4 ms·

It's not replacing fossil fuels, merely freeing them for other uses. In fact it's even common now to build wind turbines around coal mines to produce power to e

by wazoox 4y ago

It's not replacing fossil fuels, merely freeing them for other uses. In fact it's even common now to build wind turbines around coal mines to produce power to extract coal... We must reduce our fossil fuel consumption in absolute numbers. So far we're merely adding more energy resources; that way political and corporate PR representative can make triumphal announces about how we're reducing the part of fossil in our energy mix... But we need to reduce our fossil use overall, and REALLY REALLY FAST.

woodruffw 4y ago
"It's common" is not a statistic. At least in the US, coal use for power generation has dropped precipitously over the past 40 years. If whatever coal we do still extract is extracted using wind or solar, that seems like a net win (even if not a net positive, for the reason you mentioned).
- wazoox 4y ago
  But we need a net positive. We must stop pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, and we're merely pumping it a slightly slower rate, and the quantity still goes up. The US has replaced lots of coal with gas, and that's most of the reduction. But we're not gonna make it this way. Remember: we're heading towards +2.5°C in 2100, but northern continents heat much faster than the average (oceans are cooler and represent 70% of Earth's surface): it could be from +4 and up to +6°C in Canada, Europe, etc. The situation is going to be absolutely catastrophic much sooner than 2100. Arguably we may have catastrophic, repeated crop failures this decade for instance.
tialaramex 4y ago
I'll link a page with a chart on it, the web page relies on Javascript to actually render charts, the chart we care about here is "Electricity generation mix by quarter and fuel source". https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-and-research/data-portal/wholesale-market-indicators https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-and-research/data-porta... Now, on the left is 1998, on the right is this year. There are a few noteworthy differences 1. The UK actually produces less electricity, partly from efficiencies and partly de-industrialisation in some areas. 2. Coal went from over 30 TWh in 1998 to 2.24 TWh today. Are we instead burning that coal in homes? Nope. Steam locomotives? A handful of quaint examples. Coal mining largely stopped in the UK. 3. Gas went from almost 30 TWh in 1998 to slightly less today. We are still burning gas to heat homes and businesses but I doubt it's more than in 1998. 4. Wind and solar went from negligible to almost 25 TWh today. It's about a third of today's electricity generation. I don't see a way to read this which doesn't have us significantly replacing fossil fuels. Those coal mines are shut. Does the UK still have petrol stations and gas boilers? Yes, but it doesn't have many more of them than in 1998. That displacement shown is a real improvement. It just isn't enough.
- wazoox 4y ago
  UK has massively de-industrialised, as has most of Europe (but Germany). However global industrial production, energy consumption in general and fossil fuels in particular all enormously increased since 1998. Global numbers are all that counts, climate-wise. Plus I'm pretty sure that including imported emissions would annihilate (or even worsen) the apparent reduction for countries such as UK, France, etc.
benj111 4y ago
If I go on a diet and lose weight, is that also a trick because the average weight of the population goes up? Just because someone else does something else to negate the net effect of something doesn't mean you haven't done the thing. If we hadn't done anything emissions would be even higher. It isn't as if we have to burn a certain quota of coal and gas. This isn't an argument for doing less, it's an argument for doing more.
- wazoox 4y ago
  > If I go on a diet and lose weight, is that also a trick because the average weight of the population goes up? The keyword here is "imported emissions". When you reduce your consumption because you're closing a factory to import the same stuff made in worse (environmental, social) conditions elsewhere, the gain is only apparent. So following your analogy, if what you're after is the global population health, if you lose weight but everyone else gains more than what you lost, than the result is indeed a net loss overall.
  - benj111 4y ago
    I'll repeat my metaphor. If I go on a diet... In the metaphor 'I' mirrors green technologies. 'global population health' mirrors total global emissions. If I go on a diet and lost weight, that is no trick. I have lost weight. That isn't invalidated by the rest of the world getting fatter. If I put solar panels on my roof I will lower my co2 emissions. That isn't invalidated by you rolling coal. I agree it's bad that co2 emissions are increasing but that doesn't mean that the proposed solution is a trick.

by wazoox 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago

"It's common" is not a statistic. At least in the US, coal use for power generation has dropped precipitously over the past 40 years. If whatever coal we do still extract is extracted using wind or solar, that seems like a net win (even if not a net positive, for the reason you mentioned).

wazoox 4y ago
But we need a net positive. We must stop pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, and we're merely pumping it a slightly slower rate, and the quantity still goes up. The US has replaced lots of coal with gas, and that's most of the reduction. But we're not gonna make it this way. Remember: we're heading towards +2.5°C in 2100, but northern continents heat much faster than the average (oceans are cooler and represent 70% of Earth's surface): it could be from +4 and up to +6°C in Canada, Europe, etc. The situation is going to be absolutely catastrophic much sooner than 2100. Arguably we may have catastrophic, repeated crop failures this decade for instance.

tialaramex 4y ago

I'll link a page with a chart on it, the web page relies on Javascript to actually render charts, the chart we care about here is "Electricity generation mix by quarter and fuel source". https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-and-research/data-portal/wholesale-market-indicators https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-and-research/data-porta... Now, on the left is 1998, on the right is this year. There are a few noteworthy differences 1. The UK actually produces less electricity, partly from efficiencies and partly de-industrialisation in some areas. 2. Coal went from over 30 TWh in 1998 to 2.24 TWh today. Are we instead burning that coal in homes? Nope. Steam locomotives? A handful of quaint examples. Coal mining largely stopped in the UK. 3. Gas went from almost 30 TWh in 1998 to slightly less today. We are still burning gas to heat homes and businesses but I doubt it's more than in 1998. 4. Wind and solar went from negligible to almost 25 TWh today. It's about a third of today's electricity generation. I don't see a way to read this which doesn't have us significantly replacing fossil fuels. Those coal mines are shut. Does the UK still have petrol stations and gas boilers? Yes, but it doesn't have many more of them than in 1998. That displacement shown is a real improvement. It just isn't enough.

wazoox 4y ago
UK has massively de-industrialised, as has most of Europe (but Germany). However global industrial production, energy consumption in general and fossil fuels in particular all enormously increased since 1998. Global numbers are all that counts, climate-wise. Plus I'm pretty sure that including imported emissions would annihilate (or even worsen) the apparent reduction for countries such as UK, France, etc.

benj111 4y ago

If I go on a diet and lose weight, is that also a trick because the average weight of the population goes up? Just because someone else does something else to negate the net effect of something doesn't mean you haven't done the thing. If we hadn't done anything emissions would be even higher. It isn't as if we have to burn a certain quota of coal and gas. This isn't an argument for doing less, it's an argument for doing more.

wazoox 4y ago
> If I go on a diet and lose weight, is that also a trick because the average weight of the population goes up? The keyword here is "imported emissions". When you reduce your consumption because you're closing a factory to import the same stuff made in worse (environmental, social) conditions elsewhere, the gain is only apparent. So following your analogy, if what you're after is the global population health, if you lose weight but everyone else gains more than what you lost, than the result is indeed a net loss overall.
- benj111 4y ago
  I'll repeat my metaphor. If I go on a diet... In the metaphor 'I' mirrors green technologies. 'global population health' mirrors total global emissions. If I go on a diet and lost weight, that is no trick. I have lost weight. That isn't invalidated by the rest of the world getting fatter. If I put solar panels on my roof I will lower my co2 emissions. That isn't invalidated by you rolling coal. I agree it's bad that co2 emissions are increasing but that doesn't mean that the proposed solution is a trick.