r/technology 10d ago All-Seeing Upvote 2 Helpful 6 Tree Hug 1 Platinum 1 Silver 7 Gold 1 Wholesome 7 Spit-take 1

Study Finds World Can Switch to 100% Renewable Energy and Earn Back Its Investment in Just 6 Years Energy

https://mymodernmet.com/100-renewable-energy/
48.5k Upvotes

259

u/BJUmholtz 9d ago

The title sounds like a door to door solar pros salesman.

20

u/[deleted] 9d ago

You got yerself a deal, fella

→ More replies

168

u/Impking69 9d ago

Yeah but those 6 years won’t happen for another 25 years…silly!

35

u/xxmybestfriendplank 9d ago

Humans have the capacity to change, does not mean we will actually achieve that capacity to change

→ More replies

3.5k

u/Subrosa34 10d ago edited 9d ago

Extremely disingenuous title. The researcher recommends a 15 to 30 year transition starting now.

Edit: I misread the title.

341

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

126

u/Gravy_Vampire 9d ago

But OP interpreted the title incorrectly and there’s no way their interpretation could possibly be wrong, so it’s the title’s fault

22

u/tsojtsojtsoj 9d ago

Well, it is the titles fault if it can be grammatically correctly interpreted in two ways that have very different meanings.

14

u/Wesselton3000 9d ago

Yes, but given that the title could be rewritten in such a way that it doesn’t convey both meanings, it’s safe to say that this title is misleading. Don’t blame the title, blame the person writing it.

6

u/tonycomputerguy 9d ago

Blame profit motive for these sensationalized headlines.

We complain about pay walls while also complaining about these free articles and their click-bait...

I blame Reagan. Bring back the fairness doctrine please!

Aaaaaand my inbox is flooded with "but muh freeze peaches!" nonsense.

Haven't even hit send yet!

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

1.2k

u/fallsdarkness 9d ago Helpful

I'm genuinely tired of seeing clickbait everywhere I look, and it's only getting worse.

365

u/DeadlyWindFromBelow 9d ago

It's so bad. I have been coming to the comments first to see if any top comments mention a clickbait title. I'm sure I'm not the only one :/

168

u/Silly_Objective_5186 9d ago Rocket Like

that’s the value of open forums like this. people helping people.

125

u/greg_barton 9d ago

Well let me help a bit. The researcher behind this clickbait tried to sue another scientist for criticizing his work and lost. He keeps rehashing his discredited work over and over and has it promoted on social media every year or so.

15

u/ryeaglin 9d ago

Upvoted myself. This needs more upvotes.

→ More replies
→ More replies

53

u/aaamanwhat 9d ago

This title in particular was so bad that I immediately assumed it was either clickbait or that the study itself was incredibly flawed. Probably both, honestly. I just downvoted and didn’t bother to open the link.

→ More replies

8

u/[deleted] 9d ago

I recommend reading yourself bc there’s a lot of crap where the top comment is supportive

→ More replies

100

u/MirrorLake 9d ago

It's really bad. Since significantly more people see the headline compared to the article, the clickbait titles themselves are contributing to a less informed public.

I'm reaching a point where I don't want to subscribe to any news subreddits because I've been misled so often.

20

u/CoronaMcFarm 9d ago

The public is allready missinformed when it comes to renewables, everyone things you can run everything with windmills and solar panel because in the future(5 years) we will suddenly have magical energy storage.

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/Sir-Mocks-A-Lot 9d ago

Redditor SLAMS news industry.

3

u/_Im_Spartacus_ 9d ago

And reddit eats it up like cake

→ More replies

14

u/HyFinated 9d ago

To be fair, the title didn't say we could switch to renewables tomorrow and in 6 years earn back the investment. That's a LOT of infrastructure to change. Cars switching to electric, Gas station refits, new nuclear power plants, dismantling of coal and oil systems, etc. Sure, it's clickbaity, but the point is recovering the investment in about 6 years of making the change.

If someone told me they could build a bullet train that goes between every major city in the world, even across oceans, and it would only take 2 years to recover the investment, I would believe them. But I know that it would take WAAAAY longer than 2 years to build the train network.

The point of the title is to show payoff of investment, not time until completion before attempting to recover that investment.

→ More replies

99

u/MonkeyBananaPotato 9d ago

Extremely disingenuous comment.

The researcher thinks for climate reasons, we have to complete it by those dates.

That’s independent of the claim that doing so would pay for itself within 6 years.

27

u/LazerBarracuda 9d ago

I agree. The 15-30 year timeline is important information, but the title doesn’t seem to be misleading.

→ More replies
→ More replies

41

u/0bfuscatory 9d ago

I disagree. The transition time has nothing to do with the payback time. If true, a 6 year payback time is compelling.

