4 ms·

From the article: "The supposed energy transition that has been undertaken has seen renewable energy production expanded, but there has been no indication that

From the article: "The supposed energy transition that has been undertaken has seen renewable energy production expanded, but there has been no indication that oil and gas are being substituted and ultimately phased out." That's not going to happen for another 27 years at least. I've said it before: Most people (including those who post here) are staggeringly illiterate when it comes to energy. Hydrocarbons store an immense amount of energy in a small, portable, cheap form. You can't just replace it in a year. And even if you COULD, oil and gas are used for more than fuel and power. Natgas is a major feedstock for nitrogen fertilizer. You cannot replace it with solar panels. Then there's the laundry list of byproducts like plastics and other materials made from oil and gas feedstocks which are essential for the modern world to function -also not able to be substituted by wind and sunlight. Funny how they never mention this at Vox, Mother Jones, or other progressive-leaning publications.

rootusrootus 4y ago
I haven't met that many people who think we can do it in a year. But it won't happen in 27 years if we don't make a consistent effort every year between now and then.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  I'm not sure it will even happen in 27 years, with effort.
- notacoward 4y ago
  The key is to make the right efforts. Putting so much passion into "build more bike lanes", discouraging people from buying EVs or installing solar "because of the environmental cost" etc. either doesn't move the needle or moves it in the wrong direction. It is its own form of greenwashing. What we need to do is look at the actual flows of carbon-energy production and usage, and work our way down from the biggest to the smallest. Here's a starting point from LLNL. https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/carbon https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/carbon (I'm pretty sure I've seen an even better one somewhere that breaks down e.g. personal vs. commercial transportation, but I can't find it right now.) Parallel to that, we need to address the political issues that obstruct even minimal progress. And yes, sometimes that means holding our noses and voting for awful "moderates" or "centrists". Why? Because in a divided country (as most are) getting elected means getting the votes in the middle. Education helps some, in the long term, because it helps move the dividing line between the two sides of any issue (not just environment). Condescension and demonization don't help at all. In the short term, though, the biggest bang for the buck is to vote for people who will meet voters where they are ideologically and get them to support some kind of progress. Secondarily, electing people who will vote to dismantle the structures that favor obstruction and NIMBYism over doing something will also help - not this election cycle or next, but hopefully within a 27-year time frame. So yes, consistent effort every year, but in ways that bear fruit and don't just satisfy someone's sense of superiority or self-righteous anger. There has been enough posturing. Every "that isn't good enough" or "they're both the same" delays actual progress. Like everything there's a strategy to this, and about 90% of what I see is a losing strategy.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
adrianN 4y ago
"You can't replace it in XX years" is particularly true if you don't even try. Everything we use oil and gas for that is not fuel is a tiny fraction of our consumption and can be replaced with synthesis pipelines that use carbon dioxide, water and electricity.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  Besides fuel for transportation, the following make up a large use-case: blast furnaces for smelting steel and making coke, cement-making, ammonia synthesis, creating plastics. Electricity by itself accounts for near 25% of fossil fuel use. None of those can be viably replaced right now. With very large transpo, there seems to be a lot of investment in hydrogen but skepticism surrounding it too, including for the environment.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    If we could replace those things right now we would already have done so. That is no argument against investing into technologies that can replace those uses. And I count furnaces, cement making, and electricity production as fuel, since all you need for the process is heat.
    - slothtrop 4y ago
      > That is no argument against investing into technologies that can replace those uses. It never was. It's a suggestion that near-term abatability e.g. 27 years is untenable. Policy and projection qua climate can't hinge on the promise of hypotheticals. It's possible to leverage nuclear more for an accelerated timeline, but the greens keep trying to block progress. Can't have your cake and eat it too is the way I see it.
dublinben 4y ago
Half of all car trips in the US are under 3 miles.[0] If even a quarter of already existing roads were turned over for use by pedestrians and cyclists, then most people could accomplish those trips without driving with little to no new infrastructure investment. That would substantially reduce our use of gas for transportation overnight, save hundreds of millions of dollars, and millions of tons of CO2 emissions. It would also have secondary effects of improving local air and water quality, improving physical and mental health, lowering healthcare costs, and reducing future infrastructure costs.[1] Meaningful changes like this could happen in well under a year if the political will were there. From there, we could tackle the more difficult challenges you mention of the remaining quarter of oil used for industrial purposes. None of these problems are impossible to solve. Defeatism doesn't do anything to contribute to a solution. [0] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-marc... [1] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/what-if-we-kept-our-cars-parked-trips-less-one-mile https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/what-if-we-kept-our-cars-p...
- landemva 4y ago
  Do you have neighbors in USA who will walk three miles to the grocery store? USA is ridiculously obese, so those walks would be good in many ways.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    Walking and driving are not the only two options.
- notacoward 4y ago
  > most people could accomplish those trips without driving with little to no new infrastructure investment. Cost is not the only issue. Often not even the main one. Please go to a town meeting (or planning board meeting) some time. Pay attention to what arguments people actually put forth, and how. They'll cite not only cost but inconvenience, damage to local businesses, historical character, even environmental issues. And here's the thing: any new project has to win every one of those battles, while the NIMBYs only have to win one. That's what we call systemic bias. It can be fixed eventually, but not just hand-waved over. Until then, better sidewalks and bike lanes will take years in most towns if they're allowed to proceed at all, even when the money is readily available. > Meaningful changes like this could happen in well under a year if the political will were there. Not just political will but authoritarian political will. The US is a country where toxic individualism rules all, to the extent that even agreeing to pay our bills is a major political fight. Starting major new initiatives is even harder, which is why there haven't been many since NASA was formed. The structural support for obstructionism has to be weakened - local, state, federal - before meaningful change can occur. > None of these problems are impossible to solve. Not impossible, but not easy. > Defeatism doesn't do anything to contribute to a solution. Neither does hand-waving, which seems to be the favorite way to do nothing productive around here lately. Recognizing the difficulty or complexity of a problem isn't defeatism. Would you make that claim about building a new compiler or relational database? Indeed, that recognition is an essential part of doing the planning and resource marshaling to solve a problem where and how it needs to be solved. The Manhattan Project didn't go with the first day's design. Neither did NASA. Neither did the allies at Normandy. Nor, most relevantly, did cities and countries that did put in decent transit infrastructure. "Just whack away at it without a clue and look down your nose at anyone not joining you" is not generally the way to really get things done. And if you don't like that characterization, fix your own first.

