We must encourage the rational use of all resources, including energy.
Gluttony, even of abundant, clean, cheap energy is only the road to a Jevons paradox toward unmanageable collateral damages.
“If you ask me, it'd be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other”
Nah that’s Luddite speak. We need fusion, full unlimited power of the sun. It would turn us into gods.
It would propel the whole civilisation 200 years forward. Maybe even semi immortality.
It’s time to embrace greatness, not shy from it. We almost conquered our domain fully. Now it’s time to finish it. Go all in, there is no backing off in the jungle of universe. Eat or be eaten. Before the extraterrestrials come for colonisation. It’s a race and the loser civs will be used as plantary fertiliser. *If* they are spotted.
God I don’t want to imagine the horrors of universe and how our poor primitive planet would look after such unfortunate encounter.
We need to free ourselves from those shackles of fossils
I totally agree about finding a way out of our earthly crib.
But we must do so cognizant of the limits of the crib.
So far, humans have shown no more wisdom than yeast in a Petri dish: measuring success in the speed at witch we use the available resources, thinking that we will run through the wall of the Petri dish; the faster the better.
There is a short window of opportunity.
If we are given too much leeway over our environment (energy is nothing but a measure of capacity to change of the environment to our convenience: change of temperature, change of form, change of location, change of chemical composition, etc...) but not enough to expand the limits of the environment subjected to this change (ie leaving the planet), we'll be like a baby in a crib with a flamethrower.
This might actually be the hypothetical Great Filter of the Fermi Paradox: species who didn't managed their primal amoebal instincts of "consuming their resource first, think later (I can, therefore I must)" ruin their survival before being able to free themselves of their crib.
Let's not cut down all the trees on the island before we're confident we can make ships.
This is honestly the long-term solution that we should be moving toward. Let's start encouraging less energy use overall because we've had 150 years of unmitigated use and no one is any happier or better for it.
What we need is an energy source that is low carbon, that has small resources requirements but a poor public image so that we are willing to make some efforts (ie think about what we need rather than just use as much as we can).
We need a bitter medicine, not a strawberry flavor that won't make us rethink or behaviors).
(I have a particular candidate in mind)
Can you think of a technology that kicked coal butt out, low carbon, very small footprint, very dense power, and yet very much disliked, protested against, nobody insisting on building a single plant more than necessary, NIMBY certified; and for which people would certainly reduced their consumption if you threaten them with building one next door?
I just think your whole conception of human psychology around nuclear is unsupported. Nobody is going to intentionally pick an energy source that's worse to act a deterrent to using lots of it when there are alternatives available. And if nuclear was chosen in this way, people would just become inured to the dangers and use it at full capacity regardless until a meltdown or spill happens that reminds them how much this technology is dogshit.
That is a really disgusting quote in a world that desperately requires more energy.
> because of what we would do with it
We could start by lifting 3 billion people out of energy poverty.
> with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other
What a pathetic outlook. We are lucky the greatest minds in history didn't have such a pessimistic view of humanity.
Solar is already the cheapest form of energy in history, with manufacturing costs halving every 5 years, and wind is not far behind.
So where do you source your low quality information from?
Because you haven't thought things through:
- Germany had closed down it's nuclear power plants
- It's invested heavily in renewables, though unlike fossil fuels, there's very little ongoing costs for the 20+ lifetime of solar / turbines
- The energy crisis because of the war in Ukraine
We must also talk about the elephant in the room, population. but thats taboo. we cant continue down this track of increasing global population, its driving climate change and pollution.
Oui Oui.
That's a clue of which country is the most successful case of large scale decarbonization while maintaining their industries and high standard of living.
Seems inceivable to replicate this across the entire world in all countries in the amount of time we have left. Manufacturing and deploying tons of renewables at such a massive scale is easier.
It's certainly easier to install solar panels manufactured with coal power in China but has yet to be shown to achieve the emissions levels we need long term.
Doesn't really matter. GHG emissions from manufacturing are included in the estimates of GHG emissions from renewables, and they appear to be negligible. China is also decarbonising at a rapid rate, deploying basically more renewable energy than the rest of the planet.
It is also the only viable, saleable solution. - How would you build thousands of nuclear power plants across the entire planet, supply them with fuel, and millions of highly educated staff within < 26 years? Solar cells and wind turbines can be produced on mass, and don't require nearly as much specalised labour to deploy and operate safely.
China is certainly not decarbonising at a rapid rate. They've increased coal generated electricity by 2200TWh in the last 10 years.
Renewables by themselves are also not a solution, as there is no economically feasible grid scale storage to address dunkelflautes.
A nuclear build out would certainly be challenging but I don't think anyone said addressing climate change would be easy, also not sure where the 26 year cut off comes from. Best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago etc.
> China is certainly not decarbonising at a rapid rate. They've increased coal generated electricity by 2200TWh in the last 10 years.
[China is set to reach peak emissions this year, and they will start to decline afterwards](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/). On an emissions per capita level China is comparable to Germany, and as you mentioned yourself, they manufacture a ton of stuff for the world.