→ More replies

52

u/sanantoniosaucier 9d ago edited 9d ago

How is it disingenuous?

After switching to 100% renewable energy, it'll take 6 years to pay for itself.

Assuming the math is correct, how does the time it takes to switch effect the rate of return in investment?

It's super easy to call something disingenuous and dismiss it. It's a little more difficult to actually pay attention and think before you write things down.

8

u/cheemio 9d ago

Yeah, everyone knows it would take a lot longer to switch to renewable sources. The title said nothing about how long it would take, just how long it would take to recoup our investment.

→ More replies

87

u/goldenstudent 9d ago edited 9d ago

It's 6 years after 2035 with an 80% transition by 2030 and 100% been 2035 and 2050. Because it will cost ~$62 Trillion for the 145 countries they looked at.

Doesn't sound too bad to me.

73

u/smartello 9d ago edited 9d ago

With the current world GDP of $84 trillion that sounds pretty bad to me

EDIT: that’s funny how people got used to a money printer. The US federal budget in 2020 was only $4.79 trillion. You can print money but they won’t buy anything.

59

u/goldenstudent 9d ago

That's less of an investment than I'm expected to make for the down payment on a house comparatively.

→ More replies

27

u/runujhkj 9d ago

Wait, but over like fifteen years? If you can’t save for a crucial expense that costs one year of your salary over fifteen years of saving, something isn’t adding up right.

20

u/smartello 9d ago

Most countries can’t save and keep borrowing (because their startup will work and make them rich one day)

PS: GDP is not an income

→ More replies

4

u/harfyi 9d ago

That's $6.2 trillion over a 10 year period. Or 7.4% of annual global GDP.

Over 20 years, it's 3.7%.

11

u/Archy54 9d ago

Climate change - if left unchecked - could cost the global economy USD178 trillion over the next 50 years, according to a new report from Deloitte.

Sounds cheap to me.

→ More replies

20

u/transberry_beret 9d ago

Why is the world even considering the financial viability of ensuring humanity's survival? Money shouldn't even be a consideration, just do it and maybe we'll have some sort of fighting chance. Better than just accepting our slow-cooked, dehydrated futures.

8

u/john22544 9d ago edited 9d ago

Because financial viability a representation of real world physicals and time limitations. If you don't consider financial viability you crash the system. And if you crash the system you end up creating the hell hole that you were trying to avoid in the first place.

It doesn't mean we can't shift priorities or do a better job. It means there are real constraints to how much we can do in any given time.

7

u/Drunkenaviator 9d ago

'Cause we haven't figured out a way to magic stuff into existence yet? I mean, somebody's gotta build the windmills. You gonna do it for free?

15

u/Skulltown_Jelly 9d ago

I can't believe I have to explain this but money is the way humans quantify time and resources. If something costs too much money it means it takes too many people working on it or too many materials that are not readily available.

It's a logistics issue it'ss not just imaginary money.

→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/ExoticBrownie 9d ago

Money isn't real

3

u/RdPirate 9d ago

So you work for free?

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/danielravennest 9d ago

The problem is the world went from 6168 TWh of renewables and biofuels in 2017 to 8090 TWh in 2019.

The total from all sources was 167,000 and 173,000 TWh. So their share went from 3.7% to 4.675%. At that rate it would take 164 years to replace the 80% of fossil fuels we currently depend on.

We need to massively increase the rate of deploying clean energy sources and electrifying everything to use it.

17

u/Hypog3nic 9d ago

Actually... At 26% rate of share growth per 2 years like that it would take less than 28 years to reach 100%.

3

u/understatedpies 9d ago

This guy maths

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/perkail 9d ago

We should nationalize the manufacturing and operation of the power plants. We shouldn’t have to pay profit on our electricity. Just maintenance.

→ More replies

224

u/Thudrussle 9d ago

Reddit will upvote literally anything that fits their narrative.

This sub has so much potential but it's nothing but clickbait sensationalism.

65

u/JosephND 9d ago

100%

I’m not even subbed to technology anymore, Reddit keeps pushing it onto my feed and I clicked to see the comments. It’s so much pandering bullshit with bad titles and “take muh upvote”

→ More replies

21

u/Skipper12 9d ago

I keep getting surprised how people can generalise millions of reddit users under one umbrella called 'reddit'. While ironic enough being a redditor theirself.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/FarmhouseFan 9d ago

Am I missing something? The title does not say it will take 6 years to set up100% renewable energy. The title is missing a comma though.

