3 ms·

But why would we need to reduce consumption? We need emissions tax -- a tax proportional to the environmental cost. If power consumption carried little or no en

But why would we need to reduce consumption? We need emissions tax -- a tax proportional to the environmental cost. If power consumption carried little or no environmental cost, we'd want to use a huge amount, and that wouldn't be an issue.

pygy_ 9y ago
Renewable energy has an environmental cost as well. The solar and wind energy that isn't currently used by humans is dissipated by atmospheric, marine, geological and biological processes. It is a zero-sum game, and increasing our consumption will disrupt other processes.
- darkmighty 9y ago
  > It is a zero-sum game, and increasing our consumption will disrupt other processes. You need to define what you mean by "being a zero-sum game". For example, in terms of entropy (which is a possible metric in the context of "dissipation") it isn't a zero-sum game -- certain processes increase entropy more, some less. In terms of total instantaneous thermal absorption, which defines the temperature of the Earth, it also isn't a zero-sum game -- If there was a white surface and it is made black, then the temperature of the Earth will rise; the same goes for emitting CO2 which in effect increases the global absorptivity (energy that wouldn't be absorbed if the Earth didn't contain as much GHG). Putting solar cells in barren deserts isn't going to disrupt local lifeforms simply because there aren't any. So it seems in almost every definition of zero-sum it indeed isn't a zero-sum game -- which is good! Note that I didn't claim renewable energy has no environmental cost. It most definitely has. Every activity will have certain impacts, greater or lower, on resource availability, thermal balance, and on other lifeform habitats. The key is pricing adequately those impacts so any damage could be repaired or compensated. The effect of pricing is usually just impact minimization, since the cost of repair or compensation is usually much greater than prevention. So it is a matter of seeking technologies that give the greatest return (power output in this case) for total cost (environmental and economic) -- and better alternatives than current ones are constantly being discovered, thankfully.
  - pygy_ 9y ago
    The sun output and the earth surface are constant, that's the zero sum resources I was talking about. > Putting solar cells in barren deserts isn't going to disrupt local lifeforms simply because there aren't any. No, but it will cool down the places, which will affect winds patterns and rainfall, which can in turn affect life forms at a distance. I suppose you could paint the ground around the pannels black, and carefully chose the panel/reflector density to have a neutral thermal effect.
- pjc50 9y ago
  The impact of removing this energy from circulation is absolutely tiny compared to the impact of CO2. There is a local environmental impact to all structures, yes, but it's absolutely not zero-sum.

pygy_ 9y ago

Renewable energy has an environmental cost as well. The solar and wind energy that isn't currently used by humans is dissipated by atmospheric, marine, geological and biological processes. It is a zero-sum game, and increasing our consumption will disrupt other processes.

darkmighty 9y ago
> It is a zero-sum game, and increasing our consumption will disrupt other processes. You need to define what you mean by "being a zero-sum game". For example, in terms of entropy (which is a possible metric in the context of "dissipation") it isn't a zero-sum game -- certain processes increase entropy more, some less. In terms of total instantaneous thermal absorption, which defines the temperature of the Earth, it also isn't a zero-sum game -- If there was a white surface and it is made black, then the temperature of the Earth will rise; the same goes for emitting CO2 which in effect increases the global absorptivity (energy that wouldn't be absorbed if the Earth didn't contain as much GHG). Putting solar cells in barren deserts isn't going to disrupt local lifeforms simply because there aren't any. So it seems in almost every definition of zero-sum it indeed isn't a zero-sum game -- which is good! Note that I didn't claim renewable energy has no environmental cost. It most definitely has. Every activity will have certain impacts, greater or lower, on resource availability, thermal balance, and on other lifeform habitats. The key is pricing adequately those impacts so any damage could be repaired or compensated. The effect of pricing is usually just impact minimization, since the cost of repair or compensation is usually much greater than prevention. So it is a matter of seeking technologies that give the greatest return (power output in this case) for total cost (environmental and economic) -- and better alternatives than current ones are constantly being discovered, thankfully.
- pygy_ 9y ago
  The sun output and the earth surface are constant, that's the zero sum resources I was talking about. > Putting solar cells in barren deserts isn't going to disrupt local lifeforms simply because there aren't any. No, but it will cool down the places, which will affect winds patterns and rainfall, which can in turn affect life forms at a distance. I suppose you could paint the ground around the pannels black, and carefully chose the panel/reflector density to have a neutral thermal effect.
pjc50 9y ago
The impact of removing this energy from circulation is absolutely tiny compared to the impact of CO2. There is a local environmental impact to all structures, yes, but it's absolutely not zero-sum.