Great…
Except Steel, Concrete, Plastics, and Ammonia production all require fossil fuels and we do not have any alternative.
We also do not have a viable alternative for air travel, or large scale shipping.
While I think it is a worthwhile goal to pursue clean energy technologies, we are a very long way (with no known alternative) from getting rid of fossil fuels.
We aren't getting rid of fossil fuels though, so this concern is a distraction from the real work that needs to be done.
Yes of course we will still need fossil fuels even after we finish transitioning to renewables, for some of the cases you mention, and for edge cases.
It's a valid point for you to raise since they made the mistake of making their article about renewable energy, not about the larger encompassing solution of which renewables are only a part, namely sustainable energy. But raising this point doesn't begin to dismiss the fact that a huge component of transitioning to sustainable will be transitioning much of our energy sourcing to renewables.
Yeah. Except that just building the factories to build the solar panels and wind turbines would take longer than that. And that statement ignores the whole supply chain.
The thing is, despite what extinction rebellion et. al. tell us, the global economy is moving to renewables pretty much full speed. It's just that that same economy has so much inertia that it will take decades to make that switch. But the second half will not take nearly as long as the first.
Yeah I very much doubt that. Until last year, the energy policy of Germany, one of the richest countries in the world, depended on cheap gas from Russia. It took Russia's invasion of Ukraine to force them to reassess their policy.
And their short-term solution? Buy gas from other countries.
> The thing is, despite what extinction rebellion et. al. tell us, the global economy is moving to renewables pretty much full speed.
No, no. Until there's still a drop of oil or a lump of coal to exploit, there will be no "full speed". Corps want you to believe they are thinking green, while they just don't care.
Events like the energy crisis in Europe might open a few eyes, but nothing more.
Comrade! I have figured out renewable energy. Let me tell you of my top down plan to solve it! Wait in this line. No that's the bread line, wait in the other line for your energy then get back in the bread line.
With that out of the way, the glaring miss here is that gasoline or coal burned at utility scale is quite efficient and while far from perfect, that is a different calculation than, wow somehow like there are hundreds of millions of gas cars everywhere. That's pretty inefficient.
Also with all this renewable energy, how are you going to light up the forges that need massive amounts of energy to make the materials for wind capture? Will lithium, iron, and phosphate mining really do less harm at scale than fracking and mining for coal? If shipping and logistics use more energy than individual consumers, and consumers buy their home energy from their utility companies, why are you trying to hard sell individuals if you actually have a solid value proposition for utilities and shipping/logistic companies? They have the assets to leverage for loans and investments to deploy new means of energy at scale. Why do you need to preach to individuals that their gas car is evil, when your economies of scale at the corporate level should make a consumer option more affordable and accessible?
A typical EV uses about 30kg of lithium. A typical gas car will use 50 tons of gasoline. And that lithium is recyclable while the gasoline isn't. Even if that lithium mining and processing is dirty, is it >1000x dirtier?
Understandably so much negativity to this article, and I stopped reading after a few paragraphs, it's mostly garbage.
However, let's take a look at it another way.
If it would take $62T to convert to 100% renewable, how much would it cost to get to 80% renewable?
I'm trying to get a read on how much of the current energy is from renewables, and I'm seeing figures in the 8-30%. It's a big spread, but it is showing how far we may have come.
All studies that I read about 100% reneweables point out that you need a large, meteorologically diverse catchment area and a highly interconnected grid. That will balance out local fluctuations and will massively reduce the need for storage. Problem is, it will require lots of countries to cooperate - except if you are a very large country. The US should be able with its coastlines, deserts, hydropower and so forth.
Denmark in particular is, but lots of European countries are. Reality is it takes time to align markets, development permits and supply chains with government policies…
About the article headline, the real concept that I would prefer to see articles written about is sustainable, not renewable. Not every part of the solution is going to be technically renewable in the short term according to strict definitions. But the overall energy picture needs to be sustainable. Or else, it cannot be… sustained.
An article that talks strictly about renewables is fine (just not great); that's their right to write such an article if they want, but the transition to renewables should be understood in the context of the encompassing transition to sustainability. Sustainable solutions would, for example, include some reasonable and needed use of fossil fuels, for certain situations where they are still the best solution even accounting for their adverse effects.
We have no effective way of storing energy. If you only want energy on sunny windy days during daytime, this is fine. Enjoy the power going out at night and when the wind slows down.
Hopefully we will get much cheaper storage and production soon, but it's not completely viable now.
We can fill large water dams and store energy easily that way.
This is what Switzerland is focusing on right now to make sure they have enough stored power for January and February when production doesn't suffice the requirements and purchasing electricity from abroad may not be possible.
It can be stored as heat in stone or sand. There are companies building and selling both solutions. They hold the heat for months, long enough to last through a winter.
there are effective ways of storing energy, but there isn't a silver bullet that has high efficiency, low cost, long storage duration and high storage capacity
This is so dumb it takes superhuman levels of restraint for me to not swear.