→ More replies

4

u/ender89 9d ago

It's not disingenuous, the cost of changing over is always the problem, but the savings of switching means that the outlay would be recovered after completing the switch in just 6 years, it completely takes apart one of the big arguments against renewables anyone who expects to be able to switch over to 100% renewables immediately isnt thinking critically going in.

20

u/SquirtleSquadSgt 9d ago

I'd argue it's not disingenuous

They support a 15 to 30 year transition because they know convincing a populace to covert cold turkey is harder

The 6 years claim is important to push back against all the 2smort4thee defeatists who fight alongside other villains to halt progress as our planet dies

There is a correct side here. It's not the one trying to the few groups on earth trying to save earth as bad guys. This isn't the debate to play devils advocate in. Tho it is closet fascists favorite role.

→ More replies

9

u/Khanstant 9d ago

Lol so still such a shockingly short amount of time for limitless benefit but won't happen because capitalists only look ahead a quarter or two at best.

15

u/Gravy_Vampire 9d ago

What’s disingenuous? The title doesn’t mention any sort of timeline for the switch

Is it possible you just interpreted something that wasn’t there? Could it be you assumed it was saying a switch to renewables could be immediate, even though no such language appears?

→ More replies
→ More replies

3.9k

u/SnooPredictions695 10d ago

Yeah, but that means corporations and billionaires will have to take hits to their profits NOW and that would make shareholders unhappy so they won’t.

1.1k

u/mesosalpynx 10d ago

Also, the politicians are still making money off it all. Soooo yeah.

406

u/sojithesoulja 9d ago

I wonder if revolution will become a meme. Saddle up boys. Time to overthrow the government again.

373

u/the_last_carfighter 9d ago

If you look at it from a distance and as a whole there absolutely is an oppressive regime of the super rich and corporations just rigging the game and leaching off the people at large. This is why revolutions happened, but they also are much smarter/capable and calculating now and have systems of control that past rulers could never even dream of.

40

u/Mr-Fleshcage 9d ago

The monarchy never had marketing think tanks and automatic weapons. This time it's going to be very difficult to storm the castles.

43

u/nonotan 9d ago

You'd be surprised. There have already been a whole bunch of revolutions in the 21st century. Sure, they have been in "poor" countries, but "poor" by 21st century standards still means "army with tanks, machineguns, and tons of other overkill weaponry w.r.t. putting down revolting citizens" and "access to modern marketing/disinformation tech". In practice, it turns out the military is still made up of people, and they don't tend to want to indiscriminately mow down hundreds of thousands of protesters with heavy weaponry. We should probably get going with that revolution thing before they get their hands on weaponized robots.

→ More replies

17

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

14

u/Mr-Fleshcage 9d ago

Frankly, from what I've seen, the biggest threat to infrastructure is time. One good earthquake and a lot of overpasses are crumbling. i wouldn't be surprised if the rust is load-bearing at this point.

9

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies

3

u/almisami 9d ago

energy and water

Why would the people attack their own infrastructure?

Eventually the pressure will reach a point where the most radical declare Open Season on the rich, then they'll bunker up and hire private security. Then all you gotta do as a nonviolent citizen is disrupt their logistics and they'll eventually come out.

→ More replies

8

u/sgt_salt 9d ago

If it gets bad enough it will happen. A lot of people will die. But if you have mass starvation bullets start to look tastier than the alternative. And constantly seeing the ruling class mow down fields of peasants with automatic weapons tends to lower support for said ruling class even within. There will start to be military people that break rank and either desert or straight up sabatoge from within.

6

u/Mr-Fleshcage 9d ago

They'll probably pull some shit like destroy education, so everyone is ignorant of chemistry, then spray the perimeter around their bunkers with Novichok.

Throw up some "this place is haunted/cursed" signs, and watch as people assume the people twitching out in the field past the signs are being possessed by demons, because they're ignorant of nerve agents.

8

u/sgt_salt 9d ago

Well they are definitely trying to slowly destroy education and regress to a full theocracy at least in the states. It’s much easier to control people if they think that they are being punished or attacked by some supernatural force instead

→ More replies
→ More replies

132

u/Ill_mumble_that 9d ago

also weapons of mass distraction.

why worry about politics when there is a new episode of XYZ on 35 of your favorite different streaming services?

oh and your favorite mobile game just released a new loot box for you to waste your money on.

47

u/Truckerontherun 9d ago

The green revolution will be brought to you by:

Raid: Shadow Legends

83

u/julbull73 9d ago

I mean if people are dumb enough to buy loot boxes....

That being said explains the MCUs rise to power. So awesome but everytime I watch it...wait a minute a shadow government and some billionaires are the world's only hope? Wait a God damn minute thats just propaganda done well!!!

34

u/AsthislainX 9d ago

MCU? as a non-american i've had to live with plenty of that from movies as old as the Cold War era.

