3 ms·
I'm not sure how any of this would radically change where we are today (not saying it wouldn't be better, just urging some basic PCA here). Solar was only poss
by qeternity 5y ago
I'm not sure how any of this would radically change where we are today (not saying it wouldn't be better, just urging some basic PCA here).
Solar was only possibly due to massively unprofitable investment by the Chinese state and cheap labor. Wind costs haven't decreased nearly as much as solar and still suffer from the same problems they did decades ago. Battery technology has been driven by the consumer electronics revolution, which couldn't have been otherwise sped up.
Long story short: I'm not sure that even in a perfect world, that we would be all that different. Fossil fuels were still the cheapest source of energy for many, many decades in a rapid growing global economy. 20 years ahead is certainly a stretch. 10 years would be high case, 5 years base case...in a perfect world.
- yyyk 5y agoImproving energy supply methods would have been tough without future knowledge. Reducing energy consumption was however much more doable. For example, the West switched quickly from Incandescent bulbs to CFLs to LEDs in the 2010s. But CFLs was arguably doable in the late 1970s, definitely in the 1990s. We could have had a far earlier CFL transition, saving decades of incandescent bulbs.
- qeternity 5y ago> Reducing energy consumption was however much more doable. This I agree with 100% but is generally not something people have been keen to do. They want to drive more, air condition more, eat more animal protein, fly to more places, etc. The last 80 years of prosperity have been driven by increased consumption. And nobody seems keen to be the generation of "less is more".