Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Caleth t1_je54o8f wrote

Reply to comment by Tearakan in U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022 by altmorty

It does matter and you're sea lioning. We don't turn the global economy on a dime it takes years. We've spend literally decades digging this hole we're in and we've spent maybe one trying to dig out, not even a whole decade really as for example in America we just got over Trump who was working on bringing back clean glorious beautiful coal.

Remember that? Now we're all in on IRA and cars are electrifying, solar and wind are starting to make up nearly all of our new installed production. We don't scream at the baby when it starts crawling demanding it be an Olympic level athlete the next day.

We had shit like like Russia act up so the gas they were burning got down converted to coal by many EU countries. Even with that we've seen a near tipping over to emmison reductions.

So be gone shill we're moving forward and as things get worse the urge to improve will become stronger. But as it stands right now you're in the way of saving the species. Spreading FUD to act against this creates despair and harms all our futures. So stop.

5

Tearakan t1_je5ijqu wrote

My argument is the whole idea of "take it slow" would've been fine 2 decades ago. We past that point. We need drastic changes on the level of WW2 now.

Not this slow plodding shit.

Yep the economy would be drastically changed and frankly that needs to happen.

The US just authorized even more oil drilling in alaska and the gulf of Mexico.

I'm a pessimist now though. I don't think we get our shit together until a majority of humanity dies due to starvation and war.

0

Caleth t1_je5yei1 wrote

Again see my point about truning the world economy around we are moving at a rapid pace for a world of 8 billion with all that commercial and political inertia.

Now you're right we're not moving fast enough, but as I pointed out as things worsen our inertia will change.

There's a strong likelyhood we'll see a wet bulb event. Probably somewhere like India millions will die and people will be shocked enough to effect real change. It's an ugly thought but it's a reality I've resigned myself to we as a species don't do forward planning well.

But after that things will shift into high gear it'll be the economic and political equivalent of the climate dropping a nuke on us.

2

Tearakan t1_je6rvvx wrote

I hope it's only that small. I figure we will see large scale modern war with small and medium size nations fighting for what's left of arable land and water resources in their territory within 5 years.

A big one would be Ethiopia vs Egypt. Both rely heavily on the nile and have issues with food already stoking conflict.

I just hope it wont spread like wildfire across the planet.

1

haraldkl t1_je678v7 wrote

> My argument is the whole idea of "take it slow" would've been fine 2 decades ago. We past that point. We need drastic changes on the level of WW2 now.

I think you are mistaking my comment. It wasn't meant as we are doing enough. Only that we are not "just" adding more energy ontop of old fossil fuel burning. There is change going on and denying that won't help you to figure out, what needs to be done, and what has to be sped up to help the transitioning effectively.

1

danielravennest t1_je6t0ji wrote

> Not this slow plodding shit.

You are not describing reality. Solar energy doubled from 2016 to 2019, and doubled again by 2022. That's not plodding, it is exponential growth.

Since 1992 solar increased by a factor of 10,000. It just took time to get the prices down and production up. Right now, solar manufacturers are building up their supply chain for another doubling of production rate.

0

Tearakan t1_je6tnil wrote

That would've been good 2 decades ago. We can't wait for that now.

Realistically we should be nationalizing most industries, completely shutting down useless ones, removing all non essential travel, ripping up roads and putting in massive rail networks in place with massive increases in nuclear plant construction.

Moving people from suburbs into either high density cities or rural areas used to support said cities, like we had before cheap oil.

And also providing people with the essentials to prevent mass civil unrest.

This is similar levels of effort that WW2 required.

Anything less at this point is just inviting disasters on a scale our species has never seen.

Edit: having renewables are great but they have a limit. They are good auxiliary power but cost compared to battery plants vs nulcear power favors nuclear fission. We can even add in further breeder reactors to get more energy out of previously spent fuel.

0

Rentun t1_je78ujq wrote

Lol ok well good luck with that.

Where are you going to get the political capital to do that?

Close to half this county doesn’t even think climate change is real. The other half mostly will not be willing to significantly disrupt their lives for any reason, climate change or not.

Forcibly relocating people from suburbs? What planet are you living on?

The stuff you’re proposing wouldn’t even fly in China. There’d be a revolution before people accept their lives being so radically altered. How in the hell would that work in any democratic country?

1

Tearakan t1_je8e639 wrote

Yeah we won't. I honestly think most countries will fall to chaos 1st sadly.

Maybe a few billion dying will wake up the remaining people in time.

1

danielravennest t1_je6zdaf wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQzH_j1-FjE

None of that is going to happen. Renewables will take over because the profit motive is the most powerful force in our modern world.

And you are wrong about battery plants. Look up the Moss Landing plant in California. They replaced 5 of 7 natural gas units with two battery farms (one in the turbine hall, and the other in what was the parking lot). The two most efficient NG units were kept as backup/peaker units.

0