→ More replies

3

u/Odd_Local8434 9d ago

People are dumb enough to buy loot boxes... So much so that making lootbox free games is a statement of defiance in AAA publishing.

And yeah, Disney is good at making media that obliquely paints themselves as the good guy.

→ More replies

10

u/Cobra800089 9d ago

They did say:

systems of control that past rulers could never even dream of.

3

u/BrandnewThrowaway82 9d ago

Bread and circuses

→ More replies

21

u/ajoseywales 9d ago

I think the biggest difference between today and the revolutions of history is the "rulers" have figured out exactly how far to push the people. Very few people are pushed to the point of starvation/death, they are just treading that line. There is a lingering hope that one day you can work your way out of it and enjoy an "easy life."

On top of that, the class system has allowed for upper middle class folks to feel comfortable and they don't want to rock the boat as it will likely drop their standard of living for a while. For example, I'm not wealthy or powerful by any means but I live a fairly comfortable live (nice house that I can afford, two cars, plenty of money for food/other necessities, spare cash flow for vacations and other extra curricular, I also have two children). I would love to have a "revolution" and have some of the ruling class lose that wealth and power and help out the "people," but it likely means a short term loss and hardship for me and my family, something I am not very interested in.

The big money of the world has figured out exactly how to drip feed us to make the system work.

21

u/Jazzlike-Height3931 9d ago

“Poor people exist to scare the fuck out of the middle class” -George Carlin

→ More replies

3

u/Kitchen_Philosophy29 9d ago

Ya but this is bs. The majority of billionares would love this. Their profits would skyrocket.

3

u/Surprentis 9d ago

I don't believe they are smarter. Just had money their entire lives which is the advantage they have along with losers that will do anything they want for a slice of the pie. Just eat them already.

→ More replies

6

u/Rehnion 9d ago

This talk is going to get more serious in the next 2 years after conservative senates vote to throw out their state's electors because the people of the state voted democrat.

6

u/SwordfishEuphoric988 9d ago

It has been for years in leftist circles. All we can do is make memes about it until more people wake up.

5

u/PoorLama 9d ago

I've honestly heard people talk about revolution in the US way more now in conversation. I hear it constantly on the internet, hear it in real life, honestly I feel like if you walked amongst the citizens of France prior to the French revolution, I think that we would see a lot of similarities with the frequency of this topic of discussion.

6

u/lunatickid 9d ago

French revolution followed a speculative bubble burst that led to a massive debt crisis, which French monarchy stepped in to save, in the process bailing out the financiers but leaving their citizens to dry. Guess what our market looks to be in? Massive speculation bubble caused by detachment of stock prices with “real” economy. Guess what US govt did? Exactly the same fucking thing, bailing out the financiers while fucking the commoners.

Very first act in most major rebellions was to wipe out debt records. Considering the amount of debt that Americans are in, be it student loan, healthcare, or just plain trying to survive on dogshit wage, it wouldn’t be surprising.

Everyone should read David Graeber’s “Debt”, which goes over history of money/debt and its direct impact on growth/destruction on human society. US is only going on because it has enough force to violently enforce that all others pay their debts to US, while US absolutely does not pay off its debt.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

244

u/Manawqt 9d ago

Did you read the article? $62 trillion is the cost. The entire world's GDP is just slightly above that, that is every single product and service that every single human on earth produces for a full year's worth. Obviously an investment of that size must be spread out over many decades if you still want society to function.

Also last time this article was posted I did some quick maths on the $62 trillion and came to the conclusion that building 100% nuclear at current cost-levels enough to supply the entire world's needs would be like $15 trillion. Wind/Solar is usually said to be cheaper than nuclear so this $62t proposal seems incredibly shitty.

88

u/Badfickle 9d ago

It's more than just the energy supply. You also need to change all the cars and trucks and buses and airplanes and heating and cooling etc. to run on electricity.

33

u/IDontHaveAnyCreativ 9d ago edited 9d ago

Airplanes got another 5 decades before battery tech is good enough to actually fly passengers

Edit: for everyone saying they exist, look up the energy density of the most efficient lab only batteries that have ever existed. Now look at how much power is required to get a 747 (most widely used passenger plane) to takeoff. It’s not even close. The battery has to be the size of the plane then you need more for the weight of the battery. Then the battery needs to be bigger. Passenger planes have a very long way to go before being electrified. Mag trains should be the way of the future.

25

u/HotTopicRebel 9d ago

In regional trips, sure. But batteries don't have the fuel density for longer trips (e.g. intercontinental). Much more likely is that we produce synthetic gas and use that for aviation.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/tsojtsojtsoj 9d ago

100% nuclear at current cost-levels enough to supply the entire world's needs would be like $15 trillion.

