5 ms·

US has such potential to be a solar energy super power that it has got to be inevitable that it will become so - continental scale territory, huge tracts of sun

US has such potential to be a solar energy super power that it has got to be inevitable that it will become so - continental scale territory, huge tracts of sunbelt, ocean on either side for floating solar. Similar in many respects to the Saudi's - energy abundance in fossil fuels, transition to energy abundance in renewables.

shiroiuma 3y ago
Nothing like this is "inevitable". Lots of countries have favorable geographies for solar power, including your aforementioned Saudi Arabia, but they're not solar energy superpowers because they're too dysfunctional to take advantage of their geography. Mexico also has oceans on both sides, and is farther south; why can't they be a superpower like this? Dysfunction.
bamboozled 3y ago
What isn’t certain to me is that it’s not too late. We have freaking cooked this world. It’s going to be 9c above average where I am next week. Almost no snow fall. I can’t imagine what summer will be like…
- est31 3y ago
  The global extinction event is here, yes, but it can always be worse. The slower climate change is, the more easily we can adapt to it. Maybe we will reach tipping points later like the release of frozen methane. This gives valuable time to relocate populations and deploy countermeasures.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > This gives valuable time to relocate populations and deploy countermeasures. Relocate populations? We won't even handle a few hundred thousand refugees of wars we've started, and you're talking about global migration.
    - kyriakos 3y ago
      Unpopular, sad and inconvenient truth is that without shrinking human population we won't survive the climate apocalypse. So migration may not be the solution.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        So, casually arguing for genocide at unprecedented scale? All for the greater good of mankind?
        kyriakos 3y ago
        What I'm saying is that we already triggered the genocide by human activities of the past 100+ years - we reached the point of no return so a lot of people will die due to the effects of climate change.
- lgkk 3y ago
  Honestly and I’m sure I’ll get some flack for this. I’m not so sure we need to be that alarmed. First of all, I’m all about renewable energy I don’t like burning fossil fuels. I think planes and gas cars and cargo ships are awful emitters of nasty gases. However, we can’t even accurately model the global weather system. We keep changing the scientific definitions every decade. Off topic but first the universe was 13b years now it’s way more. Or this kind of fat is bad but flip flop some time later that it is good. The ozone hole was huge, then it turns out it’s patched. Sometimes arctic ice is melting so fast we will all be underwater in 2040. Other times it is somehow way more than expected. I’m in California and the wildfires probably release a shit ton of bad juju into the air. Some volcano erupts and just spews black smoke into the air. Our planet has literally been killed by asteroids. And life bounced back. There were no humans then sure, but what I’m trying to say is that nothing is really that certain. I’m a software engineer I literally hack systems to make them work together. We have insane test coverage and shit still goes wack sometimes. It gets patched and we move on, and our tech is definitely far better and powerful than a month, a year, or a decade ago. Humans will figure it out. We aren’t going to die out. We shouldn’t kill progress because of doomerism fueled by paranoia.
  - spockz 3y ago
    Again, the argument is never that we won’t be able to survive as a species. The argument is that the climate change will greatly disrupt the current status quo, changing large parts of coastal parts into sea, displacing many people. Then current food production will get disrupted causing further displacement. The species will most likely survive. Whether is on the same advanced level and whether we will be able to make progress still, that is another matter altogether.
  - jl6 3y ago
    You are correct that doomerism is bad and wrong but your examples of scientific uncertainty are iffy. The 13b year estimate for the age of the universe is about right. A better estimate is 13.8b, which is not way more. The ozone hole didn’t “turn out” to be patched. We identified a problem, took specific actions to address it (migrate off CFCs), and that repair project is still ongoing. The occasional cold winter doesn’t negate the overall trend of polar ice melting. Only Hollywood is predicting that we’ll all be underwater by 2040. Volcanic CO2 emissions are 1/60 that of human activities: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits...
theultdev 3y ago
I'd rather have a few more nuclear plants than vast arrays of panels scattered throughout land and sea. It can't be great to cover so much of nature.
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  Sure. Reality is that solar is being built at a much faster pace than predicted for much cheaper than predicted. Nuclear. Crickets. Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    > Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea. Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then? I also wonder (not asking) about the resources to make and replace each panel every 30 years vs the equivalent of making and maintaining nuclear plants. > Reality is that solar is being built at a much faster pace than predicted I see, so the Christmas wish is coming true! Ideally, I'd like to see the NRC dial back it's strict regulations. That's the main reason nuclear development is slow here. Other countries build nuclear much cheaper and quicker, just as safe. That's my Christmas wish.
    - jnsaff2 3y ago
      Which other countries are building nuclear in a meaningful capacity? We need a reactor going online each week to make a dent. Not disagreeing that the regulations in the US are way too onerous for nuclear.
      - Ygg2 3y ago
        Your ignoring the externalities of solar and wind power. Ignoring externalities of fossil fuels is what got us here in the first place. What happens if in 30 years we have to discuss nano PV particulates in blood and great PV patch in some ocean?
bushbaba 3y ago
The U.S. is also the world’s leading oil producing country. With the U.S. producing 40% more oil than Saudi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

shiroiuma 3y ago

Nothing like this is "inevitable". Lots of countries have favorable geographies for solar power, including your aforementioned Saudi Arabia, but they're not solar energy superpowers because they're too dysfunctional to take advantage of their geography. Mexico also has oceans on both sides, and is farther south; why can't they be a superpower like this? Dysfunction.

