from the Better-step-on-the-gas!-Oh...wait dept.
Expansion of wind and solar power too slow to stop climate change:
The production of renewable energy is increasing every year. But after analyzing the growth rates of wind and solar power in 60 countries, researchers at Chalmers University of Technology and Lund University in Sweden and Central European University in Vienna, Austria, conclude that virtually no country is moving sufficiently fast enough to avoid global warming of 1.5°C or even 2°C.
"This is the first time that the maximum growth rate in individual countries has been accurately measured, and it shows the enormous scale of the challenge of replacing traditional energy sources with renewables, as well as the need to explore diverse technologies and scenarios," says Jessica Jewell, Associate Professor of Energy Transitions at Chalmers University of Technology.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified energy scenarios compatible with keeping global warming under 1.5°C or 2°C. Most of these scenarios envision very rapid growth of renewable electricity: on average about 1.4 percent of total global electricity supply per year for both wind and solar power, and more than 3 percent in more ambitious solar power scenarios. But the researchers' new findings show that achieving such rapid growth has so far only been possible for a few countries.
Measuring and predicting the growth of new technologies like renewable energy is difficult, as they do not grow linearly. Instead, the growth usually follows a so-called S-curve—at first it accelerates exponentially, then stabilizes to linear growth for a while, and in the end slows down as the market becomes saturated.
Journal Reference:
Cherp, Aleh, Vinichenko, Vadim, Tosun, Jale, et al. National growth dynamics of wind and solar power compared to the growth required for global climate targets, Nature Energy (DOI: 10.1038/s41560-021-00863-0)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:56PM (1 child)
The greenies want us to stop manufacturing over some slightly striped salamanders and a few hundred owls, but they refuse to give up their vacations and lattes. They want utopia without doing any of the work!
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Tork on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:35PM
🙄
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:12PM (60 children)
You're killing me here.
Silly humans
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:33PM (46 children)
We should enforce a 5% reduction of the world wide population every year for the next 40 years or so would be a good way to reduce our footprint. Then, in 2062, we have a manageable 12% of the population left and a reduction of pollution to about the same amount. With so "few" left (still 1e9), we should actually be able to use pure renewables for the entire world.
Soylent (Green), we're getting there. Maybe not for food, but for the planet!
(Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:50PM (25 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:06PM (24 children)
Actually, not satirical at all. The question is not if the population will get reduced, but merely a question of when and how fast.
Our problems are very much correlated with the size of the population and causally linked. We went from a (marginally) symbiotic relation with nature to a parasitical relation. At some stage, nature will find a new balance where we are reduced significantly because we can no longer keep up our parasitic handling of the environment. There will soon no longer be an environment left for us to be the parasites of.
The question we should ask ourselves is: do we let "nature" correct the size of the population or are we smart enough, as a species, to get our act together and do it ourselves?
(Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:18PM (10 children)
Heh. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:33PM
Human behavior: https://openclipart.org/image/800px/222014 [openclipart.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:48PM (8 children)
We have a billion people in the developed world. Not only are we trying those ideas, but they're working pretty well too! If it weren't for immigration, then the entire developed world would be declining in population (and the immigrants become low fertility natives in a couple of generations). Combine that with the pretty good environment, it checks off the boxes you're trying for.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:53AM (7 children)
That's a temporary effect. It's axiomatic that if fertility is hereditary then those who have more kids will have more grandkids. Any individuals who reproduce at below replacement will be replaced by those who reproduce at above replacement.
In any population, declining fertility or not, there will be some who produce more offspring than average. They will come to dominate the population, at which point it will grow to the limit, whatever the limit is.
You cannot defeat evolution. Sometimes you can fool yourself into thinking you have, but all you've done is alter the selection criteria.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @04:04AM (4 children)
The problem with that is that axioms don't always hold in the real world. You need more than what's axiomatic. In particular, fertility need not be hereditary here!
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:20AM (3 children)
Fertility may not always be hereditary, but infertility is. If you don't have any kids, your kids won't have any kids either.
Facetiousness aside, in the long run fertility is always hereditary. It is the bedrock of evolution.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @02:21PM (2 children)
Lack of fertility is not what is causing people not to have kids...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @05:46PM
No, but fitness is. What are we selecting for? What are we conditioned to select for? What are we being conditioned to select for?
"Smarter" people, it has been said, are reproducing less. I'm wildly out of touch so I can't realistically answer the latter questions. I suspect the answer is nonetheless apparently egrergious.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:57PM
Depends on how you define fertility.
If you define fertile as having lots of descendants then yes it is.
If you define it as medically capable of reproducing, then it is irrelevant in this context.
