3 ms·
Alright, I'm game. Assuming that you truly have to pick 2: We very simply must go towards clean/carbon-free as much as we can, so that's my #1 pick. It must b
by rewgs 5y ago
Alright, I'm game. Assuming that you truly have to pick 2:
We very simply must go towards clean/carbon-free as much as we can, so that's my #1 pick.
It must be economically viable for it to, you know, actually happen, so that's #2.
Pretty easy then, actually: our energy sources must be dependent on weather. Sucks, but it is what it is. The choice is even easier when you think about the fact that going this route is with the purpose of avoiding even more extreme/unpredictable weather. If we want stable weather, we must go with energy sources that are dependent on weather; the weather being stable is important to using sources that are dependent on weather.
Bottom line: lean hard into solar and wind, and go really hard into better energy storage tech.
- nix23 5y ago>and go really hard into better energy storage tech. Yes! Building dam's/silos (pumping water up when energy is available drain it when it's not) no need to build them 'into' rivers, artificial fjords where current is strong, batteries/hydrogen where nothing else is viable, create heat pumping into the ground, pump it up when no heat from other sources are available etc.
- rewgs 5y agoFor sure. It is so very obvious to me that there's one way forward: on the smallest levels possible, replace what energy production a given area can with some sort of creative renewable(s) implementation. And over time, replace fossil fuels not from the top down, but from the bottom up. Essentially a modular grid of small, bespoke-for-its-area energy producers.