bamboozled 3y ago

What isn’t certain to me is that it’s not too late. We have freaking cooked this world. It’s going to be 9c above average where I am next week. Almost no snow fall. I can’t imagine what summer will be like…

est31 3y ago
The global extinction event is here, yes, but it can always be worse. The slower climate change is, the more easily we can adapt to it. Maybe we will reach tipping points later like the release of frozen methane. This gives valuable time to relocate populations and deploy countermeasures.
- vkou 3y ago
  > This gives valuable time to relocate populations and deploy countermeasures. Relocate populations? We won't even handle a few hundred thousand refugees of wars we've started, and you're talking about global migration.
  - kyriakos 3y ago
    Unpopular, sad and inconvenient truth is that without shrinking human population we won't survive the climate apocalypse. So migration may not be the solution.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      So, casually arguing for genocide at unprecedented scale? All for the greater good of mankind?
      - kyriakos 3y ago
        What I'm saying is that we already triggered the genocide by human activities of the past 100+ years - we reached the point of no return so a lot of people will die due to the effects of climate change.
lgkk 3y ago
Honestly and I’m sure I’ll get some flack for this. I’m not so sure we need to be that alarmed. First of all, I’m all about renewable energy I don’t like burning fossil fuels. I think planes and gas cars and cargo ships are awful emitters of nasty gases. However, we can’t even accurately model the global weather system. We keep changing the scientific definitions every decade. Off topic but first the universe was 13b years now it’s way more. Or this kind of fat is bad but flip flop some time later that it is good. The ozone hole was huge, then it turns out it’s patched. Sometimes arctic ice is melting so fast we will all be underwater in 2040. Other times it is somehow way more than expected. I’m in California and the wildfires probably release a shit ton of bad juju into the air. Some volcano erupts and just spews black smoke into the air. Our planet has literally been killed by asteroids. And life bounced back. There were no humans then sure, but what I’m trying to say is that nothing is really that certain. I’m a software engineer I literally hack systems to make them work together. We have insane test coverage and shit still goes wack sometimes. It gets patched and we move on, and our tech is definitely far better and powerful than a month, a year, or a decade ago. Humans will figure it out. We aren’t going to die out. We shouldn’t kill progress because of doomerism fueled by paranoia.
- spockz 3y ago
  Again, the argument is never that we won’t be able to survive as a species. The argument is that the climate change will greatly disrupt the current status quo, changing large parts of coastal parts into sea, displacing many people. Then current food production will get disrupted causing further displacement. The species will most likely survive. Whether is on the same advanced level and whether we will be able to make progress still, that is another matter altogether.
- jl6 3y ago
  You are correct that doomerism is bad and wrong but your examples of scientific uncertainty are iffy. The 13b year estimate for the age of the universe is about right. A better estimate is 13.8b, which is not way more. The ozone hole didn’t “turn out” to be patched. We identified a problem, took specific actions to address it (migrate off CFCs), and that repair project is still ongoing. The occasional cold winter doesn’t negate the overall trend of polar ice melting. Only Hollywood is predicting that we’ll all be underwater by 2040. Volcanic CO2 emissions are 1/60 that of human activities: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits...

theultdev 3y ago

I'd rather have a few more nuclear plants than vast arrays of panels scattered throughout land and sea. It can't be great to cover so much of nature.

jnsaff2 3y ago
Sure. Reality is that solar is being built at a much faster pace than predicted for much cheaper than predicted. Nuclear. Crickets. Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea.
- theultdev 3y ago
  > Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea. Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then? I also wonder (not asking) about the resources to make and replace each panel every 30 years vs the equivalent of making and maintaining nuclear plants. > Reality is that solar is being built at a much faster pace than predicted I see, so the Christmas wish is coming true! Ideally, I'd like to see the NRC dial back it's strict regulations. That's the main reason nuclear development is slow here. Other countries build nuclear much cheaper and quicker, just as safe. That's my Christmas wish.
  - jnsaff2 3y ago
    Which other countries are building nuclear in a meaningful capacity? We need a reactor going online each week to make a dent. Not disagreeing that the regulations in the US are way too onerous for nuclear.
    - Ygg2 3y ago
      Your ignoring the externalities of solar and wind power. Ignoring externalities of fossil fuels is what got us here in the first place. What happens if in 30 years we have to discuss nano PV particulates in blood and great PV patch in some ocean?

bushbaba 3y ago

The U.S. is also the world’s leading oil producing country. With the U.S. producing 40% more oil than Saudi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]