3 ms·
The problem with such a figure is people assume that means we would become energy sustainable, but there are tons of non-electrical energy usages that also need
by AngryData 6y ago
The problem with such a figure is people assume that means we would become energy sustainable, but there are tons of non-electrical energy usages that also need to be replaced with electrical processes. And unfortunately those processes that aren't electrical already are that way usually because it is way less efficient, and thus requires significantly more electricity generation to make up for the loss in efficiency. Fertilizer production for example uses lots of natural gas, replacing that natural gas with an electro-chemical process is possible and we know how to do it, but it also means the energy requirements rise nearly 10x as much, thus requiring significantly more panels to make up for it. And that is the same for the majority of chemical reagent production and material processing methods.
So while im all for solar and hope we build tons of it, I don't see it becoming the primary energy generation source of the world any time soon. The solar farms that we would need will be the biggest man made wonders in the world, which I don't see as all that feasible in our economic and political environment.
- triceratops 6y agoCould we continue using fossil fuels for processes like that and use excess solar and wind for carbon capture to offset emissions from those processes?