50 points

If we switched to renewable energy, the cost of coal and oil would crash, but it wouldn’t drop to zero. Wealthier countries would stop producing oil locally and shipments would still circle the globe from countries desperate enough to keep producing at lower profits, to countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure.

That’s not a reason not to switch. We just need to be prepared for the reality that no single solution will resolve all our problems. Conservatives and energy barons will fight tooth and nail, and will point to the new problems as evidence that we never should have switched. was

permalink
report
reply
24 points
*

countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure

This presumes renewables are more expensive. But I would posit that a rapid adoption of renewables is going to occur as the cost of operating - say - a thorium powered container ship falls below that of its coal equivalents.

What I would be worried about, long term, is the possibility that advanced technologies further monopolize industries within a handful of early adopter countries. That’s not an ecological concern so much as a socio-economic concern.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

a thorium powered container ship

If the experience of the NS Savannah is anything to go by, the major hurdle that ship is going to face is Greenpeace etc. fomenting irrational anti-nuclear hysteria until it’s banned from so many ports that it’ll be too difficult to operate it profitably. I hope I’m wrong and I wish them luck.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Good luck, they’d have to ban nuclear subs and no nation wants to throw that protection away.

Also fuck Greenpeace and their often more harmful than helpful stunts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That and developing countries have been able to adopt some green initiatives, which points to them being at least somewhat affordable

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Green energy has very short supply lines when compared to fossil fuels. Great if you live somewhere remote or prone to sudden economic distributions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Would the price crash or would it stabilize at a much higher price as a specialized commodity where the cost of refining no longer benefits from economies of scale and instead only benefits from buyers who are unable or unwilling to use alternatives?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure.

Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuel power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yes but fossil fuel cost will drop, and they have existing infrastructure

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
-9 points
*

Yoooo! Devils sign! Stop the baby eating atheists! Stop oil and gas production now and adrenaline-o-chrome something something. I dunno, I’m not good at making up woowoo but someone take over and spread this.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

holy shit, a baby that eats atheists? that baby is based af fr

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

this is that Christian Baby they’re always appealing to

permalink
report
parent
reply
206 points
*

Inaccurate statement.

https://qz.com/2113243/forty-percent-of-all-shipping-cargo-consists-of-fossil-fuels

40% of traffic is for petrochemicals, which according to this article is coal, oil, gas, and things derived from them, which would include fertilizer and plastics and probably some other stuff too like industrial lubricants, asphalt etc. Not just fossil fuels, so not all that 40% would be affected by a switch to renewable energy. It’s also worth noting that building out renewable energy generation involves shipping a lot of hardware around the globe as well.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Do we know what the percentage is after subtracting out things derived from fossil fuels? I looked at the article and tried to do the math, but it seems like the stats are bundled together.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yeah me too, I couldn’t figure it out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

We need Hank Green.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

That last sentence, yep. People don’t tend to factor in the carbon footprint of building anything they deem environmentally friendly. There’s a cost/benefit analysis to be made. A bad idea may actually be worse than what it’s replacing, or not beneficial enough to pursue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

There may be carbon emitted in creating green energy but green energy is ultimately reducing demand for hydrocarbons, which is better than sequestration. Also you need to factor into the operational life of the green tech. If you do, it’s pretty clear pretty fast that it’s beneficial to go with green energy options. The argument you’re making is a common strawman argument for not investing in green energy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Interestingly you’re both correct.

We swapped to ICE vehicles as they were cleaner than shit covered streets from all the horses, making a new problem.

Renewable energy is much cleaner long term- but what new issues are we not seeing? If we through ourselves head first into this (and we need to) what did we miss?

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

For all the things you think of when you hear “renewables”, that analysis has already been made, and it’s overwhelmingly better in every way to ditch fossil fuels.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I’d assume this is true over any sufficiently long time horizon.

I’d guess it’s like 20 years for a lotta stuff? i.e. short enough the average Lemming would benefit in their lifetime

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

People have done those cost/benefit analysis for solar, wind, and EVs. They come out a pretty clear winner. We don’t really need to keep hounding on this while pretending to be smart.

Now E15 gas, OTOH? Utter trash that should go away.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Don’t forget that if those other things which are derived from them are reduced too that would be a massive win for the health of the planet and everything living on it. Without primarily consuming the fuel component of petrochemicals I think it would drastically change the economics of producing the derivatives and make them scarcer. It looks like a win-win.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

localizing and streamlining production is a bigger factor to climate change anyway imo

technology and production should absolutely not be as centralized and wasteful as it currently is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

localizing and streamlining production

These are two distinct goals, sometimes that work against each other. Localization is often a tradeoff between saving energy on transport and logistics versus economies of scale in production, and the right balance might look different for different things.

The carbon footprint of a banana shipped across the globe is still far less than that of the typical backyard chicken, because the act of raising a chicken at home is so inefficient (including with commercially purchased feed driven home in a passenger car) that it can’t compete on energy/carbon footprint.

There are products where going local saves energy, but that’s not by any means a universal correlation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s China. Are you making a product in China and need a bunch of screws? The factory down the street makes those. Need a housing? Another factory down the street makes those. An LCD display? Believe it or not, down the street.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Also it requires shipping oil to fuel the mining operations needed to produce full scale renewable energy. But if we wait a little bit the quality of power output from the same mining inputs will improve which means renewable later requires less total mining than full scale renewable now, and so you will use less fuel to do that smaller amount of mining.

What people don’t realize is that the expense of renewable technology mostly is fuel. Fuel to mine it, fuel to move the raw materials, fuel to refine it, fuel to manufacture it, fuel to ship it to you. The total labor is quite small. So if taken on a specific case the financial perspective alone of a particular application of renewable vs conventional energy the numbers don’t add up then likely the renewable is less green. If you wait a little bit for the green cost to come down that indicates improved efficiencies and now it actually is green.

So the answer to make the world more green is not to shift our calculations to spend money on green solutions beyond financial sense. It’s to work on technology to lower green costs until it naturally makes sense and thereby also make it more green at the same time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

So if taken on a specific case the financial perspective alone of a particular application of renewable vs conventional energy the numbers don’t add up then likely the renewable is less green.

Renewables are more climate efficient and cheaper. Today. All this included. A wind turbine, depending on size, position etc, generates the amount of power used in it’s construction within 2.5 - 11 months. Over it’s life cycle it generates about 40x the energy you put in. There is no valid excuse to keep burning stuff because it appears cheaper short-term.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah, I feel like GP was a comment that was valid 10-20 years ago, but not now. We improved green energy during that time by a lot. It’s past time to deploy it as fast as we can.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Industrial lubricants and asphalt fit my definition of petrochemicals

But then so do plastics

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Right that’s what I’m saying though- they wouldn’t be affected by switching away from fossil fuels

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
1 point

Many of us have solar power. I could power all my electric usage (including driving an EV) with the solar I can fit on my roof and a modest battery

I’m impressed by recent vertical axis wind turbines, as when we have a week with little sunlight the wind is usually blowing

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I live in Seattle, in the winter is why I would have to supplement.

permalink
report
parent
reply

solarpunk memes

!memes@slrpnk.net

Create post

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a “meme” here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server’s ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators’ discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

Community stats

  • 5.2K

    Monthly active users

  • 317

    Posts

  • 4.7K

    Comments