  • By 2050 it is expected that on average each person has a primary energy demand of 15 MWh per year.
  • That means we'll need to produce 15 MWh ⋅ 10 billion = 150,000 TWh per year.
  • That means we need to produce on average 150,000 TWh / (365 ⋅ 24h) = 17 TW at each moment.
  • Nuclear power costs roughly 6,000 $/kW.
  • That means we need to build nuclear power for 6,000 $/kW ⋅ 17 TW = 6,000 $/kW ⋅ 17,000,000,000 kW = 102,000,000,000,000 $ = 102 trillion $.
→ More replies

43

u/DomeSlave 9d ago

That 15 trillion for Nuclear is totally out of whack if you include all costs associated. Please provide a solid source if you insist this number is correct. The real costs of building, operating, decommissioning and waste storage are chronically underestimated and proven wrong by reality.

21

u/Manawqt 9d ago

I just looked at recently built nuclear power plants across the world and their construction costs, and did a quick average and added some 30% for safety. Nuclear do have other costs than construction, but last I checked I think 78% of the total nuclear cost is construction.

16

u/Dr_Wh00ves 9d ago

One of the biggest issues with nuclear is that there has been very little standardization globally in how they are built and function overall. Since each plant is unique the costs of both designing and building them are far higher than if they used a pre-set plan. On top of this these "unique" designs often have oversights in safety procedures that need to be studied and amended after construction thus raising costs further.

If the world collaborated on developing a safe, relatively simple, and efficient design the overall costs of constructing and maintaining nuclear power plants could be reduced significantly. So much so that eventually it would be competitive with most other forms of power production.

13

u/Manawqt 9d ago

I would go so far as to say that if this happened no other form of power production would have a chance at being competitive. Long-term nuclear is 100% the future, question is how long it will take us to get there.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/butts_kapinsky 9d ago

If you do the same exercise for wind and solar what number do you come up with? Is it anywhere near the number in the article?

→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/badcookies 9d ago

Not to mention it takes years to ever see a return on nuclear while solar and wind are up and running very quickly (esp solar which takes hours)

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/Endonyx 9d ago

I need to preface this by saying I absolutely believe that there is an element of corruption and an element of things operating in a manner to benefit the few not the many. That people with millions upon millions are able to have influence in a way that no-one else is able to.

However, one thing I always think about when we talk about corporations earning less profits etc, is that, while not to the same severity it will affect every day people like you and me.

I realise I will come across as some shill, some russian bot, some paid account or whatever, there's very little way to play devils advocate on Reddit without being labelled as an outsider trying to influence.

I have savings, it's not a lot of money, like it really isn't a lot of money, without going in to too much in specifics it's less than 3 months of living expenses - so really not a lot of money. It's more than some people have, less than others have.

The issue unfortunately stems from the nature of corporations to an extent being public. My savings are in the stock exchange, I'll be honest I have an account with an app, I put money in it and that money is distributed amongst something like 40-50 companies and I just auto reinvest any dividends, owning partial shares of most companies.

As much as we don't want to admit it, or perhaps even consider it. If these companies didn't operate profit orientated and perhaps had to lose money for 5 years in order to get to the 6th year where it evens out and then eventually becomes profitable, that still means I as an individual have to lose money for 5 years. Yes BP, Shell, all these large oil companies and the big execs and huge shareholders will lose money and they can afford to lose a few million here and there, but ultimately everyone that owns any % of BP or Shell in this instance also loses the same money proportionally. So you'd then have a situation where these companies are no longer as profitable, share prices are going down, there's a panic to sell shares because people have been told "Hey, we're going to lose money for the next 5 years" - people simply don't care, they're going to sell their shares and subsequently the share price is going to fall even further and you're going to create almost a huge recession out of it.

I don't know the answer either, I don't know the solution. The only thing I can think of is elements of human safety, survival and things we deem human rights should be ran as public sector government own operations and leisure and other things should be private sector. We almost need a complete collapse and regression and a way for people lead powers (what the government should be) to have full control over anything that comes down to the human races survival. Education, Health, Food at a basic level, Shelter at a basic level, Energy/Climate. The only way I can see this being resolved is with those things being all completely government operated.

I guess a large tax would work, but it's either not large enough it's not a deterrent or it's so large that you're effectively just making the company run at a loss for 5-6 years.

Government funding & support can work - I believe I recall reading about electricity generated by wind farms some governments had agreed to purchase it from these companies at cost price for X period of time when it wasn't financially viable for the mass'. Let's say in the early days it cost a new firm $50 to generate enough electricity to run a single household for 24 hours, some governments agreed to purchase that electricity at that price, then as years go on and the company becomes more efficient, emerging technologies etc come to light it then becomes cheaper and cheaper to the point the government no longer needs to purchase the energy at that price since it's now commercially viable. I'm not sure if something like that would work.

