4 ms·

I think Tesla and Solar City are excellent examples of this. They're not "stop driving, turn off your house lights, etc", they're "keep doing what you do, only

I think Tesla and Solar City are excellent examples of this. They're not "stop driving, turn off your house lights, etc", they're "keep doing what you do, only now greener" Of course, issues with the greenlieness of electric cars, etc etc - but remember when solar panels were a net negative? AFAIK, that sure as hell didn't last.

the8472 10y ago
> "keep doing what you do, only now greener" that only works temporarily. business as usual still means consuming exponentially more resources over time, which is not sustainable.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Unless you begin to also produce exponentially greater resources over time. Also, temporarily is still a good thing, and will make new resources stretch longer. #eatthesolarsystem
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab_mH8R0KTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab_mH8R0KTM It's logical, it's clear - there's only one way to go from here Without a doubt, the only way to go from here is out!
  - mozey 10y ago
    But it is not just the solar system, and the time frame is a bit tight... http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
    - RangerScience 10y ago
      We can only hope that at some scale, it's an escalator, and we can pull off acting like a slinky, a la Asimov's "The Gods Themselves".
- taneq 10y ago
  Population growth is leveling out and even dropping in countries with higher living standards. Maybe once everyone's living in tech paradise, the human population will stop growing altogether. We'll still probably have more stuff per capita than today, but it won't continue to grow unbounded as people seem to think today.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  So far, so good. Goods substitution happens, and it happens so fast you hardly notice it.
mojomark 10y ago
> I think Tesla and Solar City...They're not "stop driving, turn off your house lights, etc", they're "keep doing what you do, only now greener" Agree 100%! A few years ago Chevron ran an add campaign in DC metro depicting people saying things like "I will use less water" and "I will bike to work" and that shit made my blood boil. Every day I thought to myself "No assholes - how about you supply energy that isn't filthy!"
- pg314 10y ago
  You can do both: limit your energy consumption and make your energy cleaner. One does not preclude the other. Given that pretty much all of our current energy sources have a carbon cost (e.g. in the production of solar panels), it makes sense to try to limit our consumption too.
  - mojomark 10y ago
    > You can do both I do agree. My issue was with the single-sidedness of Chevron's campaign. To me it implied that energy consumers are the primary cause of environmental woes. Speaking for my industry only (commercial shipping), if companies were willing to sacrifice some profit & growth, commercial ships could all operate virtually free of harmful GhG emissions. This is technically possible today. However, given the fragmentation and overcapacity that currently exists, the international competition is too fierce for any company to make such a leap for the general good. This is why IMO MARPOL emission regulations to include Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and Emission Control Areas (ECAs) are so critical - because it says to companies "hey, it's o.k. to spend a little extra on CAPEX and OPEX, because everyone else has to also." (1) Given what is possible today with available technology, however, I think the emission control cap tiers are far too conservative. The final tier (in a few decades) should be zero GhG emissions for all shipping. It is feasible - and really with overcapacity where it is, now is the best time to take the plunge because the reliant markets (e.g. virtually every market) will hardly feel the impact. Shipping is a very tiny percentage (1.5%) of global GHG emissions (2), so I'd be interested to hear if experts in other fields that are larger emitters (e.g. aviation, automotive, etc) feel about the feasibility of hitting zero GHG emissions. 1. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionprevention/airpollution/pages/air-pollution.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionpreventio... 2. http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/MarineShipping http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/MarineShipping
nihonde 10y ago
It's strange to me that Toyota has a hydrogen fuel car in production and for sale today, but it gets almost no attention in discussions like this one. Why is that? Are the CO2 effects of liquid hydrogen extraction a barrier? Or maybe the need to establish a network of hydrogen fuel delivery?
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Knowing nothing, my bets would be: 1) There is nothing sexy about the car. Tesla cars aren't just electric cars - they're also fantastic cars. Tesla makes a great (amazing?) car that is electric, rather than a an electric that may be a great car. 2) Yep, fueling infrastructure. You can charge your electric cars at home, at the office; the supercharger and battery swap stations; that Tesla (AFAIK?) charges your car for free... Where do you need to go to get hydrogen fuel? There's also an analysis - maybe in the Wait, But Why? on Tesla - as to how you can't sell alternative vehicle stock from normal dealerships; it just doesn't make enough sense to the dealer, but ATM I don't remember the reasoning. Also AFAIK, Mr Musk has a good write-up on why hydrogen fuel isn't The Thing. But mostly #1, IMO.
  - ajdlinux 10y ago
    My local government is doing deals to build a hydrogen electrolyser facility and car fuelling stations in my city, which is... interesting. http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/growth-in-the-clean-economy/hydrogen-power-coming-to-canberra http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/growth-in-the-clean...
- greglindahl 10y ago
  The fuel cell in Toyota's car is expensive enough that it's an expensive, not very nice, and not very performant car. Combine that with the inconvenience of few hydrogen filling stations, and you've got lack of interest from consumers and the press.
- nl 10y ago
  Hydrogen fueled cars got a lot of attention a few years ago (five? Before Tesla started shipping big numbers anyway). It was always a stupid idea. The economics don't make any sense at all.

the8472 10y ago

> "keep doing what you do, only now greener" that only works temporarily. business as usual still means consuming exponentially more resources over time, which is not sustainable.

