> If we suddenly weren't allowed to replace old-growth forests with mono-culture, pollute our groundwater, fill the earth with plastic, kill off a majority of animal species, and so forth, how much would the economy shrink?
But would it? Such a transition would create a massive number of jobs producing the alternatives.
A very small portion of the economy is spent on what people need, 80% of GDP is spent on wants. And if people want a clean environment more than they want the latest consumer crap, that means the clean environment is worth more in dollars, and so cleaning the environment grows the GDP.
To pick an example which is both low-stakes and topical: many, probably most, of the 11,000 Facebookers who just got canned, were misallocated. Zuck was just paying them not to work for anyone else, whether that was explicit in his mind (as it was for Brin and Page), or not.
Does that layoff reduce human productivity? Rather the opposite: the majority will be hired by companies which expect them to actually deliver value (not saying FB employees are lazy, far from it, just that they mostly do useless and harmful things), which is good.
As long as we stay out of broken window territory, banning or tax-restricting harmful practices will increase productivity, especially if (as I do) you don't consider actions where the eternality outweighs the profit to be productive.
Obvious example: if California struck down the traditional water rights system and replaced it with auctions, this would do good things for water conservation.
It would also increase the productivity and market value of California's agriculture, I would bet a lot of money on this. The land currently used for alfalfa, an insultingly poor crop for the central valley, would be converted for other uses. The tragedy of alfalfa in California is that it's barely profitable, even with robbing the commons of enormous amounts of water they should have to pay for.
I don’t know where you’re based, but pigs will fly before taxpayers in the United States agree to an 80% environmental income tax.
I already knew it was a pile of dog**, like most (all?) Reality TV show is, but I clearly underestimated how low the bar was.
What socked me the most was the celebration of mindless consumption.
It's hard to believe people watching that want less consumer craps and more clean environment.
I disagree. My suspicion is that the primary driver is marketing, telling people that happiness and self-realizations comes from what you buy rather than what you give/create.
My argument is better made by Adam Curtis in "The Century of the Self" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self which documents marketing over the 20th century.
The basic thesis is that the industrial revolution was so successful at producing goods that it produced more than people were willing to buy. It took tremendous effort to convince people that they should consume more.
The issue I take with the “Global warming” crowd is that there’s a lot inaccurate predictions (nearly all of them thus far) and the evidence misrepresented and questionable.
Personally, this makes the “warming” tied to “emissions” just seem like a red herring. If I was a company producing forever chemicals, but low “carbon emissions” and I could afford the carbon tax, and extra carbon reducing infrastructure. Of course I’d promote the “green agenda”. It’s a barrier to new comers and it distracts people from the poison I’m adding to the environment.
If it becomes too burdensome the whole “carbon reduction” crowd just moves to a different country. One that slows higher level of pollutants.
These policies, to me, are really just business decisions.
I think that's a problem with general prediction by experts. There is no consequence for anything that media and experts push daily as "the right thing to do". The "Zero covid" strategy is another similar example. A lot of experts and media tried to push to this, but then later one it proved itself as not sustainable[1]
This lack of understanding is why people spread FUD about radioactive waste that will poison the planet for million years.
And we know of places that are stable on a geological time scale (which is in fact million of years).
No, seriously, coal burning released more radiation into the environment than actual nuclear waste. Long-term storage is a problem but it's still a better problem to have to solve than fossil fuel pollution.
Lots of reports pointing out Russia funds environmental groups. China does the same - but more openly - advertising cheap solar and wind (neither function as well as nuclear).
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/596304-invest...
I don’t blame them for playing the game well.
PS I’m 100% supportive of a mix that includes cheap renewables and more costly nuclear baseload. It’s when you see comments promoting nuclear and renewables as somehow in opposition, that’s the tell.
I recommend sitting down and calculating the input cost for solar / wind. It's being subsidized substantially.
There aren't even enough materials currently mined to support the US switching to mostly (>50%) solar / wind. Silver/gold/copper/nickle prices would go up an order of magnitude, for instance.
I'm for cheap energy - period. It's directly correlated with improvements in life. If solar / wind get us there, great. If nuclear improves it, let's do it. Right now natural gas is also very cheap, should be drilling as much as we can. The more we maximize growth and cheap energy now, the quicker we advance technology, innovation and automation.
