No, it wouldn't. Renewables are nice, but they are not enough by themselves to build the kind of global wealth we need to adapt to change. We need nuclear as an energy source for that.
"US spends $81 billion a year to protect global oil supplies, report estimates"
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/us-spends-81-billion-a-year-...
[1] https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-S...
[2] https://www.salon.com/2021/11/07/one-in-four-us-senators-sti...
> Today, the President is announcing that the Department of Energy will make available releases of 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices for Americans and address the mismatch between demand exiting the pandemic and supply.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
Do you feel like this is something we have the power to stop? I feel it is a runaway train, that will just run out of steam in a few hundred/thousand years.
I mean I don’t like to be wasteful, and we shouldn’t pollute the earth for the hell of it, but I’m just like what are we gonna do?
What if all those politicians selling the story of renewables, had lots of investments in those companies? Would you still trust that story, that this will somehow stop climate change, and not just pad their bank accounts?
Maybe I’m just cynical in this area, and it is easy to just look around and say I’m not as bad as most people, but I just can’t think politicians forcing renewables is a good thing.
"System costs for nuclear power (as well as coal and gas-fired generation) are very much lower than for intermittent renewables."
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
I think the really cool thing that they allow is, imagine solar panels becoming so cheap but still efficient, and huge batteries like Tesla’s power wall, becoming better, you can have like whole small towns pretty easily behave as their own entire power grid pumping energy where it is needed.
It makes the idea of lots of small rural villages seem possible which I think is pretty cool.
We could probably see the world population double and yet keep similar urban densities.
The better way to characterise the problem is that renewables are intermittent - a problem for which we do not currently have a large-scale solution. One solution is to use a non-polluting technology that currently works - nuclear power - while we buy ourselves time to build out and develop renewable capacity.
Still, it's a good distinction to make for people who aren't familiar with the topic, so ty for that.
I wish all the money that went towards renewables research instead went towards nuclear...
*slight edit for clarity