5 ms·
I am not too certain of the logic of the arguement - namely because fossil fuels are actually pretty damn advanced in terms of "actual technology and societal i
by Nasrudith 6y ago
I am not too certain of the logic of the arguement - namely because fossil fuels are actually pretty damn advanced in terms of "actual technology and societal infastructure to access and exploit them". We already went through this long ago with surface deposits of copper ore as well essentially millenia ago.
Effectively the time when it is useful is "when we don't have cheaper alternatives yet". We still should strive to make renewables and storage the cheaper option though.
To get really pedantic our 20th century understanding of power and energy are exactly backwards colloquially from what is really provided. Power is energy over time. The "power" infastructure was actually largely an energy infastructure with the exception of say hydro electric dams - you can only burn fuel once no matter how clever your ability to extract it. Meanwhile "renewable energy" provides power over its period of existence.
- Retric 6y agoThere are a lot of surface level coal deposits right now that can be harvested with hand tools. It’s simply a question of efficiency, if a deposit is not vast nobody turns it into a mine.
- sizzle 6y agoWhat are the consequences of fracking?
- stx 6y agoLocalized earthquakes are one. Also companies doing fracking actually have a legal exemption to the typical requirement to disclose the chemicals they pump into the ground. I believe they argue its a trade secret. I assume that if it was not really toxic they might disclose them. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/facts-fracking-chemical-disclosure/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/facts-fracking-chemical-di...
- rurban 6y agoPoisoning the groundwater, besides the earthquakes now and then. But who needs clean water?
- api 6y agoYet another possible Fermi paradox answer...
- mark-r 6y agoGood luck with those "renewable" solar farms when the next eruption happens.
- Dylan16807 6y ago...wait a week then wash them off?
- azinman2 6y agoThe article suggested 18 months of non-stop no sun.
- Dylan16807 6y agoLess sun isn't no sun. Lots of trees just slowed down for the year.
- jsjohnst 6y ago> The article suggested 18 months of non-stop no sun. If there was no sun at all, do you think the temperatures would only drop 1-3° as mentioned in the article?
- madaxe_again 6y agoThat’s why a broad basket is preferable to a monoculture of production. Where I live is a perfect microcosm of this - in the summer, we get ample power from our solar array, but in the winter, when it can be dark and raining for weeks on end, it doesn’t come close - so I’m building out hydro and wind, as when it rains, a stream appears that we can harness, and the wind blows. The same applies to renewables at grid scale - overdependence on a single source is absolutely risky, which is why most renewable energy efforts involve quite a bit of diversification.
- ragebol 6y agoSo use that while we can and leave the fossil fuels for when renewable are cut off from the sun. I wonder how much wind there would be under these circumstances though.
- vbezhenar 6y agoIn case of apocalypsis, debris of our civilization will provide huge supplies of metals. Much cheaper to process than raw ore. Coal is a different thing. That said, I think that it's not necessary to have very cheap coal and oil energy to have technological advances.
- trevyn 6y agoAhhh that’s why we haven’t met the aliens yet, they’re waiting for us to extract all the metals.