3 ms·
> that the cost of switching to renewables too early is negligible compared to the cost of switching too late. Smaller yes, but I wouldn't call it negligible.
by xondono 5y ago
> that the cost of switching to renewables too early is negligible compared to the cost of switching too late.
Smaller yes, but I wouldn't call it negligible.
> the more the economy grows before the switch to renewables is complete, the harder it becomes to make the switch.
That one I think you got reversed. Think that one through, the economy now is way greater than it was in 1980, do you really think we were better prepared for the switch back then?
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago>That one I think you got reversed. Think that one through, the economy now is way greater than it was in 1980, do you really think we were better prepared for the switch back then? I wasn't clear. We become better prepared to switch but the switch itself becomes harder. The 1980 economy was smaller, therefore it would have required fewer renewable energy sources to replicate using only renewable energy. Sure, renewable energy is more available today than in 1980, but that's due in large part to people since 1980 being willing to invest in something other than fossil fuels, despite the lower margins.
- xondono 5y ago> We become better prepared to switch but the switch itself becomes harder. But that’s the trick, for instance, now that solar is under the cost of gas, improvements in solar have slowed down, but now everyone is trying to make batteries. It’s very unlikely that the pattern won’t repeat itself, in 2050 (or 2070), we will probably be in a better position to do the switch, even if total energy consumption has grown.
- SuoDuanDao 5y agoI too am cautiously optimistic, but I'm worried about complacency. Innovation doesn't just happen, it takes a lot of hard work. If we don't keep in mind the cost of not innovating, I'm concerned we won't adequately reward that work.