Evolution doesn't care about reason. It is based solely on outcomes.
No kids = infertile = eliminated from the gene pool.
Have kids = fertile = still in the gene pool.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:04PM (1 child)
An axion is an assumption. And you know what they say about assumptions....
If fertility were hereditary why would it be dropping in sync with education and poverty reduction? I don't see a huge amount of people emigrating from the developed world to go live in Sub Saharan Africa. So where are all the breeders going if access to birth control plays no role?
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:46PM
Dropping birth rates are temporary. Those individuals who have more kids even in an educated, developed society will have more descendants. It's practically a tautology. Those who don't have kids in a rich society are eliminating themselves from the gene pool.
You cannot turn off evolution, all you can do is alter the selection criteria. Currently, the major selection criterion in our societies is "do you want kids in spite of being in a developed society". That's it.
It currently vastly outweighs every other selection criteria. In a few generations the entire population will be descended from those who have kids despite being in a rich society.
If you don't have kids for any reason your genes will be eliminated from the gene pool. Not having kids in a rich society is a de-selection criterion so strong it will be eliminated in a just a few generations.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:59PM (1 child)
Nothing? Hardly. I've put my faith in the invisible hand and pray to the invisible sky God.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:11PM
(Score: 1, Troll) by PiMuNu on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:33PM
> symbiotic relation with nature to a parasitical relation
What does that mean?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:34PM
There is a faction out there that is convinced COVID is a cover for a scare tactic to get us all to willingly accept injections of genetic DNA altering vaccines, whose action is irreversible.
http://stateofthenation.co [stateofthenation.co]
Note: ".co", not ".com"
I am fishing for comments... What do you guys make of this?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mhajicek on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:59PM (5 children)
Ok, start with the rich, they use the most resources.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Tokolosh on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:08AM (4 children)
But they procreate the least. The poors are the ones adding to the population, and hence are impacting the climate most.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:04AM (3 children)
One rich person, with three mansions, a yacht, and a private jet, consumes more resources and has a greater carbon footprint than multiple villages of destitute people.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Touché) by Tokolosh on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:10AM (2 children)
Until he dies. The village never dies, but gets bigger and continues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:09AM
Who the fuck thinks that was worth modding up? The bad logic filling this thread is cringe worthy.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday October 21 2021, @06:30AM
Rich peoples dynasties typically last many generations, each generation living off the backs of the working class like parasites.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday October 19 2021, @11:13PM (2 children)
Writing of environment as an entity, an entity of the sort that can have parasites, an entity that can cease to exist, is an absurdity deserving of no respect in serious discussions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @01:18AM
Aren't you a God Fearing Christian???
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:08PM
Do you get this worked up about metaphors in all domains or only when it comes to climate change?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:52PM (6 children)
Won't climate change do that for us with no effort on our part?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:18PM (4 children)
Yes, but wouldn't you prefer to to take charge?
Species come and go, that is known. But for us doing (close to) nothing makes us the first species in the history to work knowingly on our own huge scale disaster and possibly extinction.
Or maybe, we, the human species, are not as enlightened as we thought we were.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:57PM (1 child)
I have to wonder if I am wise enough to take charge of such an endeavor.
Maybe there could be China-style birth limitations per person and birth taxes, etc. But then do you go on to mandatory sterilization for offenders?
I don't think I want to touch a project like that. Best left to politicians.
But what about my freedom to have a dozen kids, and drive intoxicated, and as fast as I want, and shoot firearms in any arbitrary direction without looking at any time of the day or night? My rights! (anyone else's rights don't matter)
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:07PM
Alright then, the new dark ages it will be.
Please be careful and try not to miss shooting your foot.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:25AM (1 child)
Do you really think we're the first to act as agents of our own demise? That story about the huge meteor wiping out the dinosaurs is bullshit. They were working on nuclear reactors, and their biggest reactor went "kerblooie". They done it to themselves, I tell you!
Fun story in that vein, 'Devourer' by Lin Cixin.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 20 2021, @02:02PM
Another fun story in that same vain vane is The Marching Morons [wikipedia.org]
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:17PM
No. Have you actually looked at graphs [reason.org] of deaths from climate change? (see figure 2) They're going way down!
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:52PM (8 children)
You first.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:21PM (7 children)
Already done... no children, by choice.
(Score: 3, Touché) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday October 19 2021, @11:09PM (2 children)
Your having no children is not a reduction in population until you die.
(Score: 2) by optotronic on Wednesday October 20 2021, @01:41AM (1 child)
But it is a guaranteed future reduction. Having children is not. Having three or more kids is almost a guaranteed increase.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @02:11AM
> But it is a guaranteed future reduction. Having children is not. Having three or more kids is almost a guaranteed increase.