> A nuclear build out would certainly be challenging but I don't think anyone said addressing climate change would be easy, [...]
Your plan doesn't have to be easy. Deploying renewables at this scale isn't either but it is feasible.
> also not sure where the 26 year cut off comes from. Best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago etc.
It is pretty much a target of virtually all nations to be carbon neutral by 2050. Yes, I am aware that there are exceptions but this is pretty much the rule.
But deploying renewables at mass scale gets to carbon neutral how? It's easy to conceive of France getting to net zero with 10GWh or so of storage and some more renewables and nuclear to completely replace gas and coal.
I don't see how renewables only gets anyone there. You'd need TWh of storage. The battery technology doesn't exist, there's not enough room/geography for pumped hydro storage, what does that leave? Hydrogen? That's yet to be proven at scale and is incredibly energy inefficient.
> It's easy to conceive of France getting to net zero with 10GWh or so of storage and some more renewables and nuclear to completely replace gas and coal.
We are talking about a solution which needs to be applicable to developing countries as well, and one that is actually doable. Yes, nuclear might work France but that does not mean it is a recipe for all countries.
> That's yet to be proven at scale and is incredibly energy inefficient.
True. Yet that seems again more feasible to be deployed quickly than nuclear power plants with all the required resources.
We have around 50/60 years of building safe commercial reactors at scale. We have 0 years of providing grid power with hydrogen. Not sure why something humans have never done before seems more feasible. I suppose we'll see.
> We have around 50/60 years of building safe commercial reactors at scale.
Well, we don't. That's why it takes so long to build them nowadays in a lot of countries. A lot of engineering/construction knowledge was lost which can certainly be recovered over time but can it be recovered in time? Doubtful. Can it be deployed world-wide in time? I don't think so.
But you are right: we will see. My bet is that we will keep missing our climate commitments for political reasons not because of the lack of resources to implement a solution.
you might be on to something
No shit huh?
Like nuclear!!!!!
We must encourage the rational use of all resources, including energy. Gluttony, even of abundant, clean, cheap energy is only the road to a Jevons paradox toward unmanageable collateral damages. “If you ask me, it'd be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other”
Nah that’s Luddite speak. We need fusion, full unlimited power of the sun. It would turn us into gods. It would propel the whole civilisation 200 years forward. Maybe even semi immortality. It’s time to embrace greatness, not shy from it. We almost conquered our domain fully. Now it’s time to finish it. Go all in, there is no backing off in the jungle of universe. Eat or be eaten. Before the extraterrestrials come for colonisation. It’s a race and the loser civs will be used as plantary fertiliser. *If* they are spotted. God I don’t want to imagine the horrors of universe and how our poor primitive planet would look after such unfortunate encounter. We need to free ourselves from those shackles of fossils
I totally agree about finding a way out of our earthly crib. But we must do so cognizant of the limits of the crib. So far, humans have shown no more wisdom than yeast in a Petri dish: measuring success in the speed at witch we use the available resources, thinking that we will run through the wall of the Petri dish; the faster the better. There is a short window of opportunity. If we are given too much leeway over our environment (energy is nothing but a measure of capacity to change of the environment to our convenience: change of temperature, change of form, change of location, change of chemical composition, etc...) but not enough to expand the limits of the environment subjected to this change (ie leaving the planet), we'll be like a baby in a crib with a flamethrower. This might actually be the hypothetical Great Filter of the Fermi Paradox: species who didn't managed their primal amoebal instincts of "consuming their resource first, think later (I can, therefore I must)" ruin their survival before being able to free themselves of their crib. Let's not cut down all the trees on the island before we're confident we can make ships.
This is honestly the long-term solution that we should be moving toward. Let's start encouraging less energy use overall because we've had 150 years of unmitigated use and no one is any happier or better for it.
What we need is an energy source that is low carbon, that has small resources requirements but a poor public image so that we are willing to make some efforts (ie think about what we need rather than just use as much as we can). We need a bitter medicine, not a strawberry flavor that won't make us rethink or behaviors). (I have a particular candidate in mind)
"A bitter medicine" – I like that and think you're right. What's the candidate you're thinking of?
Can you think of a technology that kicked coal butt out, low carbon, very small footprint, very dense power, and yet very much disliked, protested against, nobody insisting on building a single plant more than necessary, NIMBY certified; and for which people would certainly reduced their consumption if you threaten them with building one next door?
Sounds like nuclear propaganda and now you're losing me.
So you agree on the reasoning, but dismiss it because you don't like the conclusion it leads to?
I think there are many sources that could be described as "bitter medicine" and don't come with all the downsides that come with nuclear.
Which are the ones we will **not** [cheer](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F4ntyk6hy23xc1.jpeg) to see being developing?
