3 ms·

Because realistically, they've been dependent on fossil fuels for so long and the public for a large part have not been that friendly to renewable power sources

Because realistically, they've been dependent on fossil fuels for so long and the public for a large part have not been that friendly to renewable power sources for so long. Also, renewable energy hasn't been that reliable in the past. It's not like they weren't dependent and then decided to become dependent. And fossil fuels are a resource for which not many countries have it, so creating backup supplies isn't as easy as in other things. Germany was about to build a backup gas pipeline (Abeit still to the same supplier), it took 10 years to just to get it to the viable stage before it was cancelled.

Brometheus 4y ago
[flagged]
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  ~10 years is nothing when it comes to adoption of these things. I'm thinking of the reptutation renewable energy had 30 years ago as not being very efficent. Obivously, it's came a long way. But considering how long it takes for power stations to be replaced/approved/etc it's not surprising that how it was 30-years ago affected it's adoption.
  - Brometheus 4y ago
    - that_guy_iain 4y ago
      What am I mistaken about? Do you know how it increased 5 fold in the last 10-years? Because it's easy to have lots of growth when your numbers are small. Also, the tech has improved. And again, you're talking 10-years. To solve this issue you need multiple decades. You seem to be talking about the past 10-years, while I'm saying for that the problem we've got of being dependent on fossil fuels which has been developed over the past 100+ years. 30-years or so ago. Solar for example wasn't that good. Hydro was a concern and expensive. So while, we have been making good strides in the past 10-years, there is 100+ years of stuff you need to combat. The past 10-years proves the future, but, it doesn't automatically undo the past nor does it remove the fact that renewable energy when it first came out was inefficent.
      - Brometheus 4y ago
        Alright then, we agree.

Brometheus 4y ago

[flagged]

that_guy_iain 4y ago
~10 years is nothing when it comes to adoption of these things. I'm thinking of the reptutation renewable energy had 30 years ago as not being very efficent. Obivously, it's came a long way. But considering how long it takes for power stations to be replaced/approved/etc it's not surprising that how it was 30-years ago affected it's adoption.
- Brometheus 4y ago
  - that_guy_iain 4y ago
    What am I mistaken about? Do you know how it increased 5 fold in the last 10-years? Because it's easy to have lots of growth when your numbers are small. Also, the tech has improved. And again, you're talking 10-years. To solve this issue you need multiple decades. You seem to be talking about the past 10-years, while I'm saying for that the problem we've got of being dependent on fossil fuels which has been developed over the past 100+ years. 30-years or so ago. Solar for example wasn't that good. Hydro was a concern and expensive. So while, we have been making good strides in the past 10-years, there is 100+ years of stuff you need to combat. The past 10-years proves the future, but, it doesn't automatically undo the past nor does it remove the fact that renewable energy when it first came out was inefficent.
    - Brometheus 4y ago
      Alright then, we agree.