And thus you have the paradox leading inevitably to the Marching Morons scenario, unless the culling is planned and supervised. Then that automatically brings in politics and, most likely, turns plain eugenics into genocide or worse.
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Wednesday October 20 2021, @12:56AM (3 children)
There's still your own personal carbon footprint to eliminate. Offsets don't count.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:48AM
What??? But our CEO told us that we now offset all our private jet flights so we are GREEN!!! We even have GREEN company logo!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:10PM (1 child)
If I emit 2 tons of CO2 then capture and sequester 2 tons of CO2 that's a net of zero. That's math and math counts.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by HammeredGlass on Wednesday October 20 2021, @11:46PM
That's not math. That's feelgood rationalization.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:54PM (2 children)
The question is, how do you want to choose those 5%?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @11:46PM
They've volunteered, we call them "climate change activists".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @01:44AM
> how do you want to choose those 5%?
You really only need to cull 1% and their progeny to make a huge difference.
A simple proxy for carbon emissions per capita is wealth.
Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent are more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity.
So, the richest 1% and their spawn.
[1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity [oxfam.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 20 2021, @05:09AM
This was the setting [youtube.com] back when the population was one billion
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:20PM (12 children)
COVID-19
We got enough stupid people believing the shot will not help. So stop helping them. No "free" medical. Hospital, ICU, Ventilators.
Women heard at Pearly Gates...
God, why did you forsaken me?
Flood was here and a truck stopped to take me out, I stayed. I said "God will protect me" and they drove off
I am on my roof and a boat stopped to take me out, I stayed. I said "God will protect me" and they powered off
Still on my roof and a helicopter hovered to me off, I stayed. I said "God will protect me" and they flew on.
Now I am here, "God, why did you not help me?"
God: Who you think sent the truck, the boat and the helicopter?
Those who do not help themselves are doomed
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:42PM (11 children)
Stop spreading the fear. 99.8% survival rate across all ages. If you take out the elderly, it's more like 99.98%.
Furthermore, immunity acquired naturally is far more effective and longer lasting. The vaccinated will be dependent on continual booster shots until they catch COVID anyway. Finally, their immunity will be long lasting.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:59PM (4 children)
Any citations from a credible source that is not a talk show?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @12:01AM (1 child)
Try this...
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ [worldometers.info]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 20 2021, @02:06PM
The deaths are all just a statistic, until it happens to you or someone you know.
The contagion would have spread much further and deaths would be higher if we did nothing.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @12:27AM (1 child)
Info from the recentish study done in Israel on immunity levels. Natural immunity proves far superior to vax immunity:
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/312538 [israelnationalnews.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 20 2021, @02:05PM
Assuming you live to have natural immunity. And don't end up with life long consequences from having acquired your natural immunity.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:01PM
Dude... 1 year
vacationwork-at-home and you're still complaining? What the fuck's wrong wiht you guys.(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:49PM (4 children)
Unless, of course, that's not true. Immunity acquired natural infection needs to be reacquired for the same reasons as vaccination boosters are needed. My take is that if you're maintaining immunity by repeated infection by covid, you're doing it wrong.
And let's not forget that those people protecting themselves by infecting themselves also tend to engage in other dumb behaviors that make reinfection more likely.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday October 19 2021, @11:19PM (1 child)
It varies by disease. Some diseases confer lifetime immunity.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:37PM
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @11:31PM (1 child)
Orgies?
Not washing their hands?
Not wearing mask?
Most people think masks are to prevent them from getting sick. Nope!
asks in ORs are for protecting the patient, first. Even after death the mask is prevent the contamination of the body. In socity as whole, again protect others.
Yes, a mask can protect you too. But it is the second line defense. The first is the others wearing their masks, If it is not in the air (or GREATLY reduced) then your masks helps keep out the virsus.
Even the vaccine will NOT prevent Covid, over all in the population. But it the third line defense. If you can not host it, then you will not spread it. The vaccines' goals are: lessen the spreading, and if it does take hold, lessen the impact. If "everyone" is vaccinated (yes, can not be and others it ford work as well) then EVERYONE is protected (even those that cannot). This what opening of Constitution says, in the common social contract.
The Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
1) Justice - we are equal
2) Peace - we do not hate each other
3) Defense - we support each other under external attack. weshare the rick.
4) Quality of Life --- ie LIFE
5) Liberty - now we are all free
Covid 19 - is an external attack. It is attacking life. The vaccine is is equal available. Stop bitching at each other.
Take vaccine. Where a mask (cover BOTH: mouth and nose)... then we all can get to 5 - Liberty.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @01:29AM
I'd say yes.