You're thinking of nuclear. Which has a variety of critical resources and no plan reduce them. Renewables live in the real world where using less of a scarce resource allows you to outcompete your competition.
Modern perc panels use 30-50g (so half of silver production would produce 500GW/yr) of silver per net kW with commercial but not fully deployed technologies to reduce it to 18-30g, and feasible technologies to bring it below 5g (which is what a nuclear reactor uses). This is the only limiting resource that renewables necessarily use more of than nuclear other than concrete.
Anyone against nuclear is a shill for petrochemical power, there are no exceptions. There are the deluded and the liars, that's it.
Nuclear power is no longer a viable pathway for a government to throw tax dollars at, and there are multiple reasons:
1) Nuclear power is not cost effective: Even right now, nuclear power is more expensive (LCOE) than solar or wind.
2) Nuclear power costs explode if the capacity factor of your plants decreases: Meaning that they are basically ONLY viable for baseload power (running at full tilt all the time), which makes them very unflexible and a really bad match with other renewables (=> which, again, are cheaper per MWh than the fission reactors).
3) Nuclear power failed to deliver on safety promises, mainly with the Fukushima incident: If a modern, technologically competent nation like Japan can not be expected to keep their reactors running incident-free, then how are you going to convince e.g. Italians, Indians or other nationalities with significant (perceived?) government corruption/incompetence that their government can be trusted with regulating nuclear tech?!
4) Building plants is slow, extremely expensive and a huge commitment: Considering how rapidly PV/wind/batteries decrease in cost currently, committing on nuclear power right now would be economically irresponsible, and also has huge latency on acutally delivering power, unlike PV or wind, which you can basically buy off the shelve, install and hook up within the year.
With more modern plants you could recycle that material and cut it down to a fifth the size.
Its a political problem, forced by dishonest actors
>This is just false
>Its a political problem
But I would still argue it's an opaque argument at best, more likely intentionally deceptive.
There is an article from science.org about finland plan to bury its own waste.
https://www.science.org/content/article/finland-built-tomb-s...
Tell me about olympic swiming pool.
Monde Diplomatique made a documented article about France plan to bury its own nuclear waste in Meuse department...
It has been a clownshow, with fire incident lasting weeks because an elevator tire went to flame, necessity to run a water pump for the next 10.000 or 100.000 years (no joke) because the underground storage facility would be underwater after 3 days and will probably leak radioactive materials in the surrounding aquifere and will go back to surface after a few hundred years. In short, they have no realistic plan for long term storage.
There was also huge controvercy in germany about storage of nuclear waste in an old coal mine.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-takes-first-sma....
Maybe there is just an olympic swimming pool of radioactive waste in the US (I suppose so it's about 4000m3), but it is not the way you store it for tens thousand of years.
I have family members who built plants back in the 80's and some still maintain them.
They claim the main issue has to do with government regulation(s) and unions. I can dive into it further, but effectively the regulation(s) required inspection on ever weld a welder would make. This meant you needed two welders on site, one making a weld and one signing off. You'd have a pipe fitter line up the pipe(s), a different inspector would have to come around and sign off on that work. Sometimes they wouldn't show up, so you'd end up with a days work lost (everyone still getting paid). If someone who was part of a different union or not unionized tried to do the work, the union would strike / the person would be fired.
Then at the end of it, the regulation(s) would change slightly and they'd have to cut out a large section and start all over.
This happened at multiple plants in the 80's per my family members. Today, they're pushing the plants past where they're really safe to use. In the case of Fukushima, they didn't even have a cut-off switch. It was an earlier design.
All that being said, Illinois has been running on mostly nuclear power for decades, as has France. No issue in terms of safety and relatively cheap power (natural gas being cheaper). An updated design, with a reduction in unionization and a loosening of regulations would make nuclear far better than any alternative.
You can do the math yourself and it comes out cheaper and safer than wind or solar. The other thing to consider is what happens when the power goes out in a place like Texas for a week or two due to weather conditions -- people die. Solar, coal, wind, nuclear all have pros/cons. Thus far in the United States nuclear has caused far fewer casualties than per gigawatt than any alternative.
