3 ms·

> idea of binary economic choice presented by the current political landscape The media and US political parties frame our energy futures as either renewable o

> idea of binary economic choice presented by the current political landscape The media and US political parties frame our energy futures as either renewable or fossil fueled. Do I even need to explain this? Compare the official climate positions of the two major US political parties. Read the headline, it literally positions the story of renewable growth in relation to other energy sources. The real story is that both renewables and oil and gas are growing to satisfy the ever-increasing demand for energy. We evidently need growth in both just to keep up. > that's entirely because of politics instead of technical or economic feasibility True. We've tried working within the system for decades, it has clearly not worked. Perhaps we should examine the status quo more critically? The earth's atmosphere doesn't give a shit about our intentions, good or bad. Just the pollution we emit. What we need desperately is a real strategy for emissions reduction based on physical evidence. Instead, we have the "green new deal" and "drill baby drill" - both of which are positions in the great US culture war, not evidence-based strategies for the energy market. Thankfully there are rational scientist and engineers working on our energy system - they don't have the luxury of picking sides in a culture war. They use the best of renewables and gas to build resilience into the system while gradually increasing renewables year over year. There is no ideological choice to be made - so long as we demand energy, we need growth in renewables and oil. Acknowledging that fact is politically toxic to both the left and the right.

epistasis 2y ago
As far as a political binary, only a single side has been disproven, the Republican side that says that renewables and storage can't meet market needs. The democratic proposition, in policy, in rhetoric, in action, has always been a transition from fossil fuels to renewables and storage, which this ERCOT news is completely consistent with. The future of resilience is batteries, not gas. Most of these new gas generators will be stranded assets within a decade. Additionally the part of the picture missing in this announcement is retirements, which are of course all fossil fuel.
perrygeo 2y ago
And I'm dancing around the point - the problem is demand for energy, not fossil fuels. Reducing emissions means reducing demand - an end to economic growth as we know it. Again, politically toxic. The green new deal envisions us driving around in EVs. The drill baby drill folks picture us driving around in our pickups. And the reality (if we want any hope of meeting our climate goals) is probably no more driving, or at least significantly less. We saw what covid lockdown did to our supply chains. Do we really think we could handle a drastic reduction in mobility and economic demand? I don't see that happening anywhere today, do you? I see us getting less resilient to oil decline by the year. You can no longer live a normal life in most American towns without a car. Want to eat and send your kids to school? You drive. We're not prepared to have a conversation about consuming less, let alone actually achieving it IRL.

epistasis 2y ago

As far as a political binary, only a single side has been disproven, the Republican side that says that renewables and storage can't meet market needs. The democratic proposition, in policy, in rhetoric, in action, has always been a transition from fossil fuels to renewables and storage, which this ERCOT news is completely consistent with. The future of resilience is batteries, not gas. Most of these new gas generators will be stranded assets within a decade. Additionally the part of the picture missing in this announcement is retirements, which are of course all fossil fuel.

perrygeo 2y ago

And I'm dancing around the point - the problem is demand for energy, not fossil fuels. Reducing emissions means reducing demand - an end to economic growth as we know it. Again, politically toxic. The green new deal envisions us driving around in EVs. The drill baby drill folks picture us driving around in our pickups. And the reality (if we want any hope of meeting our climate goals) is probably no more driving, or at least significantly less. We saw what covid lockdown did to our supply chains. Do we really think we could handle a drastic reduction in mobility and economic demand? I don't see that happening anywhere today, do you? I see us getting less resilient to oil decline by the year. You can no longer live a normal life in most American towns without a car. Want to eat and send your kids to school? You drive. We're not prepared to have a conversation about consuming less, let alone actually achieving it IRL.