@knud I don't know what your metrics and projections are based off of, and it's irrelevant. You're looking at it, perhaps from the POV of the people using the energy. I'm thinking about the people who are being exploited to get the raw material for said energy, the ecosystems they're coming from, and the actual capacity of the planet. Your orientation requires more, mine less.
Post
Replies:
15
For the past hour I"ve tried to figure out why this seems to be a disagreement where there should be none.
The solution is that we need a combination of both, less consumption, and fully sustainable production of the rest. You can cut energy use in half – if that remaining half is not produced via renewables, then it's still always "more". Even the last fossil fuel plant burns things that are then gone.
1/
Then they need more fuel. Fuel that will displace people (coal), or impact their immediate (fracking) or wider (extreme weather) environment. Producing this energy with renewables removes this "more".
By now solar panels and batteries can be 100% recycled. Sodium batteries use little exotic materials, etc.
So my point is not one of "more" but of "instead". And that implies installing solar and wind harvesting, and shutting down burning facilities.
2/2
@knud I think you are well-intentioned, but we're looking at this differently. I do not think that the renewable/green technology production cycle is sustainable. The amount of damage done to ecosystems to get the materials, to say nothing of the costs to human health, needs to be taken into account with these assessments. At the very least, you can move people around only after you've damaged the places they live only so many times before you run out of places to move them. @gerrymcgovern
I have literally no idea what you are talking about.
The only alternative to producing energy via solar and wind is fossil. Do you want that?
@knud I’m in agreement with “we need a combination of both” (https://mastodon.social/@knud/116540906047307330) but…
The greater metals dependency per GW generated will matter more than we think. The *dependency* of renewables on fossil infrastructure and inputs for manufacture will matter more than we think.
The dishonesty of how they’re described and thus what they’re understood to be is part of the picture of why power consumption grows and why demand reduction is not part of policy
@knud nevertheless, I don’t think we are strategically in control of what we’re doing and the incentives pretty much ensure that we are not capable of becoming so.
Oil and gas will become radically less affordable in the coming years and the lived experience of being on the enforced downslope of power consumption will help us forge new ways of being
@urlyman Maybe. But from what I've seen, normal price signals aren't enough. @knud @gerrymcgovern
@dnkboston hence my use of the word “enforced”. The lived experience of relative absence will drive change. And perhaps, out of a deficit of technological ubiquity will come a reconnection with forms of abundance that have always been there and still are, just
@urlyman Policy=enforcement? @knud @gerrymcgovern
@dnkboston no, that’s not where I’m coming from. Unavailability, intermittency.
When oil becomes unprofitable it becomes less extracted. As it becomes less profitable the cost of capital heads sharply up. As do all of oil’s supply chain dependents, including metals, many of which are independently heading along similar trajectories https://mastodon.social/@urlyman/111374066310651684
@urlyman I keep thinking about something Charles Mann wrote a decade ago. There's never been Peak Oil, thanks to the determination of governments and oil companies to keep it flowing, which fostered "innovative" tech to do so.
I don't think oil will become difficult enough to extract in my lifetime.
@dnkboston
I've been listening to some talks on the subject and talking to some experts, and there are definite signs that we have peaked and that oil and gas will become more and more expensive, with all the implications that has for food, industry, etc.
@gerrymcgovern Because of Hormuz? Or even without that? @urlyman @knud
@dnkboston perhaps accelerated by (too hard to see) but for sure without it anyway.
The energy return on investment (EROI) of a barrel of oil around 1940 was 1:100. i.e. You got 100 barrels out for every 1 you invest in extraction. Today (pre 28 Feb), the global average is about 1:15. Joseph Tainter thinks that it becomes unsustainable at about 1:10 because of the upfront costs of exploration and field development.
That said, the field to field EROI variance is large. So…
@dnkboston What happens is degrees of intermittency. Which accelerates the decline of the whole system.
The paradox is that as oil price goes up that can prop up the viability of extraction in given fields but it doesn’t change that the overall supply of a non-renewable resource chaotically declines
