4 ms·

> dramatically affecting global standard of living What's wrong with that ? That's the issue many have and fortunately, you tell it like it is. People don't wa

by wiz21c 4y ago

> dramatically affecting global standard of living What's wrong with that ? That's the issue many have and fortunately, you tell it like it is. People don't want to change. Public transportation, changing the "dream of traveling" into another one, having electronic that lasts for 10 years instead of 5, better insulation, and the list goes on. Yes, one can change the global standard of living into other not lesser global standard. Or you think it's already too late and then, well, it's effectively too late.

baggy_trough 4y ago
> What's wrong with that? I should think that was fairly obvious. People do not like to be "dramatically" poorer, or even just a little.
elefanten 4y ago
You can’t expect a majority to understand, much less accept, the probabilistic systems thinking required to conclude (and act on) dedevelopment. Ambitious (and probably also clueless/disbelieving) ideologues will spin junk food narratives that move the masses. And you will have war everywhere. So it makes sense to roll the dice on remediation and hope slow social change takes. The only alternative is a horrible age for humanity, one way or another.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Economic forces are not slow. Renewables are radically cheaper than any other energy source. Getting out of the way of such change is all we need for it to happen very, very fast. Distracting people with things that will not end up working brings catastrophe nearer.
  - julienb_sea 4y ago
    Renewables come with major constraints that fossil fuel sources do not share. The value of the grid is rooted in its consistent availability. Renewables cannot replace on-demand generation because they are definitionally cyclic, constrained by availability of sun, wind and water [1]. Large scale energy storage is required to replicate the energy security offered by fossil fuel generation, which is not feasible with current tech at the required scale, and regardless the storage costs eliminate the argument of renewables as "radically cheaper". [1] Geothermal is an exception. Gas is also technically a constrained resource, but not on a timescale relevant to this century.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      You neglect the multiplicity of storage alternatives, all of which work, at different price points. The most cost-effective will be the ones used. Idiotic ones (e.g. Energy Vault's) won't be. Of course very little storage is built yet, because it would be beyond stupid to build storage that there is not renewable capacity, yet, to charge up. Money is overwhelmingly better spent on generation capacity, first. Storage cost is falling faster than solar. When we build it, it will be very cheap.
concordDance 4y ago
> What's wrong with that ? It's not a vote winner.
julienb_sea 4y ago
Energy security is mainly what I was referring to. Inconsistent access and/or prohibitively expensive electricity and gas is a huge problem for personal health, healthcare, education and access to economic opportunities.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  And, ready access to renewables is a a great boon for everyone. Civilization not collapsing immediately, maybe moreso.
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

by wiz21c 4y ago

baggy_trough 4y ago

> What's wrong with that? I should think that was fairly obvious. People do not like to be "dramatically" poorer, or even just a little.

elefanten 4y ago

You can’t expect a majority to understand, much less accept, the probabilistic systems thinking required to conclude (and act on) dedevelopment. Ambitious (and probably also clueless/disbelieving) ideologues will spin junk food narratives that move the masses. And you will have war everywhere. So it makes sense to roll the dice on remediation and hope slow social change takes. The only alternative is a horrible age for humanity, one way or another.

ncmncm 4y ago
Economic forces are not slow. Renewables are radically cheaper than any other energy source. Getting out of the way of such change is all we need for it to happen very, very fast. Distracting people with things that will not end up working brings catastrophe nearer.
- julienb_sea 4y ago
  Renewables come with major constraints that fossil fuel sources do not share. The value of the grid is rooted in its consistent availability. Renewables cannot replace on-demand generation because they are definitionally cyclic, constrained by availability of sun, wind and water [1]. Large scale energy storage is required to replicate the energy security offered by fossil fuel generation, which is not feasible with current tech at the required scale, and regardless the storage costs eliminate the argument of renewables as "radically cheaper". [1] Geothermal is an exception. Gas is also technically a constrained resource, but not on a timescale relevant to this century.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    You neglect the multiplicity of storage alternatives, all of which work, at different price points. The most cost-effective will be the ones used. Idiotic ones (e.g. Energy Vault's) won't be. Of course very little storage is built yet, because it would be beyond stupid to build storage that there is not renewable capacity, yet, to charge up. Money is overwhelmingly better spent on generation capacity, first. Storage cost is falling faster than solar. When we build it, it will be very cheap.

concordDance 4y ago

> What's wrong with that ? It's not a vote winner.

julienb_sea 4y ago

Energy security is mainly what I was referring to. Inconsistent access and/or prohibitively expensive electricity and gas is a huge problem for personal health, healthcare, education and access to economic opportunities.

ncmncm 4y ago
And, ready access to renewables is a a great boon for everyone. Civilization not collapsing immediately, maybe moreso.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago