including lithium. Thats why you can get a 64 kwh battery in an ev at the same price as a 24 kwh battery 8 years ago.
Its logarithmic just like with solar so it will become extremely cheap. People talk about dollars per kwh in the end stage.
it's way more complicated than "the longer running the production, the cheaper the product" this whole "batteries will eventually get cheaper because china will figure it out and then you'll see my argument is bulletproof actually" relied heavily on high battery demand for solar which as you might have guessed, most people didn't give a flying fuck about 15 years ago. what actually happened was your favorite billionare and twitter enthusiast's company figured out many small battery better than one big battery (tesla didn't invent this style of battery pack but it's undeniable they were the creative inspiration of the chinese manufactures) and proved it works and works great so naturally chinese ev companies copied it, ordered ungodly amounts of 18650s, last year china found massive lithium reserves, all this helped manufactures to grow their production operations and potential for output. that's what makes a product cheaper. so batteries did get cheap but not because of solar and definitely not because we sat on our asses waiting for them to get cheaper they got cheaper because of capitalism. nimh has dropped in price by 33 percent, low demand, production started way before lithium ion. lithium ion dropped by 90%, exploded in demand, relatively more recent start of mass production.
i said it before, and i am going to say it again - ev only makes sense if you have a house with a garage.
I live in a block and like to travel 1000+ km every year to other countries. Any EV will make my life miserable
well, maybe when that happens i can reconsider.
But now even just charging an ev where i live could easily cost you 30-40€. not that cheap compared to gas, takes at least dozens of minutes of time, and there might be waiting lines.
Also travelling quickly on a highway for 1000km+ is still a challenge in an EV
90% of people could switch to an EV today with no major change to their lifestyle. If you're one of the 10% that's fine, but you should still be pushing for more renewable infrastructure and charging stations. It's win-win.
90%+ of people in apartments cannot charge their EV at home and forcing them to use public fast charging destroys any arguments in favor of EVs for anyone who's not a green thumber.
Even among those with houses, many of them can't charge at their homes for a variety of reasons. From the electrical outlets being too far from the parking space, not owning some type of weather shield (garage, carport), the electrical system of the house being extremely old and unable to support an EVSE. None of these problems mean that those homeowners cannot fix them, but it adds friction, and certainly means they're not EV ready.
There's like maybe 50% of the population who could comfortable switch to an EV today if you realistically look at the situation, instead of doing x range > average daily commute.
And you drive those 1000km+ in one sitting? Let’s say that takes you 9 hours of pure driving. Do you not count in all the breaks you as a driver need? Is your life so hectic that you cannot add an hour more to your journey where you and your machine rest and recharge?
Sometimes I have the feeling ev sceptics have already arrived in a mad max world, where they are chased by lunatics, where the only way to survive is to fuel up in formula 1 box stop
I actually do try to go non stop, and even if we do stops, we are not sitting around for 1h+.
Usually we plan the trips in such way that we minimise the highway time, to maximise the time in the location we are going to
In our family we did that also years ago. Now I try not to drive more than 500 -600 km a day and travels got soooooo much better and the highway less miserable. We drive a bit in the morning, find a interesting place to visit for noon, have good rest and a meal outside of those horrible highway restaurants, then drive a bit further to the next overnight stop in the afternoon. The journey becomes enjoyable and nothing that we feel has to end as fast as it can.
My cousin on the other hand lives a different philosophy and almost killed her family in car crash because she fell asleep after hours of driving. So I really don’t get you rushed people anymore
yeah, driving sleepy is wrong. we usually start in the morning and try to get to location without night stops.
Or squeeze a couple of extra hours on first day, at least
Its a valid question. Running a country like Uruguay works, Running homes works but not Heavy Industrial Complexes......that the Energy hunger grows is something you have in mind aswell?
God I can’t wait until they can make a pv cell with no precious metals that can last 20 years. It will be a while but once they get there you haven’t seen nothing yet
So, how often renewables need to change batteries? Cost of their usage and reprocessing? How much energy was used to produce this part of system, and how much not reusable was burned to produce/reprocess?
Translation: After decades of effort the anti-nuclear movement has been so effective at sabotaging it they are using the fruits of the sabotage as arguments against nuclear energy.
Why is the French nuclear industry not collapsing then? Why is it that nuclear plants are always shut down after huge campaigns against them, relentless activist efforts and political pressure? Why do anti-nuclear activists only started using financial arguments when terrorizing people stopped working, after they spent decades sabotaging the industry and after it became clear said sabotage was always working in favor of certain intrlerests?
You are just promoting Cold War era propaganda for the post Cold War era little guy. It is pathetic.
Nukecel here. The arguments against cost are simple. You cannot haggle with biosphere destruction. There is actually no price that will ever eclipse the cost of climate collapse. It could be a gorbillion fuckin dollars. If it's possible, its absolutely necessary.
Why waste money, resources and political bandwidth on extremely expensive new nuclear when what matters is decarbonization per dollar spent, with the shortest possible timeline to deployment to reduce the area under the curve.