You can't have it both ways - but of course they want to.
The Price-Anderson Nuclear Indemnity Act shifts the risk of nuclear accidents onto the tax payers. In return, the industry accepts regulations. Tell the nuclear industry that we're taking away your insurance caps and they'll say "we can't stay in business".
You're clearly not lying, you've just been lied to.
Of course, you're spreading the stink. But we all recognize it now.
This argument is an important one, but most of the reasons that this is the case is a related problem to the ever lasting light bulb problem, they last too long. Because we're not building them they're expensive to build. Once we start building them the costs go down.
> 3) Nuclear power failed to deliver on safety promises, mainly with the Fukushima incident: If a modern, technologically competent nation like Japan can not be expected to keep their reactors running incident-free, then how are you going to convince e.g. Italians, Indians or other nationalities with significant (perceived?) government corruption/incompetence that their government can be trusted with regulating nuclear tech?!
Fukushima is the latest in scare tactics. The level of radiation released was low and the government overreacted to that danger. Further, it was built right next to the ocean which was itself right next to a major fault line running under that ocean, with backup generators that were at ground level.
> 4) Building plants is slow, extremely expensive and a huge commitment: Considering how rapidly PV/wind/batteries decrease in cost currently, committing on nuclear power right now would be economically irresponsible, and also has huge latency on acutally delivering power, unlike PV or wind, which you can basically buy off the shelve, install and hook up within the year.
See my response to point #1. Because we're not building them, we're not used to building them so they're slow to build.
2) This is just trying to spin reliability as a disadvantage. You can throttle nuclear just fine. Overbuilding in order to have "peaker" nuclear plants is perfectly viable - France's grid does so. Pointing out the difficulties of integrating with flighty, unreliable renewables is a point against renewables, not nuclear - you are failing to account for grid storage, then complaining that nuclear is a poor grid storage solution. Well, yeah!
3) The safety record of nuclear vastly exceeds any other power generation technology, even if you factor in Chernobyl. We are making the perfect the enemy of the good. I daresay that India could weather a nuclear incident or two and still come out ahead of the 2 million people who die yearly from air pollution, in large part from burning fossil fuels.
4) This just point 1 repeated, and again, you ignore grid storage. True, you can throw up PV or wind quickly enough, but it won't solve your energy problem. People were complaining about how slow it is to construct nuclear plants decades ago. If we'd ignored them and started building, we'd be in a much better situation now. The best time to build a nuclear plant is 20 years ago; the second best time is now.
How many terawatt years of non-low-grade-heat energy do we need between now and 2030?
Now that we know that PWRs are irrelevant, can we move on from the constant gaslighting about how 'the next one will he cheaper we swear' or 'it's totally safe if everything goes perfectly always, just ignore the mines'. Or are you just trying to distract from the only thing that can replace the majority of (or even a tiny minority of) fossil fuels?
There are roughly 40,000t of accessible fissile material (U235 and Pu239) on earth.
You need about 3.5t to run a GW of PWR for 6 years. This generates up to half a tonne of Pu239.
Primary energy is about 17TW. You need about 12TWe to meet this. We'll assume 5TW of heat needs can be met with a geographically isolated low head steam generator.
Assume your reactors are free and all mining capacity grows at 100% p.a. from the current ~200t of U235 that isn't in inaccessible tails per year and reactors are constructed in record times of 5 years.
Make it make sense. Provide a net zero solution for 2050.
Global energy needs at 15TW. Would need 15K nuclear plants total. Currently we have 440 @ 375GW total.
It's an interesting read.
But I agree that it is completely absurd that climate activists make such dire predictions of apocalyptic scenarios, and then won't consider a completely obvious stop-gap that would buy 100 years to get our act together.
[1]: https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm....
It does not account in technology changes and discovery of more fuel sources. The reason it's not done yet is because the problem isn't the lack of fuel but the lack of plants.
Apparently, a private jet can emit two tonnes of carbon dioxide in an hour and is five to 14 times more polluting per passenger than a commercial plane.
Everything here is electric except the heating and I work from home all day (with an energy-drinking PC set-up).
I live in The Netherlands - the same panels will generate about 2x as much energy a year if they were in Spain or North Africa.
