Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

Re:Britain has gone two months without burning coal to gener... by mrpopo on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @08:43PM (#23483964)

"using nuclear now" is part of the scenario. Any technology that has brought more efficient, less co2-intensive energy thus far has been used to increase the energy usage at a limited impact, instead of decreasing the impact. Only a policy focused on reducing (or at the very least, stopping the increase) energy usage can have positive final results.

À significant part of the population accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months. Suddenly remote work and visio conferences are acceptable alternatives to driving 2tons of metal through 30km of asphalt 2x a day. Change is possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Britain has gone two months without burning coal to gener... by hatboat on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @09:12PM (#23484204)

I think your second paragraph is misplaced. It's my belief that people "accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months" precisely because it was advertised as a temporary measure.

We're already seeing large numbers of people reject the "stay at home" narrative , simply because they want to, rather than it being driven by improving conditions.

Using this as evidence to suggest that people will adjust to a "new normal" is arguing against your point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Britain has gone two months without burning coal to gener... by mrpopo on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @11:27PM (#23484938)

I see what you mean, and I don't think it's gonna be easy either, I don't have false hopes.

Technically though, being locked down is more restrictive than forcing people to move in small electric cars or e-bikes. Just like remote work has jumped up in the lead few months, if proper measures are taken and enforced, demand for bike /rail infrastructures will increase immediately.

People can adapt. How many will resist to change, is the question.

[ Parent | on HN ]