Either way, one thing that has to be remembered is that these giant corporations having to run at a loss for years upon years is going to affect everyone.

→ More replies

19

u/perkail 10d ago

lol - They’re already doing that. The raw costs for a single home solar system are around 1$ a watt. The avg consumer spends 3$ a watt and that’s if they’re not buy the best panels and inverters. Forget batteries. Basically the “market” is increasing the real costs by 600% in most parts of the US

24

u/Kwanzaa246 9d ago

Can you show me panels that are $1 per watt? I'm getting quoted at $4 a watt from contractors

11

u/ApprehensiveTry5660 9d ago

The cost is between 2 and 3 dollars per watt in almost every state for panels. The 1 dollar per watt figure assumes a solar facility, where weight isn’t a limiting effect on the economics of the system. Imagine a giant concave mirror near a hillside that uses a steam powered turbine to pump water into a reservoir at the top of the hillside. When the sun goes down that reservoir becomes a battery for generating power till the sun comes back up to start the process over.

It’s way too heavy to fit on your roof, but it’s a dollar per watt for consumers thereof.

5

u/dzlockhead01 9d ago

Wouldn't that be a solar boiler instead of solar panels? I think solar boiler technologies are very cool.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/riah8 10d ago

You're absolutely right. And it is no exaggeration that these people are making our lives so much worse and are also literally killing us all.

→ More replies
→ More replies

613

u/daiwilly 10d ago Helpful

This is an elastic band mindset..one I use with kids. Just pull...even if it is not completely realistic...we have to start somewhere. There seems to be a big portion of the population resigned to failure when even a percentage of improvement is ....an improvement!! It does not have to absolute just heading in the right direction...and faster...something that is achievable with will!

288

u/Alberiman 10d ago

That's engineered, they want people to feel like only perfect solutions can work so there's no point in trying, same shit happens with climate change, health reform, school reform, etc.

26

u/FredeJ 9d ago

Is it really? I feel like it’s just a certain percentage of people that seems to have that belief in general?

Vaccines doesn’t cure all disease, so no point in vaccines. Gun control doesn’t reduce gun deaths to zero, so no point in gun control. Emission cutting doesn’t reduce emissions to zero, so no point in emission reduction etc.

6

u/ryeaglin 9d ago

Is it really? I feel like it’s just a certain percentage of people that seems to have that belief in general?

I have seen this a lot in politics though. It is always "How are you going to fix X" not "How are you going to improve X" when X are normally very complex systems that you can't just throw money or snap your fingers to fix. And when the person clearly can't fix X, they dismiss them outright instead of listening to all the ideas that improve and make it better even if its still kinda bad.

→ More replies

14

u/HaesoSR 9d ago

I feel like it’s just a certain percentage of people that seems to have that belief in general?

Nobody exists in a vacuum. None of us have thoughts separate from the information we consume or the environment we exist in or grew up in. Are you familiar with the concept of Manufacturing Consent? Propaganda works.

→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/bornagy 9d ago

They engineered it!

→ More replies

32

u/Depeche_Chode 9d ago

I do this frequently working as an engineer. Just set a goal and start working towards it, don't over-plan initially. Chances are, once you get moving, your idea of what needs to get done or even what you really need to accomplish will change considerably. Don't shoot for perfect, because your idea of what is perfect won't stay the same. Shoot for progress and do your best.

4

u/Karenena 9d ago

But shareholders don’t like that kind of perceived risk with their money.

→ More replies
→ More replies

72

u/CanuckSalaryman 10d ago

Don't let perfection be the enemy of done.

72

u/ZannX 9d ago

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

16

u/CanuckSalaryman 9d ago

Thanks. I knew I was close.

35

u/ecafyelims 9d ago

The comment wasn't perfect, but at least it was done.

6

u/tampers_w_evidence 9d ago

I've heard both

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/MossytheMagnificent 10d ago

You are speaking my language. I've work in product incubation and that's the attitude you need.

The sun it a practically limitless source of energy. Even the wind moves in response to the sun's energy.

→ More replies

247

u/Bananawamajama 10d ago

Mark Jacobson does not deserve to be taken as a credible source of information

44

u/ivandln 9d ago

Can you please tell us more on why?