RangerScience 10y ago
Unless you begin to also produce exponentially greater resources over time. Also, temporarily is still a good thing, and will make new resources stretch longer. #eatthesolarsystem
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab_mH8R0KTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab_mH8R0KTM It's logical, it's clear - there's only one way to go from here Without a doubt, the only way to go from here is out!
- mozey 10y ago
  But it is not just the solar system, and the time frame is a bit tight... http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    We can only hope that at some scale, it's an escalator, and we can pull off acting like a slinky, a la Asimov's "The Gods Themselves".
taneq 10y ago
Population growth is leveling out and even dropping in countries with higher living standards. Maybe once everyone's living in tech paradise, the human population will stop growing altogether. We'll still probably have more stuff per capita than today, but it won't continue to grow unbounded as people seem to think today.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
So far, so good. Goods substitution happens, and it happens so fast you hardly notice it.

mojomark 10y ago

> I think Tesla and Solar City...They're not "stop driving, turn off your house lights, etc", they're "keep doing what you do, only now greener" Agree 100%! A few years ago Chevron ran an add campaign in DC metro depicting people saying things like "I will use less water" and "I will bike to work" and that shit made my blood boil. Every day I thought to myself "No assholes - how about you supply energy that isn't filthy!"

pg314 10y ago
You can do both: limit your energy consumption and make your energy cleaner. One does not preclude the other. Given that pretty much all of our current energy sources have a carbon cost (e.g. in the production of solar panels), it makes sense to try to limit our consumption too.
- mojomark 10y ago
  > You can do both I do agree. My issue was with the single-sidedness of Chevron's campaign. To me it implied that energy consumers are the primary cause of environmental woes. Speaking for my industry only (commercial shipping), if companies were willing to sacrifice some profit & growth, commercial ships could all operate virtually free of harmful GhG emissions. This is technically possible today. However, given the fragmentation and overcapacity that currently exists, the international competition is too fierce for any company to make such a leap for the general good. This is why IMO MARPOL emission regulations to include Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and Emission Control Areas (ECAs) are so critical - because it says to companies "hey, it's o.k. to spend a little extra on CAPEX and OPEX, because everyone else has to also." (1) Given what is possible today with available technology, however, I think the emission control cap tiers are far too conservative. The final tier (in a few decades) should be zero GhG emissions for all shipping. It is feasible - and really with overcapacity where it is, now is the best time to take the plunge because the reliant markets (e.g. virtually every market) will hardly feel the impact. Shipping is a very tiny percentage (1.5%) of global GHG emissions (2), so I'd be interested to hear if experts in other fields that are larger emitters (e.g. aviation, automotive, etc) feel about the feasibility of hitting zero GHG emissions. 1. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionprevention/airpollution/pages/air-pollution.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionpreventio... 2. http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/MarineShipping http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/MarineShipping

nihonde 10y ago

It's strange to me that Toyota has a hydrogen fuel car in production and for sale today, but it gets almost no attention in discussions like this one. Why is that? Are the CO2 effects of liquid hydrogen extraction a barrier? Or maybe the need to establish a network of hydrogen fuel delivery?

RangerScience 10y ago
Knowing nothing, my bets would be: 1) There is nothing sexy about the car. Tesla cars aren't just electric cars - they're also fantastic cars. Tesla makes a great (amazing?) car that is electric, rather than a an electric that may be a great car. 2) Yep, fueling infrastructure. You can charge your electric cars at home, at the office; the supercharger and battery swap stations; that Tesla (AFAIK?) charges your car for free... Where do you need to go to get hydrogen fuel? There's also an analysis - maybe in the Wait, But Why? on Tesla - as to how you can't sell alternative vehicle stock from normal dealerships; it just doesn't make enough sense to the dealer, but ATM I don't remember the reasoning. Also AFAIK, Mr Musk has a good write-up on why hydrogen fuel isn't The Thing. But mostly #1, IMO.
- ajdlinux 10y ago
  My local government is doing deals to build a hydrogen electrolyser facility and car fuelling stations in my city, which is... interesting. http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/growth-in-the-clean-economy/hydrogen-power-coming-to-canberra http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/growth-in-the-clean...
greglindahl 10y ago
The fuel cell in Toyota's car is expensive enough that it's an expensive, not very nice, and not very performant car. Combine that with the inconvenience of few hydrogen filling stations, and you've got lack of interest from consumers and the press.
nl 10y ago
Hydrogen fueled cars got a lot of attention a few years ago (five? Before Tesla started shipping big numbers anyway). It was always a stupid idea. The economics don't make any sense at all.