5 ms·

> Now, unfortunately this should really have started in the 70s, Today's solar and wind boom was started in the 70s. It's kind of amazing how many people prefe

> Now, unfortunately this should really have started in the 70s, Today's solar and wind boom was started in the 70s. It's kind of amazing how many people prefer the "bird in the bush" over the "bird in the hand".

nickik 7y ago
That depends on definition. Yes, people were playing around with those things. But the idea that from the 70s to 2000s you could have systematically used wind and solar to replace fossil fuels is nonsense. Even today no industrial country is even close to having even all its energy from solar and wind. And were not even talking about transportation. For an alternative level you can look at France. France basically removed fossil fuels from its electricity production in less then 20 years of producing nuclear. And we know that CO2 saved earlier is more valuable. Now they never went to the step of trying to introduce alcohol fuels, as of course their goal was to limit import of oil to make the French economy resilient and not to save CO2.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  > But the idea that from the 70s to 2000s you could have systematically used wind and solar to replace fossil fuels is nonsense. I didn't say anything like that! What I meant is that the sustained technology development effort you called for actually happened for other energy-generating technologies, starting on the date you suggested. The result is that costs fell by several orders of magnitude, and also that it makes sense to widely deploy them now.
- scaphandre 7y ago
  > Even today no industrial country is even close to having even all its energy from solar and wind There are reports that Scotland has been generating 200% of household energy needs from wind alone in 2019. That sounds close to me. Here is a news report, and wiki: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/scotland-has-produced-enough-wind-energy-to-power-its-homes-twice-over.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/scotland-has-produced-enough... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Scotland

nickik 7y ago

That depends on definition. Yes, people were playing around with those things. But the idea that from the 70s to 2000s you could have systematically used wind and solar to replace fossil fuels is nonsense. Even today no industrial country is even close to having even all its energy from solar and wind. And were not even talking about transportation. For an alternative level you can look at France. France basically removed fossil fuels from its electricity production in less then 20 years of producing nuclear. And we know that CO2 saved earlier is more valuable. Now they never went to the step of trying to introduce alcohol fuels, as of course their goal was to limit import of oil to make the French economy resilient and not to save CO2.

greglindahl 7y ago
> But the idea that from the 70s to 2000s you could have systematically used wind and solar to replace fossil fuels is nonsense. I didn't say anything like that! What I meant is that the sustained technology development effort you called for actually happened for other energy-generating technologies, starting on the date you suggested. The result is that costs fell by several orders of magnitude, and also that it makes sense to widely deploy them now.
scaphandre 7y ago
> Even today no industrial country is even close to having even all its energy from solar and wind There are reports that Scotland has been generating 200% of household energy needs from wind alone in 2019. That sounds close to me. Here is a news report, and wiki: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/scotland-has-produced-enough-wind-energy-to-power-its-homes-twice-over.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/scotland-has-produced-enough... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Scotland