4 ms·

The total amount of wind and solar in the world is several orders of magnitude higher than the amount that we would harness so this isn’t really a relevant cons

The total amount of wind and solar in the world is several orders of magnitude higher than the amount that we would harness so this isn’t really a relevant consideration. It’s like asking if a piece of dust on an Olympic sprinter would slow them down due to air resistance.

tcmb 5y ago
I hope you're right. Is this true also if we were to replace all current nuclear and fossil energy? There is also the effect (the name of which I currently can't remember) that consumption increases when people think it does no harm. Like when LED lights were introduced, energy usage allegedly actually increased. Because people were using LED lights for all kinds of things that were NOT using incandescent lights before, as the energy used was thought to be negligible.
- dahart 5y ago
  > Like when LED lights were introduced, energy usage allegedly actually increased. This is not true. More lights might be on, but the total energy usage for lights is currently falling with increased LED production. You can find lots of stated fears and speculation on the internet that it could happen - FUD - but not evidence. There is some indirect evidence not specific to LEDs that people sometimes do use more energy when the cost goes down. But LEDs are an order of magnitude more efficient than incandescents, and there has been no such 10x increase in lighting use. Per-capita electricity use in the US is currently falling slowly.
- mepiethree 5y ago
  The effect is called Jevons Paradox. That is not a relevant consideration in this particular case, but it is a major concern for things like air conditioning efficiency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
detritus 5y ago
Laterally, the amount of CO2 my existence releases each year is of absolutely no consequence to the global environment. The amount of CO2 that 1Bn others like me - or 8.5Bn if overall living standards increase, however?
- dahart 5y ago
  The main argument is that we eat all the C02 that we breathe out, and plants re-consume that C02, so it’s in balance, whereas with oil we are releasing CO2 that we can’t replace. Aside from that, I took the first couple of sources I found googling as roughly accurate, and I see estimates of about 35B-45B tons total C02, where around 3B-3.5B might come from 8B humans breathing. So assuming those numbers are anything close to accurate, we are perhaps slightly less than 10%.
  - detritus 5y ago
    Unfortunately, my existence - and that of the all the other comfortable people in the developed world, yourself too, I imagine - also includes some % responsibility of the oil consumption you refer to.
    - dahart 5y ago
      Sure, of course. I guess I assumed wrong that when you said “existence” you were talking about biology and not lifestyle or consumer choices. I actually thought someone mentioned breathing and now I don’t see it, so my bad for going off on a tangent… ;)

tcmb 5y ago

I hope you're right. Is this true also if we were to replace all current nuclear and fossil energy? There is also the effect (the name of which I currently can't remember) that consumption increases when people think it does no harm. Like when LED lights were introduced, energy usage allegedly actually increased. Because people were using LED lights for all kinds of things that were NOT using incandescent lights before, as the energy used was thought to be negligible.

dahart 5y ago
> Like when LED lights were introduced, energy usage allegedly actually increased. This is not true. More lights might be on, but the total energy usage for lights is currently falling with increased LED production. You can find lots of stated fears and speculation on the internet that it could happen - FUD - but not evidence. There is some indirect evidence not specific to LEDs that people sometimes do use more energy when the cost goes down. But LEDs are an order of magnitude more efficient than incandescents, and there has been no such 10x increase in lighting use. Per-capita electricity use in the US is currently falling slowly.
mepiethree 5y ago
The effect is called Jevons Paradox. That is not a relevant consideration in this particular case, but it is a major concern for things like air conditioning efficiency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

detritus 5y ago

Laterally, the amount of CO2 my existence releases each year is of absolutely no consequence to the global environment. The amount of CO2 that 1Bn others like me - or 8.5Bn if overall living standards increase, however?

dahart 5y ago
The main argument is that we eat all the C02 that we breathe out, and plants re-consume that C02, so it’s in balance, whereas with oil we are releasing CO2 that we can’t replace. Aside from that, I took the first couple of sources I found googling as roughly accurate, and I see estimates of about 35B-45B tons total C02, where around 3B-3.5B might come from 8B humans breathing. So assuming those numbers are anything close to accurate, we are perhaps slightly less than 10%.
- detritus 5y ago
  Unfortunately, my existence - and that of the all the other comfortable people in the developed world, yourself too, I imagine - also includes some % responsibility of the oil consumption you refer to.
  - dahart 5y ago
    Sure, of course. I guess I assumed wrong that when you said “existence” you were talking about biology and not lifestyle or consumer choices. I actually thought someone mentioned breathing and now I don’t see it, so my bad for going off on a tangent… ;)