This reminds me of the same sort of magic thinking that I was complaining about in my journal concerning other things. People want certain sorts of freedom and just feel that it's going to work out, sometimes even when they'll thoroughly sick with covid.
(Score: 2) by oumuamua on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:20PM
Before they shutdown their nukes:
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Belgian-nuclear-phase-out-an-irreversible-loss-PM [world-nuclear-news.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by corey on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:16PM (4 children)
This is important to measure and track. Just like managing a project, you have plans (2C temp rise limit) and then you track how the project is going through reporting (what these universities are doing).
We could be doing heaps more here in Australia, the sunburnt country, but our current “leaders” are still obsessed with serving the coal industry.
It’s difficult to muster all the worlds nations to do something. People like Bolsonaro, I think they can only wait until he’s voted out and then take action. I guess we just need to do the best we can. I don’t want my kids asking me “what did you do” and me not having any answers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:39PM (3 children)
If you're waiting for Bolsonaro to be voted out, you'll be waiting a VERY long time. Trump has been trying to set up a Bolsonaro-style election system himself.
(Score: 2, Troll) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday October 19 2021, @11:24PM (2 children)
Have you forgotten, or did you never know, that both Social Security and Medicare were devised as schemes to create a permanent Democratic Party majority? That "Universal Health Care" are "open borders" are the same?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @12:18AM
Oh look, you're insane!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:09PM
So the sole reason to oppose these ideas is all political? And who says the Republicans aren't the party of ideas?? That would explain the Great Republican Healthcare Plan (which, I believe, is entering its tenth(?) year of going to be revealed "soon").
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:25PM (6 children)
not sure everyone can do wind but i am sure that alot more can do solar.
it's glaringly obvious that we cannot get to the climate target by economizing fossile fuels.
thus something has to displace fossile fuel for future expansion of energy usage.
no exact, but in the timespan of 20 years, the world went from 40 million barrels of oil PER DAY to todays 90 MILLION BARRELS PER DAY. that is: oil in, *puff* get energy and waste gas. once.
and like a etf, this BURN is irrevocable and was REGISTERED as profit and / with GDP.
in short there is a sensor dipping into the oil well that connects to a money printing press: the sensor registers the flow out of the ground (once) and tells how much new dollars can be printed.
anyways, the study clearly shows that the rate of renewable added to displace FUTURE energy usage from fossile fuel is NO WHERE enough ... ofc this is not a real problem if global warming isn't real.
for the displacemnt to work (and only displacement can be the target) alot more needs to be done to GET THE F.CK OUT OF THE WAY when people want to install solar and tie it to the grid.
clubbermint money needs to go to solar module making factories and BATTERIES (preferably safe and long lasting ones, LTO?)
every home.depot or home.pro or.home whatver that sells tvs and micowaves and washing machine needs to also offer solar panels, inverters and batteries.
if all the fearmongering is true, this needs to happen NOW.
stop.wasting time and resources AND energy to sequester co2, stop putting batteries in cars but in HOMES, stop dicking around with hydrogen.
solar is the obvious answer 'cause there is a potential global army of installers AND LOCATIONS, unlike wind or hydro. solar panels.can be carried by one and installed by a few. hydro and wind cannot.
i am not saving wind and hydro is bad, do it, but STOP GETTING IN THE WAY of solar.
example: i installed ONE panel.with one inverter. it made 30 kwh per month. it was added to a main breaker connected to a "cheap to manufacture" spinning meter. before it showed 30-35 kwh usage per month; after connecting the ONE panel it showed 0 or even negatif.
this is what happend: they replaced the meter with one that cannot spi backwards.
i rest my case. may the sealevels rise and turn it all into desert. maybe THEN it becomes obvious where we should get our energy from for "one time use"...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:02PM (5 children)
why future batteries need to be in the house? my logic goes like so: chances that a battery in a house might help power a solarpanel factory and a battery making factory is a gazillion timesmmore likely then a battery in a car. and we need more solarpanels and storage. and they cannot use energy derived from.fossile fuels.
once we have a guarantee that at least every second solar panel and battery was made purely with renewable energy input can be start thinking about "wasting" renwable energy for transport, which doesn't "do" anything but move stuff from A to B.
renewable energy has first and formost got to go into enabling MORE renwable energy, duh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @04:18AM (4 children)
Look up and study EROEI. Once you truly understand it, you will see why fossil fuels are so popular. The EROEI is over 100, sometimes way over. The best renewables are 40 to 50. Most are around 10 to 15.
There is an inverse relationship between EROEI and what proportion of industry must be involved in energy production.