I wouldn't be surprised if we could run our houses and light industry for 6 months a year purely on solar panels if we put them on every roof top in the country.
Then you look at wind: we have a huge potential for wind energy especially off-shore (and in our big lakes).
Like most of the EU the main problem is heating in winter - that requires a reduction in energy usage through insulation and heat-pumps combined with energy import from countries which have high potential for solar and wind (North Africa has huge potential here).
Seems like we're going to need to become more diurnal and more seasonal in our approach to industry? Make hay while the sun shines, as the idiom says.
Hydrogen is hard to store, but there is sufficient space for satisfying most of our needs by itself. Hydrogen generators are also mostly made of iron, carbon, and aluminum, or alternatively a lot of organic chemicals and aluminum.
Pumped hydro has some problems to compete on the open market, but it also can satisfy most of our storage requirements by itself. Pumped hydro systems are made mostly of steel.
What kinds of resources do you expect we to run out of?
If the thesis is that electrical energy will be hyper abundant 80% of the time and deeply scarce the remaining 20% (which is the case if you use only solar and wind) and that periods of scarcity are correlated - so a "bad" day is likely to be preceded and followed by other "bad" days, then large scale hydrogen storage is quite a good match to get you through your worst week.
Yes, salt domes are quite viable. They are more the "expensive" kind of storage, and require a lot of scale. They are probably not economically viable for electricity storage as it's usually understood, but they are cheap enough that it's perfectly viable to dig them at a loss for societal assurance. They are certainly a lesser drag on the economy than nuclear power.
AFAIK the vast majority of depleted gas fields can't be used for hydrogen storage. The ones that can are obviously a major gain, but those aren't enough to sustain a society.
Storing hydrogen is perfectly viable, and won't have any catastrophic impact on electricity prices. But the "extremely easy" is a bit too optimistic.
I'm confident we'll get there. There will be lots of mitigating the damage from climate change, because that train wreck is still in motion. But we will mostly decarbonize our economies by the end of this century.
Unfortunately unless we completely decarbonize by the middle of the century, we'll reach catastrophic levels of global warming (>3 degrees warming, likely leading to the polar ice caps melting and significant ocean level rises, especially at the equator).
3 degrees is very bad, but it's quite survivable. We can of course always do better. But right now I'm quite happy with the direction things are going and the current trends but still push for trying to do more where we can.
A goal, which it is now clear, that would have been absolutely trivial to meet while making a solid profit on the deal, if we'd just started earlier, like when the problem became widely known four decades ago.
But we didn't. So we can probably still do it, and we can probably still come out richer, but some people are still trying to slow it down so they can profit from the short term chaos and impoverishing and risking our lives to do so.
There was a wide array of solutions available 40 years ago, including, but not limited to nuclear.
Notable mentions: carbon fees, preventing deforestation, not subsidizing fossil fuels, not actively encouraging methane release from oilfields, more efficient cars, trains, insulation, heat pumps and soar water heaters but really the list is very, very long.
Agreed, but that was the part that could be addressed with nuclear.
> There was a wide array of solutions available 40 years ago, including, but not limited to nuclear.
I think we're in agreement, except for the word "solution". The things you mention are not solutions, but rather mitigations, bandaids, things that slow the pace of climate change. Which still would have been extremely useful to buy us more time to decarbonize.
We emitted what the eartg can absorb (3Gteq) back in 1990. Since then, emissions trippled.
Net zero is not enough, there is still a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, so the temperature will reach +3°C.
Assuming we follow that plan and don't hit any tipping points, we should stay under 3C, but yeah it's possible.
It's going to come down to mitigating, and that might mean different things in different places.
I think there will be some amount of geo-engineering to cool the poles and avoid some of the sea level rise and permafrost melting. There will also be some active carbon removal, but we also will not reach zero emissions either. That may mostly balance out, or reach "net zero".
There will also likely be a slow migration away from low lying coastal areas, as well as seawall construction.
We have already seen a little bit of this. It's only been a preview of what a more serious revolt would look like.
It's important to realize that anything that increases energy costs is regressive. The wealthy can afford these cost increases and their lifestyle is barely impacted. For the poor and working class increases in these costs can be absolutely devastating.
