5 ms·

Especially when the incumbent, fossil fuel energy, has been propped up by subsidies and unpaid externalities for centuries.

by ianai 5y ago

SllX 5y ago
A century, I could maybe see. A century and maybe a plural amount of decades, perhaps. Gonna need you to cite that plural centuries though.
- apendleton 5y ago
  Coal was already in reasonably widespread use in industrial processes 200 years ago, and produced unpaid-for externalities then just as it does now (actually worse ones, presumably, given that air quality was not yet regulated in any meaningful way).
  - atroche 5y ago
    But was it being "propped up" two centuries ago?
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      Unpaid externalities is a fancy way of saying propped up.
  - SllX 5y ago
    Where’s my citation I asked for? I’m not saying the parent is necessarily wrong, but given the recency of the industrial revolution and the length of time between which it “began” and when many of the most useful industrial applications for coal were discovered, I can’t take it at face value “centuries” is correct. It might be close to correct, it might be technically correct, but it’s not merely an pedantic point: his comment reads as hyperbole because of the vagueness of what centuries even means here. Even if it has been technically two centuries, century plural technically, that’s overstating his case. Overstating your case is a good way to get people to turn off to what you are saying if they perceive it that way.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      It is very easy to look up the history of coal use and see that it had metallurgical applications in antiquity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#History
      - randomswede 5y ago
        A lot of the coal used in Swedish metal-working (up to relatively late, but I don't actually have dates, here, gut feel is 18050s) was charcoal, rather than mined coal. With quite advanced cooperatives[1] producing the charcoal for the mining/refining cooperatives[1]. [1] Somewhat loose translation of "kolare" and "bergslag", here.
DisjointedHunt 5y ago
Please don’t fall for the villianization that the media adopt to push an agenda. Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish. Fossil fuels have one of the highest energy densities and hence have been used for ages. We have much to be thankful for thanks to fossil fuels being around. We are in a position today to bring change and I’m all for that. Losing sight of the benefits of energy simply because some sources have a negative connotation attached sets us up for failure.
- Goety 5y ago
  >Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish. Energy is needed for basic modern services. Humans have survived a long time without electricity. It could be simpler to 'go without' or 'find a workaround' for a lot of conveniences if we were serious at combating climate change.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Not for eight billion people. Just look at what happens when we stop loading trucks for a little while. Now imagine if you expanded all that "going without" to everything that uses energy. You'd have days at most before mass chaos.
    - Goety 5y ago
      Can we engineer a human backbone behind these services to be resistant to corruption and complacency for security sake? We did an ok job with nuclear weapons but only just.
  - varajelle 5y ago
    In what condition? Without the energy of the fossil fuel, lots of the energy came from human labor. Without it, we wouldn't have gotten rid of slavery. Most people were doing a manual labor, which is also more discriminatory to the weaker ones (e.g. woman) So your just suggesting we go back to the middle ages? No, thank you.
    - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Especially when the incumbent, fossil fuel energy, has been propped up by subsidies and unpaid externalities for centuries.

by ianai 5y ago

Especially when the incumbent, fossil fuel energy, has been propped up by subsidies and unpaid externalities for centuries.

SllX 5y ago

A century, I could maybe see. A century and maybe a plural amount of decades, perhaps. Gonna need you to cite that plural centuries though.

apendleton 5y ago
Coal was already in reasonably widespread use in industrial processes 200 years ago, and produced unpaid-for externalities then just as it does now (actually worse ones, presumably, given that air quality was not yet regulated in any meaningful way).
- atroche 5y ago
  But was it being "propped up" two centuries ago?
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    Unpaid externalities is a fancy way of saying propped up.
- SllX 5y ago
  Where’s my citation I asked for? I’m not saying the parent is necessarily wrong, but given the recency of the industrial revolution and the length of time between which it “began” and when many of the most useful industrial applications for coal were discovered, I can’t take it at face value “centuries” is correct. It might be close to correct, it might be technically correct, but it’s not merely an pedantic point: his comment reads as hyperbole because of the vagueness of what centuries even means here. Even if it has been technically two centuries, century plural technically, that’s overstating his case. Overstating your case is a good way to get people to turn off to what you are saying if they perceive it that way.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    It is very easy to look up the history of coal use and see that it had metallurgical applications in antiquity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#History
    - randomswede 5y ago
      A lot of the coal used in Swedish metal-working (up to relatively late, but I don't actually have dates, here, gut feel is 18050s) was charcoal, rather than mined coal. With quite advanced cooperatives[1] producing the charcoal for the mining/refining cooperatives[1]. [1] Somewhat loose translation of "kolare" and "bergslag", here.

DisjointedHunt 5y ago

Please don’t fall for the villianization that the media adopt to push an agenda. Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish. Fossil fuels have one of the highest energy densities and hence have been used for ages. We have much to be thankful for thanks to fossil fuels being around. We are in a position today to bring change and I’m all for that. Losing sight of the benefits of energy simply because some sources have a negative connotation attached sets us up for failure.

Goety 5y ago
>Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish. Energy is needed for basic modern services. Humans have survived a long time without electricity. It could be simpler to 'go without' or 'find a workaround' for a lot of conveniences if we were serious at combating climate change.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Not for eight billion people. Just look at what happens when we stop loading trucks for a little while. Now imagine if you expanded all that "going without" to everything that uses energy. You'd have days at most before mass chaos.
  - Goety 5y ago
    Can we engineer a human backbone behind these services to be resistant to corruption and complacency for security sake? We did an ok job with nuclear weapons but only just.
- varajelle 5y ago
  In what condition? Without the energy of the fossil fuel, lots of the energy came from human labor. Without it, we wouldn't have gotten rid of slavery. Most people were doing a manual labor, which is also more discriminatory to the weaker ones (e.g. woman) So your just suggesting we go back to the middle ages? No, thank you.
  - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]