3 ms·
As always you need to factor in both positive and negative externalities. If you do that, the positive would still come out way way ahead. (And not it's not pr
by ThomPete 4y ago
As always you need to factor in both positive and negative externalities.
If you do that, the positive would still come out way way ahead. (And not it's not priced in already contrary to popular belief)
The reality is that we can't sustain a civilisation of 8billion people without fossil fuels. We should do what we can to find alternatives that are less pollutant and have higher energy density but for now that means fusion, thorium and traditional fission. But we still have to solve the materials issue and we still have to content with the fact that only 20% of our energy is based on electricity and any attempt at increasing that number will require lots of fossil fuel usage as you would have to replace all the machines out there.
We are going to be dependent on FF for a long long time.
- kaibee 4y ago> The reality is that we can't sustain a civilisation of 8billion people without fossil fuels. We should do what we can to find alternatives that are less pollutant and have higher energy density but for now that means fusion, thorium and traditional fission. This is just a failure to understand how much sunlight there is and how fast solar panels are getting cheaper.
- ThomPete 4y agoJust like Germany you mean? Solar panels will neither solve our increasing energy need nor be a solution for any future civilization. Energy is about density. There is a reason why solar panels needs to be spread over huge areas to capture the sun. So no I am pretty aware of solar panels and more importantly i understand the physics.