“Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
1–10 of 86 posts
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#2It's amazing how long we have known about the impact CO2 would have on the climate. We're now talking about human lifetimes, and yet look at where we are in the public debate. We are still mostly ignoring the issue or debating its reality.
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#3Solar power and batteries have come a long way, but there's still little political will to change things. Nuclear power could progress a lot further too, but again no political will.
There's no economic forcing function either since coal and gas remain on average the cheapest and easiest to deploy and manage sources of energy, and that won't change unless there's enough investment in alternatives to get them over the mass adoption hump.
The worst fears about fossil fuel depletion have so far not manifested, which might be a bad thing long term. We may have enough fossil carbon to cause truly catastrophic climate change if we actually burn a significant fraction of it.
I wonder though if the economic structural problem isn't even harder to solve. The entire financial system relies on eternal growth. Number must always go up or everything breaks.
Even if we put an end to most fears about supply side limits to growth by cracking fusion or developing super cheap utility scale batteries, there would still be demand side limits to growth from things like stabilizing populations and diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Mere stability without significant growth would bring about the collapse of the financial system and the economy as we know it, and probably quite a lot of political turmoil since we don't have a really great replacement sitting in the wings.
(No, planetary migration won't keep GDP growth going any time soon. Humans could settle on the Moon or Mars but they're too far away to contribute much to our Earthly GDP. They'd be mostly isolated economies of their own.)
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#4Given how long these problems have been staring us in the face, it's truly hard not to be totally pessimistic about the future. If we haven't changed yet, do we even have the capacity to do so?
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#5It's amazing how long we have known about the impact CO2 would have on the climate. We're now talking about human lifetimes, and yet look at where we are in the public debate. We are still mostly ignoring the issue or debating its reality.
14 years ago Google started a project to make renewables cheaper than coal.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/11/30/why-...
It feels like this slow train wreck will have to get worse before we do enough, giving us more time to advance technology.
The United States is no longer the biggest emitter. Now we need more global coordination.
Of course, the sooner we started addressing the problem, the longer we could have delayed the problem.
Fusion by 2050?
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#6It's amazing how long we have known about the impact CO2 would have on the climate. We're now talking about human lifetimes, and yet look at where we are in the public debate. We are still mostly ignoring the issue or debating its reality.
There's two reasons for that.
1. Trillion-dollar fortunes are built on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. We, as humans have committed genocide against entire cultures over less money.
2. The wealth of industrialized societies is not built on money, or labour. It is built on energy. All of their wealth is derived from energy. Fossil fuels are an incredible source of energy. Cost-effective competitors to them had limited potential to replace them, for a large number of technical and political reasons.
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#7Given how long these problems have been staring us in the face, it's truly hard not to be totally pessimistic about the future. If we haven't changed yet, do we even have the capacity to do so?
Problems are solved by optimists. Dont be pessimistic, we will solve problems as they arise. If you are truly worries about your future the best way is to get into the trenches.
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#8Solar power and batteries have come a long way, but there's still little political will to change things. Nuclear power could progress a lot further too, but again no political will. There's no economic forcing function either since coal and gas remain on average the cheapest and easiest to deploy and manage sources of energy, and that won't change unless there's enough investment in alternatives to get them over the…
Why in the world is this comment being downvotes? There is nothing in this comment that I see is incorrect, and if you’re going to vigorously down vote because “I don’t like things that make me feel bad!” you at least ought to comment as to what could be wrong here.
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#9If you're interested in learning more about the big picture connection between our human society and energy, I recommend "Energy and Civilization: A History," by Vaclav Smil.
My biggest takeaway from his book is that transitioning a society to affluence requires, at minimum, 22.6 megawatt hours of energy per capita per year. High energy societies like the United States use far more. To de-carbonize, we have to plan new energy sources that provide at least this much energy for every person on the planet. Otherwise, people will understandably turn to carbon-based energy sources to meet their energy needs.
Producing this much energy from renewables is possible, but it is hard! Fossil fuels provide an exceptionally compact (in terms of land area) and effective energy source.
[edited to correct typo in the energy figure, what I originally wrote as 2.6 mw/h is 22.6 mw/h]
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#10Given how long these problems have been staring us in the face, it's truly hard not to be totally pessimistic about the future. If we haven't changed yet, do we even have the capacity to do so?
Problems are solved by optimists. Dont be pessimistic, we will solve problems as they arise. If you are truly worries about your future the best way is to get into the trenches.
I admire the spirit of this comment but can't quite get onboard, because "the trenches" can be kind of a demoralizing place, especially when you're not winning the war. I've spent 30 years bike-commuting for example and have been car-free for much of that time. The lifestyle has many liberating aspects but it strongly encourages without quite requiring, that you forgo or reduce certain things, like day-trips, sightseeing, shopping for furniture or other large items, other kinds of shopping, social outings, playing drums in a band, fishing? I dunno, any location- or gear-intensive hobby. Consumption overall (not just on transportation) tends to go down, so it's great for saving money.
But do I feel like a hero for all the fuel I saved, the carbon I didn't emit, the road space I freed up? Do I feel like I made a difference? No, all I did was make it easier for others to do those things, and boy did they ever continue doing them, in increasing numbers, the entire time. Even my so-called people, transportation reform "activists," bend over backward not to "shame" each other for buying cars, and buying cars to replace the cars they bought before. So I feel more like a sucker than a hero when I consider all that. In the end it has to be about just getting outside and enjoying the fresh air.