3 ms·

I don't understand what you mean. Just because it's cheap, how is it suddenly not a consideration anymore whether we want to fill a large share of nature or far

by lucb1e 5y ago

I don't understand what you mean. Just because it's cheap, how is it suddenly not a consideration anymore whether we want to fill a large share of nature or farmland with PV, batteries, wind? There are more considerations than cost. Also because one needs to keep in mind that renewable electricity is only about 10% of the energy demand. I sometimes see headlines like "61% of electricity in Germany came from wind last month!" which kind of miss the point, as that means we have only 94% to go. We really need a huge amount of surface area if we want to go for a monoculture of wind and solar power with battery storage. Edit to be clear: I'm not against wind or solar or batteries. We will most definitely need it and must invest in both building them and innovating them further (in that order of priorities). But I also think we cannot just rely on them solving the whole problem. (Sometimes it is also assumed that this plummeting price curve will continue at the same rate for at least another decade, which I suspect is also not going to materialize.)

bryanlarsen 5y ago
Supplying the US using solely solar power would only require 20,000 square miles of land. We have more land in parking lots. The battery land requirements are approximately 1 square mile. And wind requirements are effectively 0 since wind can very easily co-exist with other land usages.
- kergonath 5y ago
  Getting rid of parking lots (and the energy- and ressources-hungry individual cars sitting on them) would certainly be a big step forward to a sustainable future.
  - jetbooster 5y ago
    I don't think they were suggesting getting rid of the the car parks, but rather putting solar over the top of them. Which would also reduce the amount of petrol used to AC the car when you get back in it too (though this effect is probably negligible)
    - kergonath 5y ago
      I don’t think they did, either. Nevertheless, cars are a huge waste of ressources and energy and there is no realistic path to net zero in the next half century without a significant reduction in consumption. Electric cars or not.
      - kaashif 5y ago
        Saying there is no realistic path to net zero without a reduction in consumption is somewhat funny to me. I don't think it is realistic at all to think that people will accept a reduction in living standards, which is what a reduction in consumption would result in. I think switching consumption to forms that don't cause climate change is more realistic. Failing that, mass carbon capture is still more realistic than getting people to consume less, as far as I can tell. Has anyone, anywhere ever had political success saying that everyone's living standards must decrease?
        glogla 5y ago
        That depends on the form of consumption. For example, one large form of consumption is commuting from suburbs to the offices on gridlocked roads in SUVs with one person in it. Everyone universally hates that, and working from home for office workers would greatly reduce consumption (of oil) while increasing living standards.
        lucb1e 5y ago
        I don't think you're completely wrong, but it might be more nuanced than that. A decrease in consumption can come from less consumption, but also from more efficient consumption. Better second-hand markets for products that are fine to use a second time, longer-lasting products, less raw material needed perhaps, etc. But yeah I do expect the gains of that to be somewhat limited. Just look at how many people (especially in the USA, but also some Asian ones iirc) have an Apple device as a status symbol. They're probably going to put up with second-hand products as much as they are with Huawei phones. But that's a minority in most countries, i.e. far from everyone.
        kergonath 5y ago
- lucb1e 5y ago
  That's fair; I'm mainly looking at this from a western European perspective. If you're from a more southernly country with large unused deserts... that tends to help.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    If Europe doesn't have the land for cheap energy, industry will move elsewhere.

by lucb1e 5y ago

bryanlarsen 5y ago

Supplying the US using solely solar power would only require 20,000 square miles of land. We have more land in parking lots. The battery land requirements are approximately 1 square mile. And wind requirements are effectively 0 since wind can very easily co-exist with other land usages.

kergonath 5y ago
Getting rid of parking lots (and the energy- and ressources-hungry individual cars sitting on them) would certainly be a big step forward to a sustainable future.
- jetbooster 5y ago
  I don't think they were suggesting getting rid of the the car parks, but rather putting solar over the top of them. Which would also reduce the amount of petrol used to AC the car when you get back in it too (though this effect is probably negligible)
  - kergonath 5y ago
    I don’t think they did, either. Nevertheless, cars are a huge waste of ressources and energy and there is no realistic path to net zero in the next half century without a significant reduction in consumption. Electric cars or not.
    - kaashif 5y ago
      Saying there is no realistic path to net zero without a reduction in consumption is somewhat funny to me. I don't think it is realistic at all to think that people will accept a reduction in living standards, which is what a reduction in consumption would result in. I think switching consumption to forms that don't cause climate change is more realistic. Failing that, mass carbon capture is still more realistic than getting people to consume less, as far as I can tell. Has anyone, anywhere ever had political success saying that everyone's living standards must decrease?
      - glogla 5y ago
        That depends on the form of consumption. For example, one large form of consumption is commuting from suburbs to the offices on gridlocked roads in SUVs with one person in it. Everyone universally hates that, and working from home for office workers would greatly reduce consumption (of oil) while increasing living standards.
      - lucb1e 5y ago
        I don't think you're completely wrong, but it might be more nuanced than that. A decrease in consumption can come from less consumption, but also from more efficient consumption. Better second-hand markets for products that are fine to use a second time, longer-lasting products, less raw material needed perhaps, etc. But yeah I do expect the gains of that to be somewhat limited. Just look at how many people (especially in the USA, but also some Asian ones iirc) have an Apple device as a status symbol. They're probably going to put up with second-hand products as much as they are with Huawei phones. But that's a minority in most countries, i.e. far from everyone.
      - kergonath 5y ago
lucb1e 5y ago
That's fair; I'm mainly looking at this from a western European perspective. If you're from a more southernly country with large unused deserts... that tends to help.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  If Europe doesn't have the land for cheap energy, industry will move elsewhere.