@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:
4
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?