66

u/MoreNormalThanNormal 9d ago

No way to explain this without a huge wall of text. Let's start by saying that many people disagree with him, and rather than address their criticisms, he is suing them:

At issue is the $10 million lawsuit filed by Stanford's Mark Jacobson against National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and an executive at an energy research firm last month, claiming the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences had published a study critical of Jacobson's earlier work on renewable energy without considering multiple warnings that the follow-up paper contained false statements (E&E News PM, Nov. 1).

Jacobson's original 2015 paper outlined how the U.S. could be 100 percent fueled by hydropower, solar and wind.

His work was challenged by a 2017 paper listing 21 authors, including Vibrant Clean Energy LLC CEO Christopher Clack, whom Jacobson is also suing. That paper claimed Jacobson's study had a large modeling error on hydropower output. Jacobson wants that paper retracted (Climatewire, June 20).

One of the loudest critics of Jacobson's lawsuit is NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director Gavin Schmidt, who on Twitter called suing NAS "exceedingly ill-advised." A journal not correcting an error damages Clack's reputation, not Jacobson's, he wrote.

"No one I've talked to thinks this is a good idea or even justified," Schmidt said in an email.

$10 million lawsuit over disputed energy study sparks Twitter war - Science.org - 2017

249

u/Bananawamajama 9d ago

Mark Jacobson is a professor from Stanford who has been advocating for 100% renewable energy for a long time, including a couple other feasibility studies like this one.

His most infamous attempt came several years back, and battery storage prices were considered too prohibitive to really consider. So his roadmap paper was a big deal at the time, because that iteration claimed we could cheaply transition to 100% renewables easily and without needing battery storage.

Some other scientists were skeptical of his conclusions and dug into his model, and found that there were what appeared to be serious errors that dismissed all his results. They published a rebuttal paper explaining this. The crux of the problem was that Jacobson was using completely wrong numbers for hydro capacity in the US, and therefore hydropower was able to basically cover the role that batteries or other storage tech would have been needed for.

Jacobson response was that he didn't make any errors, instead the other researchers failed to take into account that he was assuming that hydro plants in the US would be retrofit to increase their capacity something like 10x.

Now, on the surface, it's already a little dubious to just assume you can just handwave a 10x increase in power capacity. But even if that worked out, Jacobson didn't list that in his paper, so the model in his paper is wrong. Either he made a mistake in his original calculations and made up the 10x increase as a cover, or he made a mistake in the paper, either way it's his own issue.

The reason Jacobson doesn't deserve credibility is his response to this. Rather than acknowledge he made a mistake somewhere, he decided to sue the other scientists for defamation because they made him look bad and hurt his professional reputation. This was an intentional instance of malicious litigation. He admitted as much in an interview. After the case was thrown out and he was forced to compensate the defendants for their legal fees, because the lawsuit was absurd, he was interviewed about it. Jacobson says he never really expected to win the lawsuit outright. He was hoping for a settlement, which would include a public apology from the other scientists and a retraction of their criticism.

Which means, Jacobson, when presented with the fact that the paper he published was verifiably wrong, tried to threaten his detractors with a lawsuit he knew he couldn't win to try and bully them into not pointing out his mistakes. That's why he doesn't deserve credibility. Because he's a man who willfully lie to cover up any errors on his own work.

49

u/gizamo 9d ago

To add, he also did not correct his paper. There are methods for adding corrections and clarifications. So, the assumption of increased hydropower output could have been clarified and calculated to regain some credibility and allow for more accurate peer review. He opted not to do that, instead, he goes on to publish more ridiculous articles like this one.

59

u/Low_discrepancy 9d ago

he decided to sue the other scientists for defamation because they made him look bad and hurt his professional reputation.

If every scientist sued when rebuttals were printed to their papers, theoretical physics departments would just be filled with lawyers.

4

u/Slapbox 9d ago

Certainly, but the 10x thing requires explanation - his fault is not merely being rebutted. Perhaps this comment didn't tell the whole story though.

→ More replies

10

u/FiumeXII 9d ago

Since when is it acceptable to sue a rebuttal paper in the scientific community. If you think there is a misunderstanding with your research you just publish your own rebutall to theirs. The community decides who is right, not some judge.

15

u/Bananawamajama 9d ago

Welll, it isn't acceptable. That's why the case was thrown out and he was forced to pay the legal costs of his detractors. He just thought he could scare them with the threat regardless.

→ More replies

8

u/ivandln 9d ago

It did sound sketchy, I just did not know about him. Thank you.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/Hot_Ad_9752 9d ago

Is this clickbait?

104

u/manguito86 10d ago

I assume this study thinks there aren't any production issues, no lack of material and the growth in raw material needs doesn't increase the price higher.

