3 ms·
Yeah, I thought this point in the article was off target: > Trillions of dollars were spent on wind and solar projects over the last 20 years, yet the world’s
by modeless 4y ago
Yeah, I thought this point in the article was off target:
> Trillions of dollars were spent on wind and solar projects over the last 20 years, yet the world’s dependence on fossil fuels declined only 3 percentage points, from 87% to 84%.
Isn't this because we are at the beginning of an exponential curve? Or at least a sigmoid curve. That money wasn't wasted. A growth curve will look like nothing much until suddenly one day it takes over.
- alex_duf 4y agoAlso let's compare apples to apples and check how much money was spent to generate the 87% of energy... I'm guessing it's much higher than the trillions Edit: and let's not forget that the capital spent on moving the needle to 84% will keep generating energy at marginal cost.
- jdvh 4y agoIt’s by no means a given that wind/solar will be a major source of energy for the long term. If we’re lucky advancements in wind/solar and energy storage will make it a big part of our future energy supply. If we’re unlucky we’ve spent many trillions and made very little headway towards a more sustainable future. Maybe the solution will turn out to be molten salt nuclear along with synthetic oil and carbon capture. Maybe something else altogether. Who knows, it’s still early. I don’t think we should presume solar/wind will someday take over, and I’d like to see an “all of the above” energy strategy instead.