At EROEI > 100 it is less than 1%.
At EROEI = 10, (most renewables) it is about 10%.
At EROEI = 2 it is 50%.
At EROEI 1 (ethanol from corn) it is > 100%
So to go from fossil to renewables means increasing the cost of energy by a factor of 10.
You can argue how necessary it is all you like, there is no way around this cost increase. The only way to do it is to enforce it by government fiat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:04AM (1 child)
And we also went by similar factor in energy **efficiency**.
* 10mpg to 100mpg
* 300W TV to 30W TV
* 100W light bulb to 9W LED
* 100% efficiency radiator to 800% efficiency heat pump
So yeah, it maybe a little kick in the crotch to pay more for energy, but our tech is now much more efficient so we actually can still survive (ie. our lifestyle)
It's called TAXES or DUMPING FEE. In the old days, you could just dump garbage and sewage into the river but these days that's a little frowned upon and we even have to pay these weird TAXES and FEES for the shit to be treated so it doesn't screw up our ecosystem (so much). Now imagine if there was some sort of a FEE for dumping CO2 or methane into the atmosphere so the cost of the non-CO2 energy would actually be cheaper. I know, it's radical and nothing like it existed before .... except it does .... hmmmm. No need to even evoke the ephemeral "fiat".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:30AM
No you still don't understand. Increasing efficiency is great, but it doesn't matter so much what the actual energy consumption is, the EROEI value still trumps it when choosing an energy source.
Right now renewables, with artificial support, are moving into the areas they are most suited to and where fossil fuels are the most unsuited. To completely replace fossil fuels the government mandates/penalties/incentives have to be increased to the point that renewables out-compete fossils in the areas where fossil fuels are most competitive and renewables the least competitive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:48PM (1 child)
i don't see a problem. so more industry has to be involved in energy production.
what you fail to mention is that "energy-in" part in that EROIE ... is finite. maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in 50 years but finite. and okay we can be mr. stickler and say even the sun itself is finite but that's adding alot of zer0s after "1 year".
also how is "cost" with energy really defined? i mean, at the most bottom, i assume, we are talking about "human food calories" because without a "fueled human", nothing is going to happen.
so, if i understand your argument correctly, more "human food energy" is used in the "non human-food" energy production industry?
this also seems to be correct but misleading, since solarpanels and inverter production can be automated out the wazzoo (and should be), that is, robots making their own fuel plus excess. no insurance, no housing, no healthcare ...
so we can all go back to busying ourself with other "important" stuff... in a livable environment.
for "cost" and "carrier of value", consider this fictional scenario:
a asteroid is discovered with alien batteries buried beneath surface. not much digging needs to be done. the alien batteries store huge amounts of energy but are not refillable.
soon, one consortium sends weaponized space ships and "battery guardians" to monopolize the asteroid. next they demand that everybody pay with "battery-dollars", that they issue, if they want to get alien batteries ...
so, how do you "value" this "alien-battery-dollar"? the "cost"?
lastly consider, maybe, that these "alien batteries" are liquid, buried not on a asteroid, but on earth and the "battery-dollars" are actually "normal us dollars"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:22PM
Cost in in EROEI is measured in joules. Or KWhrs or BTU's. It is a measure of the efficiency of obtaining energy.
The useful thing about EROEI is that it is a direct measurement of the absolute cost of obtaining energy. If energy gets cheaper, the value of the energy produced goes down. If the price you sell energy for goes up, so does your energy cost of obtaining that energy. EROEI automatically factors in price and currency fluctuations and cancels them out.
With fossil fuels you get back over 100 joules for each joule you expend in obtaining that energy. With solar and wind it is in the range of 10 to 14. That's feasible but is very much undercut by fossil fuels costing one tenth as much.
Eg. You need to heat your house in winter. Do you want to pay $50 for the season, or $500?
It probably won't surprise you to find that most people go "Solar is wonderful, but I am a bit broke so I'll have to take the cheap option."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @01:57AM (1 child)
Then you're pro-global warming
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:05AM
Changing our energy source profile isn't the not the only option. Changing our footprint, say reducing the meat bags is also an option. Both would be better.
I'm for both btw. However with the latter, I don't think its about active culling or placing limitations, its about displacing out headcount on this rock elsewhere in the solar system.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:15AM (1 child)
So let's drop all this bullshit about emissions reductions, and get to work.
Every time I hear someone telling us we have a climate emergency, it turns out what they really want is to reduce greenhouse gases. They have completely forgotten about the end goal.
Focus, people!
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:17AM
Every single post above mine has to do with emissions. Every one. Only one damn "solution" and we are completely out of ideas?