I think the headline is misleading. He’s not arguing that we should keep fossil fuels. He’s saying we can’t just switch to renewables and keep going on as we currently are. Which is exactly what environmentalists have been arguing for years.
Exactly this. Other energy and climate experts have argued similarly, eg Professor Kevin Anderson and said we jave to shift to an energy reduced lives abd we cant realky excpet the developing world to cut back their near non existent energy use. Eg Amaericans coikd cut thwir energy use in 1/2, half again and then half again and still use WAY more energy then most of the peoples of the workd.
We can transition to a planet with a CO2 balance but we can’t do that living the same lives. Ride a bicycle and take a train, only build and live in small well insulated medium density housing, no flying, no cruise ships, much less meat and way less meat eating pets etc etc this would necessarily lead to a much lower cost of living, a healthier and better adjusted population…
What we are doing is slapping up a few solar panels and increasing energy demand so quickly renewables aren’t even supplanting existing fossil fuel use, let alone stopping fossil fuel growth
Turiel makes some very strong arguments in the interview. I’ll have to keep an eye out for his book.
As for the quote in the headline, I would say that we should take for granted that we will need to completely replace fossil fueled power sources — Turiel would appear to agree given the reductions of electric power usage he proposes. What is questionable is the systemic willingness to make that transition in a timely fashion.
There are too large financial interests in continuing using fossil fuels to make the change until they are entirely depleted. And the inconvience of the developed world’s middle classes to decrease their energy consumption is too hard a political sell for any populist centrist leader to implement or even propose.
I honestly think complete elimination is foolish, but it needs to be an overwhelming minimization. There will still be times where a fossil fuel makes sense in a backup or extreme location scenario. You don’t build systems that require extreme redundancy to only operate on one type of energy. Likewise there may be other situations where it’s required.
But those should be viewed as edge cases, and the overall goal is to make those as minimal as possible.
I agree. Im also not sure if we can completely build renewables from renewables although I think I have heard of an electric smelter going somewhwere in europe which now makes me think maybe it is possible. Still all the batteries for mining equipment and all the pollution. Minimization is the only course.
Q. You argue that there’s no viable alternative to fossil fuels. Hence, this requires a significant decrease in energy consumption in all areas.
A. The decrease in energy and raw materials is inevitable; this is a physical fact. It’s a fact that we’re already beginning to experience: we’ve seen a clear decrease in oil production — even more evident with diesel — and we’re going to have it when it comes to gas and coal.
There’s a measurable decrease in the western world, and therefore worldwide. But this a consequence of legal policy. In asia/ru extraction of fossil fuels is increasing. (1). It’s a physical, as in measurable, fact. But not one driven by physical inabillity.
What I imagine is more likely to happen instead is a de-industrialization of the EU, with a decline of it’s currency, and a decrease in living standards. Populists will rise out of the discontent, aligning themselves more with the industrial and financial powerhouses from east. Leading to gradual loss of democratic freedoms in favour of material and financial aid.
One thing that does my head in is many countries are switching to optical fibre for internet/telephony which is leaving tons of redundant copper cable in the ground. In Australia at least I have seen massive lengths of 1000+ pair copper just cut and lying in the network because it’s simply too hard to pull it out. If people/companies could just get their act together for the common good it would certainly help.
I also really tire of hearing people say “wind and solar don’t guarantee supply”, “we’re putting DC in an AC network” etc. Yes, that’s what batteries and inverters are for. If we stopped fucking around and built a battery bank for each town, with a backfeed supply from neighbouring towns in case of blackout, completely decentralising the system, we’d be a long way ahead.