7 ms·

Thats a fallacious argument. Low and no carbon sources of electricity have been available since the 1920s. We could have reduced poverty without relying on the

Thats a fallacious argument. Low and no carbon sources of electricity have been available since the 1920s. We could have reduced poverty without relying on the vast (and quite wasteful) quantities of fossil fuels that we did. This future is the result of a series of choices made to the financial benefit of a select few.

Aloha 4y ago
Even if the electric car cannot replace the ICE one, I cannot think of a good reason to burn fossil fuel for base load generation. We have hydro, we have nuclear, we have solar, and we have wind - at least two of those are dandy at base load generation, the other two act as good peaking sources. Cheaper is no longer good justification.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fomine3 4y ago
  Small islands far from continents/big islands? Maybe no space to hydro, nuclear isn't an option, solar and wind is not stable.
  - gjulianm 4y ago
    How much energy do islands spend compared to the rest of the world? Of course there will be some places where fossil fuels will be the only alternative. But using that as an excuse for inaction in the parts where we do have alternatives does not make sense.
    - fomine3 4y ago
      Yes fair point.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    Solar+wind+storage is stable.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Only with huge amounts of storage. So far there are no large, industrialized areas which have managed to build enough storage to maintain base load through multiple days of little sunshine or wind. It's a nice idea in theory but costs will have to come way down before we can afford to deploy storage at scale (especially in areas where the geography makes pumped hydroelectric impractical).
      - adrianN 4y ago
        Currently we're talking about small islands. But why would an industrialized area built enough storage now if we don't have enough supply? Germany for example gets about 40-50% of its electricity from renewables (averaged over a year), with hardly any storage. Yet only a few percent of the renewable supply are wasted. We're very far away from getting 50% of our primary energy from renewables, so we could plausibly wait with building storage until that goal is achieved. If we had a proper carbon price, we could let the market figure out when it is most economical to start building storage for multiple days...
mjburgess 4y ago
Does it help you somehow to believe in this good vs. evil narrative? It isnt true. Feeding 7bn people today requires the energy density (etc.) of fossil fuels; let alone what the 20th C. required to bring people out of poverty. The idea that you're going to bring 1bn people in the developing world out of poverty, in the manner of the late 20th C., by building "low carbon" sources of energy in the 60s,etc. in those very poor regions is ridiculous.
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  What about my statement implied a good vs evil narrative? It is factually true, and given the vastly superior energy density of nuclear fuels, I think it’s odd to tout fossil fuels as distinctly important for power generation.
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    7bn are fed because of tractors, not baseload electrical generation input into electrical grids which dont exist in many countries, and many many more in the 20th C.
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      …because we chose to pursue fossil fuels instead of focusing on low carbon sources and electrical distribution. Tractors can run on electricity, so can Haber-Bosch. Wasn’t required to choose the high carbon future, but it was profitable for some people.
nradov 4y ago
That is simply false, and displays a stunning ignorance of history and engineering. The low carbon source of electricity available in the 1920s was mainly just hydroelectric. It was only possible to build such power plants in a few limited locations, and the electricity generated couldn't be transmitted very far. Electricity also couldn't practically be used for most transportation, except a limited set of rail lines or short range vehicles. The only way to rapidly industrialize and lift people out of dire poverty was to burn fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate. Now that we have built up a sufficient economic surplus we can gradually transition to a more sustainable future.

Aloha 4y ago

Even if the electric car cannot replace the ICE one, I cannot think of a good reason to burn fossil fuel for base load generation. We have hydro, we have nuclear, we have solar, and we have wind - at least two of those are dandy at base load generation, the other two act as good peaking sources. Cheaper is no longer good justification.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fomine3 4y ago
Small islands far from continents/big islands? Maybe no space to hydro, nuclear isn't an option, solar and wind is not stable.
- gjulianm 4y ago
  How much energy do islands spend compared to the rest of the world? Of course there will be some places where fossil fuels will be the only alternative. But using that as an excuse for inaction in the parts where we do have alternatives does not make sense.
  - fomine3 4y ago
    Yes fair point.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Solar+wind+storage is stable.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Only with huge amounts of storage. So far there are no large, industrialized areas which have managed to build enough storage to maintain base load through multiple days of little sunshine or wind. It's a nice idea in theory but costs will have to come way down before we can afford to deploy storage at scale (especially in areas where the geography makes pumped hydroelectric impractical).
    - adrianN 4y ago
      Currently we're talking about small islands. But why would an industrialized area built enough storage now if we don't have enough supply? Germany for example gets about 40-50% of its electricity from renewables (averaged over a year), with hardly any storage. Yet only a few percent of the renewable supply are wasted. We're very far away from getting 50% of our primary energy from renewables, so we could plausibly wait with building storage until that goal is achieved. If we had a proper carbon price, we could let the market figure out when it is most economical to start building storage for multiple days...

mjburgess 4y ago

Does it help you somehow to believe in this good vs. evil narrative? It isnt true. Feeding 7bn people today requires the energy density (etc.) of fossil fuels; let alone what the 20th C. required to bring people out of poverty. The idea that you're going to bring 1bn people in the developing world out of poverty, in the manner of the late 20th C., by building "low carbon" sources of energy in the 60s,etc. in those very poor regions is ridiculous.

arrosenberg 4y ago
What about my statement implied a good vs evil narrative? It is factually true, and given the vastly superior energy density of nuclear fuels, I think it’s odd to tout fossil fuels as distinctly important for power generation.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  7bn are fed because of tractors, not baseload electrical generation input into electrical grids which dont exist in many countries, and many many more in the 20th C.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    …because we chose to pursue fossil fuels instead of focusing on low carbon sources and electrical distribution. Tractors can run on electricity, so can Haber-Bosch. Wasn’t required to choose the high carbon future, but it was profitable for some people.

nradov 4y ago

That is simply false, and displays a stunning ignorance of history and engineering. The low carbon source of electricity available in the 1920s was mainly just hydroelectric. It was only possible to build such power plants in a few limited locations, and the electricity generated couldn't be transmitted very far. Electricity also couldn't practically be used for most transportation, except a limited set of rail lines or short range vehicles. The only way to rapidly industrialize and lift people out of dire poverty was to burn fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate. Now that we have built up a sufficient economic surplus we can gradually transition to a more sustainable future.