8 ms·

I don’t see how that follows. Solar panels and batteries have become massively cheaper in the past few decades and that has all relied on new materials science.

I don’t see how that follows. Solar panels and batteries have become massively cheaper in the past few decades and that has all relied on new materials science. I guess you could argue that windmills could have been made cheaper at scale with the right efforts 40 years ago.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Indeed, it may be the case that now is far cheaper than any time in the past, even taking into account co2 release in the past 40 years.
defrost 3y ago
Seventy years ago, when AGW climate change was recognised internationally at the UN in 1970s, during an oil crisis, the largest per capita users of fossil feuls and emmitters of CO2 were the North Americans. They were open to change in behaviour at the time, it's a matter of public record that Koch Industries started to heavily fund a number of think tanks devoted to changing American perceptions; individual freedom is expressed by wanton consumption, bigger gas guzzlers are better, public transport is bad. They, and their partners in the petro businesses, sank very nearly every grassroots movement for small, midle, and large city public transport launching, expansion, or improvement. They backed every move for more and more freeways. What could have been a time that saw greater emphasis on resource efficiency and less fossil fuel consumption was not. What could have been a signal to all the then developing economies about the direction a world leader was taking remained so - and the message was consume, and consume more. Developing better renewable energy sources was (and still is) only part of a bigger picture of changing behaviour.
adrianN 3y ago
Nuclear was around. But the real potential for savings was in reducing consumption by altering infrastructure investments. For example by favoring public transport and walkable cities over cars and sprawl, or requiring better insulation for new buildings. Today we don’t have the time to wait until simple tax incentives nudge people towards better behavior.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Indeed, it may be the case that now is far cheaper than any time in the past, even taking into account co2 release in the past 40 years.

defrost 3y ago

Seventy years ago, when AGW climate change was recognised internationally at the UN in 1970s, during an oil crisis, the largest per capita users of fossil feuls and emmitters of CO2 were the North Americans. They were open to change in behaviour at the time, it's a matter of public record that Koch Industries started to heavily fund a number of think tanks devoted to changing American perceptions; individual freedom is expressed by wanton consumption, bigger gas guzzlers are better, public transport is bad. They, and their partners in the petro businesses, sank very nearly every grassroots movement for small, midle, and large city public transport launching, expansion, or improvement. They backed every move for more and more freeways. What could have been a time that saw greater emphasis on resource efficiency and less fossil fuel consumption was not. What could have been a signal to all the then developing economies about the direction a world leader was taking remained so - and the message was consume, and consume more. Developing better renewable energy sources was (and still is) only part of a bigger picture of changing behaviour.

adrianN 3y ago

Nuclear was around. But the real potential for savings was in reducing consumption by altering infrastructure investments. For example by favoring public transport and walkable cities over cars and sprawl, or requiring better insulation for new buildings. Today we don’t have the time to wait until simple tax incentives nudge people towards better behavior.