rootusrootus 4y ago

I haven't met that many people who think we can do it in a year. But it won't happen in 27 years if we don't make a consistent effort every year between now and then.

slothtrop 4y ago
I'm not sure it will even happen in 27 years, with effort.
notacoward 4y ago
The key is to make the right efforts. Putting so much passion into "build more bike lanes", discouraging people from buying EVs or installing solar "because of the environmental cost" etc. either doesn't move the needle or moves it in the wrong direction. It is its own form of greenwashing. What we need to do is look at the actual flows of carbon-energy production and usage, and work our way down from the biggest to the smallest. Here's a starting point from LLNL. https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/carbon https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/carbon (I'm pretty sure I've seen an even better one somewhere that breaks down e.g. personal vs. commercial transportation, but I can't find it right now.) Parallel to that, we need to address the political issues that obstruct even minimal progress. And yes, sometimes that means holding our noses and voting for awful "moderates" or "centrists". Why? Because in a divided country (as most are) getting elected means getting the votes in the middle. Education helps some, in the long term, because it helps move the dividing line between the two sides of any issue (not just environment). Condescension and demonization don't help at all. In the short term, though, the biggest bang for the buck is to vote for people who will meet voters where they are ideologically and get them to support some kind of progress. Secondarily, electing people who will vote to dismantle the structures that favor obstruction and NIMBYism over doing something will also help - not this election cycle or next, but hopefully within a 27-year time frame. So yes, consistent effort every year, but in ways that bear fruit and don't just satisfy someone's sense of superiority or self-righteous anger. There has been enough posturing. Every "that isn't good enough" or "they're both the same" delays actual progress. Like everything there's a strategy to this, and about 90% of what I see is a losing strategy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

adrianN 4y ago

"You can't replace it in XX years" is particularly true if you don't even try. Everything we use oil and gas for that is not fuel is a tiny fraction of our consumption and can be replaced with synthesis pipelines that use carbon dioxide, water and electricity.