The upper classes can also afford EVs, solar panels, batteries, and can very often telework at least some of the time. Working classes are stuck with older technology that is more expensive to fuel and generally have to commute to work jobs in person with no option for remote work.
From my perspective people hate democracy and want people to be unequal by birth.
Maybe I'm cynical, but the observer who said that the problem with political power is that the worst people will do anything they can to take it (as a result, good people won't have it)
Solar and batteries are still rapidly dropping in price. At the same time, the fossil fuel industry is engaging in rampant hostage taking (Putin) and price gouging (oil is under $100/barrel. Why is gasoline 2x what it was the first time oil was at this price?)
If anything, I’d expect decentralized generation of renewable power to stabilize energy costs, eliminate wars for oil, and create well paying jobs for unskilled labor.
As for EV affordability: All EVs in the US have a 10 year battery warranty (or lose subsidies), which should create gluts in the used car market moving forward.
All of those things help the poor and working class: lower, more stable energy prices, better jobs, fewer wars to fight and cheaper used cars are each individually huge wins.
And overall, the lifetime environmental impact of solar panels is much lower than producing the same energy using fossile fuels.
Right now it seems that the social contract is "give up your autonomy and stability to capitalism and in return you get to consume lots of stuff". If we remove the "consume lots of stuff" part of the equation, then I doubt people would be happy with the "give up your autonomy and stability" part.
Do you have storage installed to smooth out the dead hours?
Unfortunately the answer is that you need days of storage for solar and wind to be anywhere near 100% of the energy mix.
The cost of that is astronomical.
[1] https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BloombergNEF-Z...
Yet the vast majority of EV's don't have the ability to discharge into the grid to earn money... Most can't even charge when power is negatively priced unless you pay for a third party charger and service.
Basically, Car owners, charger owners, Utility companies, and EV manufacturers would all like to earn the money by charging/discharging your EV at times to earn the most money. But all of those people don't want someone else being able to take that sweet sweet revenue. So they put roadblocks in the way.
EV's usually have the capability to charge into the grid, but firmware that won't allow it.
Chargers (AC and DC) won't allow power to flow back into the grid, and will disconnect any car who tries.
Utilities refuse to let home users take part in the minute by minute pricing - instead the best available is dynamic pricing set half hourly a day in advance.
And users want to do this, but have three parties who've assembled roadblocks in the way. And there is no indication of that impasse ending anytime soon.
That seems reasonable considering what happened with griddy in texas.
Then if the prices go sky high, users who chose that plan at least get to use 5kWh each day. 5kWh is plenty to not freeze and to keep your phone charged and fridge going. If you want more, you can pay more.
The UK already has a system of electricity meters that have a 'balance', and when the balance reaches zero it cuts off till more credit is added. Such a scheme integrates well with that, and means a user can never rack up a massive unexpected bill if the price goes crazy high or low.
I suspect 5 kWh/day is way to little to keep the house warm and still be able to cook food. The exact number doesn't really matter here. What's more problematic is how the 5 kWh of guaranteed/insured/subsidized power would be allocated.
If it's your first 5 kWh/day, it will be you'll blow past the quota by noon, and if there was a price spike in the evening you would pay the full price of it, or shut off your breaker until prices go down.
Having it as a some sort of pool you can draw from anytime you want doesn't suffer from the above problem, but would make such a service very expensive to run for the counterparty due to adverse selection. Anyone using such a service would opt to use the market price when electricity is plentiful/cheap, and switch to fixed price when electricity is scarce/expensive. The net result is that the 5 kWh ends up always being the most expensive electricity for the day, and a service providing such a guarantee will be priced accordingly. In a competitive market, you would expect the price of a fixed price plan to be the same as the "5 kWh per day at fixed price and anything extra at instant market price" plan that you propose. You might be tempted to argue that utilities/the government can subsidize the latter plan as some sort of green energy initiative, but that would be be bad. The most expensive energy also tends to be the dirtiest, because peaker plants (power plants that can quickly turn on/off) tend to run on fossil fuels. Subsidizing such a scheme would also be subsidizing electricity consumption during peak hours, and therefore subsidizing fossil fuel plants.
Then you can hear the beep and either decide to turn off a few things, top up your balance, hit the 'emergency 1 kWh' button, or just sit in the dark for 15 minutes.