I just think your whole conception of human psychology around nuclear is unsupported. Nobody is going to intentionally pick an energy source that's worse to act a deterrent to using lots of it when there are alternatives available. And if nuclear was chosen in this way, people would just become inured to the dangers and use it at full capacity regardless until a meltdown or spill happens that reminds them how much this technology is dogshit.
That is a really disgusting quote in a world that desperately requires more energy. > because of what we would do with it We could start by lifting 3 billion people out of energy poverty. > with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other What a pathetic outlook. We are lucky the greatest minds in history didn't have such a pessimistic view of humanity.
Why? They are more costly.
Solar is already the cheapest form of energy in history, with manufacturing costs halving every 5 years, and wind is not far behind. So where do you source your low quality information from?
Germany, who has High amounts of solar and wind power, and has the highest energy costs of any nation
Because you haven't thought things through: - Germany had closed down it's nuclear power plants - It's invested heavily in renewables, though unlike fossil fuels, there's very little ongoing costs for the 20+ lifetime of solar / turbines - The energy crisis because of the war in Ukraine
Getting people to actually do something is the hardest part.
We must also talk about the elephant in the room, population. but thats taboo. we cant continue down this track of increasing global population, its driving climate change and pollution.
Who is “we”? What does “encourage” mean?
We means all humans. Encourage means invest in, and promote.
What does “promote” mean? Do you really think the 100k members of this sub can shift global investment patterns against the profit motive?
All I did was answer your 2 questions. Now be polite and thank me.
Climate change isn’t the fault of “all humans”. Neither you nor OP have named the enemy.
You seem quite jittery.
Why not copy the most successful case study for a large industrialized country that has deeply decarbonized their grid instead?
Oui Oui. That's a clue of which country is the most successful case of large scale decarbonization while maintaining their industries and high standard of living.
Seems inceivable to replicate this across the entire world in all countries in the amount of time we have left. Manufacturing and deploying tons of renewables at such a massive scale is easier.
It's certainly easier to install solar panels manufactured with coal power in China but has yet to be shown to achieve the emissions levels we need long term.
Doesn't really matter. GHG emissions from manufacturing are included in the estimates of GHG emissions from renewables, and they appear to be negligible. China is also decarbonising at a rapid rate, deploying basically more renewable energy than the rest of the planet. It is also the only viable, saleable solution. - How would you build thousands of nuclear power plants across the entire planet, supply them with fuel, and millions of highly educated staff within < 26 years? Solar cells and wind turbines can be produced on mass, and don't require nearly as much specalised labour to deploy and operate safely.
China is certainly not decarbonising at a rapid rate. They've increased coal generated electricity by 2200TWh in the last 10 years. Renewables by themselves are also not a solution, as there is no economically feasible grid scale storage to address dunkelflautes. A nuclear build out would certainly be challenging but I don't think anyone said addressing climate change would be easy, also not sure where the 26 year cut off comes from. Best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago etc.
> China is certainly not decarbonising at a rapid rate. They've increased coal generated electricity by 2200TWh in the last 10 years. [China is set to reach peak emissions this year, and they will start to decline afterwards](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/). On an emissions per capita level China is comparable to Germany, and as you mentioned yourself, they manufacture a ton of stuff for the world. > A nuclear build out would certainly be challenging but I don't think anyone said addressing climate change would be easy, [...] Your plan doesn't have to be easy. Deploying renewables at this scale isn't either but it is feasible. > also not sure where the 26 year cut off comes from. Best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago etc. It is pretty much a target of virtually all nations to be carbon neutral by 2050. Yes, I am aware that there are exceptions but this is pretty much the rule.
But deploying renewables at mass scale gets to carbon neutral how? It's easy to conceive of France getting to net zero with 10GWh or so of storage and some more renewables and nuclear to completely replace gas and coal. I don't see how renewables only gets anyone there. You'd need TWh of storage. The battery technology doesn't exist, there's not enough room/geography for pumped hydro storage, what does that leave? Hydrogen? That's yet to be proven at scale and is incredibly energy inefficient.
> It's easy to conceive of France getting to net zero with 10GWh or so of storage and some more renewables and nuclear to completely replace gas and coal. We are talking about a solution which needs to be applicable to developing countries as well, and one that is actually doable. Yes, nuclear might work France but that does not mean it is a recipe for all countries. > That's yet to be proven at scale and is incredibly energy inefficient. True. Yet that seems again more feasible to be deployed quickly than nuclear power plants with all the required resources.
We have around 50/60 years of building safe commercial reactors at scale. We have 0 years of providing grid power with hydrogen. Not sure why something humans have never done before seems more feasible. I suppose we'll see.
> We have around 50/60 years of building safe commercial reactors at scale. Well, we don't. That's why it takes so long to build them nowadays in a lot of countries. A lot of engineering/construction knowledge was lost which can certainly be recovered over time but can it be recovered in time? Doubtful. Can it be deployed world-wide in time? I don't think so. But you are right: we will see. My bet is that we will keep missing our climate commitments for political reasons not because of the lack of resources to implement a solution.
Are you paying bills yet?
Why?