slothtrop 4y ago
Besides fuel for transportation, the following make up a large use-case: blast furnaces for smelting steel and making coke, cement-making, ammonia synthesis, creating plastics. Electricity by itself accounts for near 25% of fossil fuel use. None of those can be viably replaced right now. With very large transpo, there seems to be a lot of investment in hydrogen but skepticism surrounding it too, including for the environment.
- adrianN 4y ago
  If we could replace those things right now we would already have done so. That is no argument against investing into technologies that can replace those uses. And I count furnaces, cement making, and electricity production as fuel, since all you need for the process is heat.
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    > That is no argument against investing into technologies that can replace those uses. It never was. It's a suggestion that near-term abatability e.g. 27 years is untenable. Policy and projection qua climate can't hinge on the promise of hypotheticals. It's possible to leverage nuclear more for an accelerated timeline, but the greens keep trying to block progress. Can't have your cake and eat it too is the way I see it.

dublinben 4y ago

Half of all car trips in the US are under 3 miles.[0] If even a quarter of already existing roads were turned over for use by pedestrians and cyclists, then most people could accomplish those trips without driving with little to no new infrastructure investment. That would substantially reduce our use of gas for transportation overnight, save hundreds of millions of dollars, and millions of tons of CO2 emissions. It would also have secondary effects of improving local air and water quality, improving physical and mental health, lowering healthcare costs, and reducing future infrastructure costs.[1] Meaningful changes like this could happen in well under a year if the political will were there. From there, we could tackle the more difficult challenges you mention of the remaining quarter of oil used for industrial purposes. None of these problems are impossible to solve. Defeatism doesn't do anything to contribute to a solution. [0] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-marc... [1] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/what-if-we-kept-our-cars-parked-trips-less-one-mile https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/what-if-we-kept-our-cars-p...

landemva 4y ago
Do you have neighbors in USA who will walk three miles to the grocery store? USA is ridiculously obese, so those walks would be good in many ways.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Walking and driving are not the only two options.
notacoward 4y ago
> most people could accomplish those trips without driving with little to no new infrastructure investment. Cost is not the only issue. Often not even the main one. Please go to a town meeting (or planning board meeting) some time. Pay attention to what arguments people actually put forth, and how. They'll cite not only cost but inconvenience, damage to local businesses, historical character, even environmental issues. And here's the thing: any new project has to win every one of those battles, while the NIMBYs only have to win one. That's what we call systemic bias. It can be fixed eventually, but not just hand-waved over. Until then, better sidewalks and bike lanes will take years in most towns if they're allowed to proceed at all, even when the money is readily available. > Meaningful changes like this could happen in well under a year if the political will were there. Not just political will but authoritarian political will. The US is a country where toxic individualism rules all, to the extent that even agreeing to pay our bills is a major political fight. Starting major new initiatives is even harder, which is why there haven't been many since NASA was formed. The structural support for obstructionism has to be weakened - local, state, federal - before meaningful change can occur. > None of these problems are impossible to solve. Not impossible, but not easy. > Defeatism doesn't do anything to contribute to a solution. Neither does hand-waving, which seems to be the favorite way to do nothing productive around here lately. Recognizing the difficulty or complexity of a problem isn't defeatism. Would you make that claim about building a new compiler or relational database? Indeed, that recognition is an essential part of doing the planning and resource marshaling to solve a problem where and how it needs to be solved. The Manhattan Project didn't go with the first day's design. Neither did NASA. Neither did the allies at Normandy. Nor, most relevantly, did cities and countries that did put in decent transit infrastructure. "Just whack away at it without a clue and look down your nose at anyone not joining you" is not generally the way to really get things done. And if you don't like that characterization, fix your own first.