4 ms·

The best way I have to understand why it has been so hard to shift to renewables is: so-called "growth proponents" are the actual "degrowth proponents" who are

by bmer 3y ago

The best way I have to understand why it has been so hard to shift to renewables is: so-called "growth proponents" are the actual "degrowth proponents" who are completely okay (and would prefer) billions of people dying. "Survival of the fittest."

concordDance 3y ago
Storage is the unsolved problem. I advise you sit down and do the modelling, the data on electricity storage costs (consider kw, kwh, cycles reaction times and annual maintenance please) and wind and solar production variation is available. IIRC worst case projections of HALYs lost due to climate change is under 10BY
- bmer 3y ago
  Storage is not the unsolved problem. While I cannot say that I have personally done the calculations in detail, I can say that I have engaged with people who have done the calculations, and spent a lot of their life doing those calculations. One of them in particular helped write this: https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-energy-and-the-grid-debunked https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-e... Do have a look, if you care to. Also, I have no clue what "HALY" stands for, and searching for this term didn't lead to anything concrete either. I'm assuming BY stands for 10 billion years.
- geysersam 3y ago
  > IIRC worst case projections of HALYs lost due to climate change is under 10BY Those models are wrong, it's as simple as that. They are probably wrong in ways that would be completely transparent to anyone actually looking into how they are constructed. I can't say specifically what is wrong about the model you are referring to, but let me give an example that illustrates one common issue: Agriculture, forestry and fishing accounted for ~5% of the world economy last year. Loosing 5% of the economy is not good, but it is not that bad. But in reality, of course, loosing that particular 5% would lead to the total collapse of all civilisation. Those kinds of dynamical effects are extremely difficult to model, and literary anyone doing that kind of modelling is a crackpot, no more or less. (But crackpots sometimes win prices, so that's good for them I guess...) My point is: be extremely sceptical of "models" that tries to "value" ecological damage based on current prices. The present biological web on earth is the only place we know in the universe where we know humans can live and thrive. Let's not ruin it for a few percentage points of imaginary economic growth.

by bmer 3y ago

concordDance 3y ago

Storage is the unsolved problem. I advise you sit down and do the modelling, the data on electricity storage costs (consider kw, kwh, cycles reaction times and annual maintenance please) and wind and solar production variation is available. IIRC worst case projections of HALYs lost due to climate change is under 10BY

bmer 3y ago
Storage is not the unsolved problem. While I cannot say that I have personally done the calculations in detail, I can say that I have engaged with people who have done the calculations, and spent a lot of their life doing those calculations. One of them in particular helped write this: https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-energy-and-the-grid-debunked https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-e... Do have a look, if you care to. Also, I have no clue what "HALY" stands for, and searching for this term didn't lead to anything concrete either. I'm assuming BY stands for 10 billion years.
geysersam 3y ago
> IIRC worst case projections of HALYs lost due to climate change is under 10BY Those models are wrong, it's as simple as that. They are probably wrong in ways that would be completely transparent to anyone actually looking into how they are constructed. I can't say specifically what is wrong about the model you are referring to, but let me give an example that illustrates one common issue: Agriculture, forestry and fishing accounted for ~5% of the world economy last year. Loosing 5% of the economy is not good, but it is not that bad. But in reality, of course, loosing that particular 5% would lead to the total collapse of all civilisation. Those kinds of dynamical effects are extremely difficult to model, and literary anyone doing that kind of modelling is a crackpot, no more or less. (But crackpots sometimes win prices, so that's good for them I guess...) My point is: be extremely sceptical of "models" that tries to "value" ecological damage based on current prices. The present biological web on earth is the only place we know in the universe where we know humans can live and thrive. Let's not ruin it for a few percentage points of imaginary economic growth.