We literally don't have the tech nor capacity for make this transition:
- we dont have the rare earth minerals
- we don't have the metals
- with exception of nuclear all these alternatives are extremely inefficient.
It takes years of sustained exponential demand to even let capacity catch up and thats if we can even feasible find new reserves (for rare earth).
Let alone the game theoretic situation where u can only achieve this with a tyranny. It will cost significantly less to adapt and change..
> Ford is spending $40 billion to transition to making electric cars. Volkswagen, Mercedes, GM, BMW, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota are doing the same. Does anyone think that money is just an expense or that the managers of those companies have not calculated the expected return on their investment down to the fraction of a penny?
This statement really annoyed me and undermined their credibility
[+] [-] jaarse|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gud|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natch|3 years ago|reply
Yes of course we will still need fossil fuels even after we finish transitioning to renewables, for some of the cases you mention, and for edge cases.
It's a valid point for you to raise since they made the mistake of making their article about renewable energy, not about the larger encompassing solution of which renewables are only a part, namely sustainable energy. But raising this point doesn't begin to dismiss the fact that a huge component of transitioning to sustainable will be transitioning much of our energy sourcing to renewables.
[+] [-] choeger|3 years ago|reply
The thing is, despite what extinction rebellion et. al. tell us, the global economy is moving to renewables pretty much full speed. It's just that that same economy has so much inertia that it will take decades to make that switch. But the second half will not take nearly as long as the first.
[+] [-] yongjik|3 years ago|reply
And their short-term solution? Buy gas from other countries.
[+] [-] kitkat_new|3 years ago|reply
bold statement - can you back this up? I find it very hard to believe
[+] [-] thefz|3 years ago|reply
No, no. Until there's still a drop of oil or a lump of coal to exploit, there will be no "full speed". Corps want you to believe they are thinking green, while they just don't care. Events like the energy crisis in Europe might open a few eyes, but nothing more.
[+] [-] stevenfoster|3 years ago|reply
With that out of the way, the glaring miss here is that gasoline or coal burned at utility scale is quite efficient and while far from perfect, that is a different calculation than, wow somehow like there are hundreds of millions of gas cars everywhere. That's pretty inefficient.
Also with all this renewable energy, how are you going to light up the forges that need massive amounts of energy to make the materials for wind capture? Will lithium, iron, and phosphate mining really do less harm at scale than fracking and mining for coal? If shipping and logistics use more energy than individual consumers, and consumers buy their home energy from their utility companies, why are you trying to hard sell individuals if you actually have a solid value proposition for utilities and shipping/logistic companies? They have the assets to leverage for loans and investments to deploy new means of energy at scale. Why do you need to preach to individuals that their gas car is evil, when your economies of scale at the corporate level should make a consumer option more affordable and accessible?
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pedalpete|3 years ago|reply
However, let's take a look at it another way.
If it would take $62T to convert to 100% renewable, how much would it cost to get to 80% renewable?
I'm trying to get a read on how much of the current energy is from renewables, and I'm seeing figures in the 8-30%. It's a big spread, but it is showing how far we may have come.
[+] [-] benj111|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|3 years ago|reply
12 countries are listed as over 90% renewable currently. Iceland at 100%; Norway at 97.2%.
[+] [-] sveme|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gehsty|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrob|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klyrs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natch|3 years ago|reply
An article that talks strictly about renewables is fine (just not great); that's their right to write such an article if they want, but the transition to renewables should be understood in the context of the encompassing transition to sustainability. Sustainable solutions would, for example, include some reasonable and needed use of fossil fuels, for certain situations where they are still the best solution even accounting for their adverse effects.
[+] [-] emit_time|3 years ago|reply
We have no effective way of storing energy. If you only want energy on sunny windy days during daytime, this is fine. Enjoy the power going out at night and when the wind slows down.
Hopefully we will get much cheaper storage and production soon, but it's not completely viable now.
[+] [-] sschueller|3 years ago|reply
This is what Switzerland is focusing on right now to make sure they have enough stored power for January and February when production doesn't suffice the requirements and purchasing electricity from abroad may not be possible.
[+] [-] natch|3 years ago|reply
And that is energy that whether it’s available for putting back in the grid or not, (usually not, which is fine) replaces a gas pump.
[+] [-] timbit42|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kitkat_new|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ram4jesus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Proven|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] edwnj|3 years ago|reply
We literally don't have the tech nor capacity for make this transition: - we dont have the rare earth minerals - we don't have the metals - with exception of nuclear all these alternatives are extremely inefficient.
It takes years of sustained exponential demand to even let capacity catch up and thats if we can even feasible find new reserves (for rare earth).
Let alone the game theoretic situation where u can only achieve this with a tyranny. It will cost significantly less to adapt and change..
[+] [-] oneoff786|3 years ago|reply
This statement really annoyed me and undermined their credibility
[+] [-] teilo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greggeter|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]