Gemma ⭐️🔰🇺🇸 🇵🇭 🎐If I appear at times to some to be opposed to so-called #renewable #power (which isn't "renewable" in any meaningful sense of the word; it relies entirely on non-renewable resources), it is because I fully understand how this #technology works, and in no way is it an equal replacement for fossil fuel power generation, for a variety of hard scientific factual and practical reasons. Our first and final approach must be #conservation, not #consumption.
As Ozzie Zehner has said in his book, "Green Illusions", there will definitely come a day when almost all of our energy and power generation is from purportedly renewable sources, but when that day comes, we will be consuming much less power overall than we are consuming today, because "renewable" generation does not have anywhere near the density or portability of fossil fuels. Let's prepare for those lifestyles now, not later, while we still can.
If the cost of photovoltaics has fallen, it is only because China is cranking them out at breakneck speed, but photovoltaics are extremely pollutive to create, have a limited lifespan, and are not in any way meaningfully recyclable once they reach the end of their useful lifespans.
And lithium batteries are definitely not sustainable. Prussian Blue doped sodium-ion batteries are a lot better for larger scales of storage, but they are not really quite ready for prime time, yet.
And while wind power generation can be sustainable to some degree, it is even more variable than solar, requiring us to build mechanisms by which we can dump power to ground to avoid over-generation, and current designs are over-reliant on non-renewable resources like composites and rare earths to boost efficiency.
Do not even get me started on nuclear power.
All of that being said, wind, solar, and batteries are all pretty nifty, and extremely useful for small scale off-grid installations. You can live very comfortably on much less power than most people realize, even if you use fossil fuels where they make some sense, like for direct heating.
The number one most important factor is not where you get your power, it's how much power you use simply because you have it at your fingertips and its cheap.
The largest end-use sectors for energy are transportation and HVAC, and they are inextricably intertwined.
LED lightbulbs and electric cars won't save the world (by which I really mean, of course, "save human civilization"; the world will get on just fine without us). Getting people out of cars and single-family suburban homes will. You need to move into a downtown apartment building, and your company needs to move to a downtown office building. #Urbanism is the solution to 90% of the problem.
Simply by placing things closer together, we eliminate much of the need for transportation and make our built structures more energy efficient by clustering them together into multiunit buildings that are easier to insulate and service.
This raises the question, if the solution is so simple, why aren't we already doing this? And the answer is: our land policy and our cultural mythos tends to discourage shared occupancy. Neoliberalism and neofeudalism are designed to carve up the world into parcels and set people against each other. Divide and conquer.
ZeroGravitasIndeed you do appear to be opposed to so-called #renewable #power - your reasonings sound very similar to what #bigoil uses to dissuade us away from sun/wind/etc.
Of course it relies on non-renewable resources to begin with, but you have to start somewhere, right?
I do agree with you that as long as our #hypercapitalist society puts #consumerism & #consumption first, we will forever be addicted to the readily available #fossilfuels .
#ClimateChange #environmentalism
@ZeroGravitas What I am opposed to is misinformed people who are trying the shove the idea down our throats that we don't really need to make any substantive changes to society, just substitute solar, wind, geothermal, etc. for fossil fuels, and everything will somehow work out because "more and better science/technology will save us from the consequences of our previous mismanagement of science/technology", and this is not only just not true, it's empirically proven to be not true.
@ZeroGravitas There is no "renewable technology" that will permit us to continue the current levels of per capita resource consumption. There is no "renewable" power that can possibly have as much effect for as little investment as simply not using power because you don't need to use power.
If you think that sounds like "the reasoning of Big Oil", I would suggest you may be harboring prejudices that you would do better to abandon.
@ZeroGravitas Someone who describes themselves as a "progenitor of space diaspora" is not a person with whom I am going to engage in debate, because by saying so, you are clearly indicating your inability to think rationally.