3 ms·

Leaving it here without a comment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption Full repo

Leaving it here without a comment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption Full report by BP: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/c...

newman555 7y ago
and this: https://youtu.be/wGt4XwBbCvA https://youtu.be/wGt4XwBbCvA
- H8crilA 7y ago
  Thank you, you should have written a small piece of text about this video because it's brilliant. In short: it's a great lecture about tight connections between energy consumption and the wealth of nations, with detailed explanation why this happens.
dntbnmpls 7y ago
Thank you. I personally like to link directly to the wikipedia chart to show people that renewables and nuclear account for pretty much a tiny insignificant portion of the world's energy consumption. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File%3ABp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/me... Almost all of the worlds energy consumption is fossil fuels. So the idea that we are going to do anything to change that fact any time soon is an impossibility unless we want to trigger worldwide economic collapse. Not that facts and data and charts really helps when it comes to the most ardent climate change activists. Throw in the fact that only about 20% of the world is part of the developed, industrialized world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country So we have 80% of the world ( about 5.6 billion people ) who are looking to become part of the developed, industrialized world. That means more energy. Which means more fossil fuels. Unless we intend to keep the 5.6 billion down trodden down, I'd say the future of fossil fuels is bright. Barring some truly revolutionary advance in energy, we'll be mostly powered by fossil fuels for a very long time.
- SuoDuanDao 7y ago
  >A very long time I suppose, if you consider 120 years a very long time. Given the scale of the problem though, it seems obvious that the time to think seriously about replacements now, not in 119 years.

newman555 7y ago

and this: https://youtu.be/wGt4XwBbCvA https://youtu.be/wGt4XwBbCvA

H8crilA 7y ago
Thank you, you should have written a small piece of text about this video because it's brilliant. In short: it's a great lecture about tight connections between energy consumption and the wealth of nations, with detailed explanation why this happens.

dntbnmpls 7y ago

Thank you. I personally like to link directly to the wikipedia chart to show people that renewables and nuclear account for pretty much a tiny insignificant portion of the world's energy consumption. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File%3ABp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/me... Almost all of the worlds energy consumption is fossil fuels. So the idea that we are going to do anything to change that fact any time soon is an impossibility unless we want to trigger worldwide economic collapse. Not that facts and data and charts really helps when it comes to the most ardent climate change activists. Throw in the fact that only about 20% of the world is part of the developed, industrialized world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country So we have 80% of the world ( about 5.6 billion people ) who are looking to become part of the developed, industrialized world. That means more energy. Which means more fossil fuels. Unless we intend to keep the 5.6 billion down trodden down, I'd say the future of fossil fuels is bright. Barring some truly revolutionary advance in energy, we'll be mostly powered by fossil fuels for a very long time.

SuoDuanDao 7y ago
>A very long time I suppose, if you consider 120 years a very long time. Given the scale of the problem though, it seems obvious that the time to think seriously about replacements now, not in 119 years.