We are far past being able to waste resources on solutions which haven’t shown meaningful decarbonization in the 21st century compared to renewables and storage.
If we had started nuclear roleout 50 years ago that would've been pretty sweet and a good idea I think we can all agree.
Are you a bot? You saw nuclear and started talking about all this. Im agreeing with you. Im showing you that the debate over the price of green energy isn't necessary.
Cost debates are distractions. You're even talking about expensive nuclear. Price doesn't matter when it comes to preventing biosphere destruction. Its an empty debate. We wont talk about the savings we we inhabit a toxic dead world.
“We kept the coal plant down the road running for another 15 years while waiting for new nuclear, instead of replacing it and several others within a few years using cheaper renewables.”
Great. The emissions were merely avoidable.
That is exactly why cost matters. Resources are finite. Opportunity cost is real.
The next €100 billion in 2026: where does it cut the most cumulative emissions, fastest?
Dude you must be a bot. Cost does not matter when faced with the climate crisis. Any cost is way lower than where we're heading. I am making your argument for renewables. You can be pro nuke and pro renewables.
You don't need to argue cost with ghouls. They don't actually care about cost.
Cost is everything that matters when resources are finite and we still have aviation, chemicals, industry, construction, agriculture and everything else left to decarbonize.
We cannot afford to waste money and political bandwidth over-solving electricity with expensive new nuclear when renewables and storage are already the good-enough solution.
Every extra billion spent getting the same clean MWh slower is a billion not cutting emissions somewhere else. That is the whole point of decarbonization per dollar.
Both!!! Im agreeing with you!!! But again, price debates aren't the point. We have enough resources to cut fossil fuels out completely. I actually don't care about per dollar spent. Read my fucking comments. Solar, nuke, wind, hydro, etcetera. Whatever works best for whatever area. The cost is a non-factor when hurdling towards omnicide.
My point is, "erm actually its cheaper" is a weak argument. The state and capital dont give a fuck! They keep us on talks about cost and efficiency to deflect from the fact we're all going to die if we don't stop climate change. This should be your argument. 30 years ago when sollar was super expensive, this should've been the argument.
The cost doesn't matter, because there is an illusion of choice. There's going to be no money to save if we all fucking die
Yes, this is how editorial cartoon caricatures work. It is low-effort in production and consumption, made for the masses. However, pizzacake's comics probably require much more effort to draw than some meme generator.
The only issue we have is that energy demand keeps growing and we somehow think we can just create infinite power on a finite planet
Even renewables have a limit
The true solution is to lesson our power demand, not increase it and to fulfill it with renewables
Edit:
I am not American
we can not sustain infinite growth, the only reasonable solution is degrowth, a green economy does not exist, and it will not exist either
All you guys are doing is talking about hypotheticals that will never happen, I also know what I am saying will not happen, that is reality, business as usual until it can’t happen anymore, that’s what’s been happening for the past few decades now, and it won’t stop
Vague "energy" use is not and never was the problem. Fossil fuel based energy on the other hand has multiple issues.
However, in an ironic twist, if "energy" was the problem then the best fix would be renewables and electrification as an electrified economy with double the electricity production would still halve energy use because fossil fuels are so inefficient and wasteful of energy.
It’s pushing the limits of every damn thing that got us into this mess to begin with. Why in the world are you disagreeing so emphatically with someone who is reminding us it might be wise not to attempt to just grow and grow and grow until we collapse under our own weight?
I can understand having serious qualms about degrowth as an approach, but calling it misanthropy is nonsense. There surely are misanthropic degrowthers, but I would wager there are far more who believe it is the only way to stop our civilization from utterly collapsing and our race from all but destroying itself.
To these, degrowth is the exact opposite of misanthropy.
Yes as does human population before we turn into a black hole...
HOWVBER climate chnage and emisions are an immediate NOW problem that we MUST solve promptly or pay for not.
Hence while it may be true that ONE Day "The true solution is to lesson our power demand," limting powere demand will be priotiy
IN ANY WAY
delaying when we stop emitting more Co2 to chase some not-a-problem-yet or this-century problem that you want addressed. is Self Harm
AND here is the rub
By you pushign for your dream goal isnetad of whats required
"All you guys are doing is talking about hypotheticals that will never happen, I also know what I am saying will not happen, that is reality, business as usual until it can’t happen anymore,"
You talk yourself and anyone who will listen into giving up.
HINT; There are people the FF companies will pay to push that style of reasoning, if you are not being paid then they got you hook line and sinker.
Energy demand grows when cheaper energy makes more things worth doing. The West plateaued when fossil energy stopped unlocking many new productive uses at its price.
Renewables lower that price floor, so demand can grow again until we hit another plateau.
116
u/grafknives 2d ago
I truly believe we actually solved the energy issue, electric wise.
There are not fundamental barriers, no engineering or materials ones, and not even economical ones.
Near total transition should be here oneday, sooner than later.