This benefits the grid operator because they get to massively overcharge for curtailed energy. It benefits the EV manufacturer because they get to greenwash. And the consumer doesn't get a say because they don't actually own their DRM'd remote controlled car and charger.
>Stop for lunch, plug in car to recharge
>Cloud passes in front of sun
>Grid empties car
People won't want to put their plans at the mercy of a fluctuating grid. There will never be a time when people are happy to plug in their car and come back to find it empty, electricity spot price be damned. It's my car, not your grid storage system.
But I also think we'll never get to the point that everyone has solar installed. There are plenty of situations where it doesn't make sense, such as properties with lots of taller trees around short buildings.
Also, generating 120% generally doesn't make sense because the payout from the electric company for the other 20% is pitiful.
A battery makes sense for a lot of people for a few reasons, too, so the power company doesn't necessarily have to be the one to do all of that, either. We did it mainly for relief from power outages, but it also works well for places with prices that change by time of day.
Panels are like $1 per nominal watt
This idea that you need to have your lights on all night is rather recent. For a very very long time people survived by following the natural rythms of daylight. Some people even think this is healthier, and suggest special apps to adjust screen brightness to follow natural light patterns.
A good fridge/freezer should hold its cold overnight, especially if you aren't snacking at midnight.
So while it might be true that your current lifestyle is based on 24/7 electricity, but what makes that lifestyle sacrosanct? You'll probably change it over the next few years anyway, and odds are it is different today than it was 5 years ago.
People have used fire, candles for a very very long time to provide light at night.
If we built our houses right, we could drastically shift energy usage requirements for heating and cooling to daylight hours (utilizing thermal mass storage like https://www.steffes.com/ets/ )
I think the idea of people sleeping as soon as the sun is down and not just doing low-light activities even 3000 years ago as ridiculous despite being a pervasive idea.
He’s found that for the NEM grid in Australia at least, just six hours of storage can bring us to over 99% of demand being provided by renewables and storage over a month, almost every month. On a weekly basis, some weeks it’s 100%, but worst case will be something like two or three percent being provided by something like gas turbines over the week.
We have more pumped hydro coming online and will have more in the future, so not all those six or so hours worth will be chemical batteries.
Part of what makes this work is because on the eastern seaboard, often it might be, for example, windy in northern Queensland while it’s calm in South Australia, so being interconnected helps a lot. At this point we really don’t have (and it’s not simulating) any kind of serious demand management (apart from in emergencies, but I’m talking everyday kind of management), which could potentially remove some of the need for gas peaking. We also don’t have any offshore wind yet (legislation only legalised it last year and there are some early projects). As some of that offshore generation comes online with better capacity factors than onshore, it will likely make things more consistent.
Primary energy replacement obviously will require more than that, but it won't be so bad as people make out, since electrification can drive massive efficiency increases - electric cars are 3-4x as energy efficient as ICE cars, and there are very few places in the parts of Australia that get decently cold that are too cold for air source heat pumps, so that's a 3x efficiency increase over gas space and hot water heating (even as much as 5x for CO2 hot water heat pumps!).
Here in Norway the electricity prices this summer and fall were up to 100x higher in the south compared to the north, due to lack of interconnect capacity between the north and south.
Building hundreds of miles of high-capacity interconnects ain't done in a weekend either.
It's like saying, this remote town in the hills has cheap housing because it takes so long to drive to it so lets build a high speed express train right to the city. Then we can have cheap housing and access to the city.
Except you can't, because as soon as you have access to the market demand, the price goes up to match the market price.
Interconnects are useful, but people wanting to build interconnects so they can access the cheap power from places that only had cheap power due to a lack of interconnects is upside down thinking.
But better internal interconnects between south and north would certainly have contributed to averaging out the prices across the country, avoiding the extremes we saw this year.
After all, there were hydro plants in the north which halted production due to the low prices at the same time as we had prices >10x normal in the south.
Obviously that's missing commercial power, utility-scale storage, heavy industry, electric vehicle charging, etc., but it seems like factoring those in would give you a big yet feasible cost, especially if storage gets cheaper over the next decades.
That strengths your point.
