Jack of all trades"The up-front energy investment in renewable energy infrastructures has not been visible as a hurdle thus far, as we have had surplus energy to invest (and smartly, at that; if only we had started in earnest earlier!). Against a backdrop of energy decline—which I feel will be the only motivator strong enough to make us serious about a replacement path—we may find ourselves paralyzed by the Trap."
Nebulous Menace (Sandy B.)@jackofalltrades Good news! Even in 2011, it took less than 18 months for a solar panel to generate enough energy to make and install another solar panel and all the associated hardware. (I don't know the energy cost these days, but the financial panel cost has dropped by a factor of 4 and money cost is a very rough approximation of energy cost.)
@nebulousmenace Money cost is a very poor approximation of the material / energy cost, as it doesn't take into account environmental damage or the time it takes for nature to replenish used resources.
Our industrial civilization depends on continuous destruction of nature and exploitation of limited resources.
That's why it's very hard to come up with the real cost of renewables. Their production depends on a global industrial machinery that for the most part still runs on fossil fuels.
@jackofalltrades Most of the financial cost [in 2011] was paying for energy, and there are clear physical improvements in solar panels since then. [I went WAY over 1000 chars. Details available on request.] And the 2011 energy payback time was less than a year; you could double solar every year based on energy cost THEN.
Most of the raw material is still sand.
There are a lot of things that could be problems for our society- phosphorus for fertilizer, cropland salination, microplastics, whatever- but I'm not expert on those. In 2011 solar, specifically, was at 70 GW worldwide (per wikipedia), and in 2022 we broke the 1000-GW mark. The world looks different when solar is 4% of electricity, today [3], than it did when solar was 0.3% of electricity, 2011.I'm going to check what Prof. Murphy's beliefs look like today.
@nebulousmenace Yes, the world was different ten years ago. In 2011 world emitted 34.5b tons of CO2. In 2021 we emitted 37.1b. Progress?
I guess we don't solar hard enough.
@jackofalltrades 1400% growth in 10 years. How much faster would you like it to go?
@nebulousmenace Don't you see the irony in that?
At which point this super growth of renewables will result in an actual reduction of emissions, on a global scale?
@jackofalltrades Are you under the impression that's a rhetorical question?
Because the answer is probably three to five years.
Because the answer is probably three to five years.
@nebulousmenace Not at all. We will know soon enough. IEA forecasts emissions to peak even sooner, in 2025: https://mas.to/@jackofalltrades/110056501790279657
Jack of all trades (@[email protected])
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-iea-global-energy-emissions-peaking.html IEA forecasts emissions to peak in 2025, but that's contingent on investment into renewables and nuclear rising by more than 50 percent from today's levels to $2 trillion per year by 2030. Coal use is expected to drop in the next few years. Natural gas hits a plateau at the end of the decade. Peak oil is reached in the mid-2030s and then gradually declines towards mid-century. Time will tell how realistic those green growth scenarios really are. #climateChange
@jackofalltrades Good news if true. I try to be VERY cautious with my predictions, based on the general tendency of predictions, esp. of solar (see this classic: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/11/14/all-is-lost-renewable-energy-growth-will-hit-a-brick-wall-no-not-really-its-just-the-iea/ )