this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
190 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
60102 readers
3104 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Garbage reports like that do a lot of damage. Fraction of fossil in the primary energy use is nearly constant, and net zero is merely a greenwashing scam.
I work with a climate lobbying group and upwards of 95% of all new energy construction in the US is renewables. Right now the focus of the group is lobbying for energy infrastructure and lessening permitting requirements (both of which have at least some bipartisan support). If we get both of these, renewable goals are definitely reachable.
Carbon tax is still a non-starter with Republicans in general tho, and that's what would really tip the scales.
When and how do we get offshore wind that's worth a crap in the US? It seems so obvious to me that we have huge population centers right next to huge "wind reserves".
Permitting requirements will help there but unfortunately that solution is tied to state governments as well, which may or may not be good news depending on where you're talking about.
The goals of renewable should be quantitative substitution of fossil primary energy within less than 50 years.
I'd like a suit of power armor, if we're just magicking things into existence.
Well, we don't even have 50 years. Net energy of oil liquids is projected to peak as early as 2025. So trying to address that by trying to scale up even more volume only makes the energy cliff steeper.
We have 50 years.
That would be sure nice, but the hard numbers of the physical reality say otherwise.
If you think we do have 50 years I recommend to reexamine the data. E.g. https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions is pretty comprehensive.
Ok doomer.
If you want to have an argument, try using arguments. Quantitative ones, like in https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
If you don't want to have a conversation, continue to use empty assertions and slurs. But count me out of that.
Your choice entirely.
Sorry bro I don't ever buy into doomposting.
Enjoy being meaninglessly sad.