However, 30kWh isn’t quite enough for heating and cooling an all-electric off-grid house, unless you carefully monitor battery capacity, etc.
Here is 30kWh of LFP batteries for $9,000. Now that doesn't include the inverters or installation or anything but LFP batteries have excellent longevity, in this case 7000 cycles to 80% depth-of-discharge. That means charging and discharging the battery every day for 19 years and at that point, you still have 80% of the remaining capacity.
How much of an impact did this actually make, though, since heating was probably the majority of your emissions to begin with?
Solar may be sexy, but depending on your heat source you possibly could have done better by installing a heat pump on grid power.
Granted, that would change somewhat if we get a super harsh winter here, but otherwise: I consume much more electrical power than heating.
The "win" is not that once you have everything electric you won't need to burn all these irreproducible resources, but the win is that the consumer now operates with a more "generic" interface, electricity, and is "decoupled" from the burning itself, think of "Burning as a Service" instead of "Self-Burning".
And maybe, in some kind of future, we will be able to produce electricity without burning at all: maybe fusion, maybe arrays of solar panels in GEO [1] beaming power to Terra [2], maybe some kind of bacteria eating all the plastic we've been landfilling [3], who knows.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
[2] https://emrod.energy/emrod-partners-with-airbus-and-the-euro...
[3] https://elifesciences.org/digests/43959/generating-electrici...
We gota regulate our population as well because world population did 3x in the last 60 years. There is no way around it: you dont emit the same at 2.5 billion than at 11 billion (horizon in 2100). 11 billion that's also a lot of stupid people and a lot more excuses for stupid people for doing stupid things. I gota admit Ive been convinced lately this might be an even bigger problem than climate change since it can explodes not only the climate but other things as well.
And what have those same people been saying about our ability to transition to lower-emissions energy sources, which you think is possible?
Presumably along the lines of "we don't need to do that, it's fine", "actually we do need to do that, but it's impossible", "okay it is possible but it would cost too much", "okay, it would actually be cheaper but it'll put all the poor groundwater-polluters and clear-cutters out of a job, why do you hate poor people" and finally "It's a conspiracy by the gays and the jews and the authoritarian left to control you by passing laws to not let you pollute groundwater, not that I want to pollute groundwater, but I'll defend to the death your right to do so etc."
The disconnect is between the recognition that there are problems and the assertion that we cannot simply solve those problems. Wastewater reclamation, urban planning, and the at least partial displacement of dietary animal protein can address the cited problems without "degrowth". Furthermore, while several trends are concerning, they mostly do not represent an immediate threat on the level of climate change except in the writings of click-chasing environmental journalists and the appeals of donation-funded activist organizations. We have time to study and refine our approach.
For example, the largest biodiversity loss event actually happened before the dawn of recorded history — the Quaternary Extinction. Yet this massive 'crisis' failed to prevent the rise of human civilization. Degrowth advocates usually want to impose a lot of pain on society very soon — in your words, 'suddenly' — which is more punk rock than practical reason. In reality, most of these trends are things we need to be aware of and plan for, but the sky is not falling. Climate change is still the biggest threat, and the one thing that may require a little pain. Attaching pain in service of other causes becomes a lead shoe as we are trying to swim to the shore.
I don't think we should get to sustainability by in effect keeping people poor and restricting what they are allowed to consume. Rather we should get to a sustainable number of human beings allowed to be free, to travel, to have a good life.
That said, even if economic activity was fully decoupled from emissions, Earth's environmental problems would remain overwhelming. Biodiversity loss, deforestation, aquifer depletion, desertification, etc. are just as concerning for most people here as rising global temperatures.
My inner cynic sees headlines like the above and assumes that A) the writer/publisher wants people to think everything is OK, and B) the writer/publisher wants people to narrowly focus on global warming as opposed to the greater health of the natural environment.
While obviously not easy, transitioning to lower-emissions energy sources is far,far easier than fully acknowledging the material basis of our economy and factoring in actually sufficient environmental protections to our systems of production and distribution. If we suddenly weren't allowed to replace old-growth forests with mono-culture, pollute our groundwater, fill the earth with plastic, kill off a majority of animal species, and so forth, how much would the economy shrink? More than anyone published in The Economist would ever admit, I suspect.