6 ms·

Trading breathing air for one-time-use energy is absurd

by stazz1 7y ago

ksdale 7y ago
I agree that it doesn't make sense at all for the US to trade breathing air for one time energy use, but in the abstract, trading breathing air for cheap energy in order to lift people out of poverty is far from absurd, it's an actual, difficult trade off that should be thought about carefully. A lot of people still live in homes constantly filled with wood smoke, for whom an electric coal-powered cooking stove would drastically improve their air quality. Naturally coal is still terrible for the environment, but ours is a position of great privilege, to have clean air feel so much more important than the source of our energy.
- ip26 7y ago
  To your point, even a coal-burning cooking stove is better than a wood-burning cooking stove. To wit, some months of the year the very worst air quality in the world is in Coyhaique, Chile due to their geography & use of green wood for heating & cooking. https://undark.org/2018/12/05/air-pollution-chile/ https://undark.org/2018/12/05/air-pollution-chile/
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  We can't ignore the opportunity costs. Every cent of money and effort we put towards digging fossil fuels out of the ground is money and effort we don't spend towards developing new and better sources of renewable energy. Even if the opportunity for short-term revenue is better for the former, the latter is going to secure cheap, sustainable, long-term energy independence for all of us. If we want to lift people out of energy poverty, we want to do so permanently, not in a way that leaves them back in poverty again after all our sources run out.
  - ksdale 7y ago
    This is a great point, but I think it cuts both ways. If a place doesn't get electrified until it can be done so with renewables, then there are people who e.g. are dying from the pollution from their wood cook fires in the meantime. I think I've also read though that being able to deploy solar and wind on a smaller scale makes for faster electrification in some place where it would be harder to build out a giant power plant and grid, so maybe you're right in any case.
    - aalleavitch 7y ago
      I'm a huge proponent of trying to build solar microgrids in as many places as possible; a system where every small municipality has its own local solar microgrid with battery storage, each self-sufficient but patched into a much larger grid that can help balance load and smooth over local failures in eachother's microgrids would be a way to allow the highest level of energy independence possible and avoids the pitfalls of centralization while still getting the benefits of a large-scale grid. It could be an incredibly resilient and sustainable system if well implemented. The only barrier to it as it stands is the cost to install all these solar panels and batteries.
- jes5199 7y ago
  in many parts of the world, we've already crossed a tipping point where solar and wind are cheaper than coal. We should be doing everything in our power to make that true for developing nations as well
hanniabu 7y ago
Trading clean water for one-time-use energy is also absurd (fracking)
- username90 7y ago
  Clean water is a renewable resource so I don't see the absurdity.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    So is breathable air tbh. If it wasn’t, we would have breathed it all up by now.
enraged_camel 7y ago
Not really that absurd if that one-time-use energy is needed for essentials, such as heating in winter when there are no viable alternatives. But yes, I agree with your general point.

Trading breathing air for one-time-use energy is absurd

by stazz1 7y ago

Trading breathing air for one-time-use energy is absurd

I agree that it doesn't make sense at all for the US to trade breathing air for one time energy use, but in the abstract, trading breathing air for cheap energy in order to lift people out of poverty is far from absurd, it's an actual, difficult trade off that should be thought about carefully. A lot of people still live in homes constantly filled with wood smoke, for whom an electric coal-powered cooking stove would drastically improve their air quality. Naturally coal is still terrible for the environment, but ours is a position of great privilege, to have clean air feel so much more important than the source of our energy.

ip26 7y ago
To your point, even a coal-burning cooking stove is better than a wood-burning cooking stove. To wit, some months of the year the very worst air quality in the world is in Coyhaique, Chile due to their geography & use of green wood for heating & cooking. https://undark.org/2018/12/05/air-pollution-chile/ https://undark.org/2018/12/05/air-pollution-chile/
aalleavitch 7y ago
We can't ignore the opportunity costs. Every cent of money and effort we put towards digging fossil fuels out of the ground is money and effort we don't spend towards developing new and better sources of renewable energy. Even if the opportunity for short-term revenue is better for the former, the latter is going to secure cheap, sustainable, long-term energy independence for all of us. If we want to lift people out of energy poverty, we want to do so permanently, not in a way that leaves them back in poverty again after all our sources run out.
- ksdale 7y ago
  This is a great point, but I think it cuts both ways. If a place doesn't get electrified until it can be done so with renewables, then there are people who e.g. are dying from the pollution from their wood cook fires in the meantime. I think I've also read though that being able to deploy solar and wind on a smaller scale makes for faster electrification in some place where it would be harder to build out a giant power plant and grid, so maybe you're right in any case.
  - aalleavitch 7y ago
    I'm a huge proponent of trying to build solar microgrids in as many places as possible; a system where every small municipality has its own local solar microgrid with battery storage, each self-sufficient but patched into a much larger grid that can help balance load and smooth over local failures in eachother's microgrids would be a way to allow the highest level of energy independence possible and avoids the pitfalls of centralization while still getting the benefits of a large-scale grid. It could be an incredibly resilient and sustainable system if well implemented. The only barrier to it as it stands is the cost to install all these solar panels and batteries.
jes5199 7y ago
in many parts of the world, we've already crossed a tipping point where solar and wind are cheaper than coal. We should be doing everything in our power to make that true for developing nations as well

hanniabu 7y ago

Trading clean water for one-time-use energy is also absurd (fracking)

username90 7y ago
Clean water is a renewable resource so I don't see the absurdity.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  So is breathable air tbh. If it wasn’t, we would have breathed it all up by now.

enraged_camel 7y ago

Not really that absurd if that one-time-use energy is needed for essentials, such as heating in winter when there are no viable alternatives. But yes, I agree with your general point.