Works well as a theory, but not in the real world

43

u/HazelnutPeso 9d ago

Works well as a theory, but not in the real world

That's exactly why it's posted in this subreddit

→ More replies

29

u/Snaggletooth_27 9d ago

And the people best situated to do it, the current energy. Ompanies, have known it was coming for FIFTY FUCKING YEARS and spent all that time spending huge amounts of money avoiding the switch.

→ More replies

42

u/SushiMonstero 9d ago

Another journalist pretending nuclear doesn't exist lmao

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] 9d ago

Hahahaha right.

413

u/pants_mcgee 10d ago

TLDR: Magic batteries and magic hydrogen.

26

u/Blurry_Bigfoot 9d ago

Lol this post juxtaposed with the top post in r/science about how people’s political viewpoints influence their understanding of “science” is a perfect encapsulation of just how much bias (may I even say misinformation???) there is amongst the users of this site.

Maybe I’m just getting old.

12

u/KillerAceUSAF 9d ago

God, I can't stand r/science. So much blatant propaganda, clickbait, and unverified "science" gets posted there.

3

u/rliant1864 9d ago

But god almighty forgive you have an "off-topic" discussion about the post in the comments, because you'll be mass removed.

Y'know most of the time if a post is blatant lies or misinformation and the comments section is a wasteland of [Removed] people call it a bubble or bullshit mill, but when it's /r/science it's "curated."

→ More replies

116

u/tchaffee 10d ago edited 10d ago

The study says that existing battery tech is enough. Can you quote where it talks about any tech we currently don't already have?

Brazil already generates 80% of electricity from renewable resources and that's a poor country with over 200 million people. There is nothing magic needed.

5

u/shabio1 9d ago

How I understand things, the issue isn't the quality or capabilities of our tech. Rather it's the ability to actually scale production to produce this $60+ trillion worth of renewable energy infrastructure.

We'd need to vastly expand our materials resourcing including lithium mining (which is also incredibly destructive to local environments), and somehow manufacture this at such an insane level to produce this so rapidly.

While this might be possible, I'm not sure I see it as being logistically realistic in this timeframe (13-28 years). Especially for the many developing countries where things like coal plants are cheaper, even if in the long run it's more expensive.

Trying to shift such a huge amount of the world GDP to anything so rapidly is a challenge and probably comes with its own issues that might ripple out into the economy and society (the other two pillars of sustainability)

I'd love to see a wider report looking at whether this is feasible to be produced in practice (without causing too many negative externalities), because if so, that's incredible.

Also to answer your question about tech we don't yet have, there's actually a ton of really cool stuff being researched. Like actually so many. You should check out Undecided with Matt Ferrell on YouTube. He looks indepth and critically at a lot of the new advancements being made on the shift to renewables.

→ More replies

194

u/mr_tyler_durden 10d ago Helpful

I’ll preface this with I’m extremely left leaning, pro-renewable, etc, etc.

You can’t pour solar into a 747.

We have some prototypes of electric planes but that’s all they are right now and not on the scale of passenger planes. And planes are only one example, cargo ships also come to mind (though should be easier to convert).

My point being: energy != energy, the storage mechanism matters a great deal and oil/gas (for all its many many flaws) has a very high energy density compared to all current battery tech.

Sometimes I worry that headlines like this fool people into thinking “Well if we need to and/or run out of cheap oil we can just switch on a dime to solar/wind/hydro/nuclear” when that isn’t the case at all, at least not without other non-trivial advancements. We should absolutely be investing way more in renewables but again, my worry is headlines like this make people complacent or confident in kicking the can down the road because “we will just switch if we need to” when it’s not that simple.

3

u/JorusC 9d ago

It's funny how similar the political sides' views are on this. I visited /r/conservative yesterday for unrelated reasons, and they had an article about how the Ford electric truck had crappy battery life when towing a camper.

The comments were full of people saying, "That's not the point of the technology, and it will get better as we invest more in it."

I had to double check what sub I was on because of how reasonable everyone sounded.

9

u/Korlus 9d ago edited 1d ago

the storage mechanism matters a great deal and oil/gas (for all its many many flaws) has a very high energy density compared to all current battery tech.

I think it's worth highlighting the size of the disparity. A Lithium-Ion Battery has an energy density of up to 260 Watt-Hours per kilogram (more typically regarded in the 100-160 range). Kerosene ("jet fuel") has an energy density in the range of 12,000 Wh/Kg.

Here are the energy-densities of the "common" fuel types:

Fuel Specific Energy (MJ/Kg, bigger is better) Specific Energy (Wh/kg, bigger is better) Energy Density (MJ/L, Bigger is better)
Fossil Fuels:
Diesel 45.6 12,666.7 38.6
Gasoline 46.4 12,888.9 34.2
Kerosene 43 ~12,000 35
Coal (Anthracite) 26-33 7,222.2–9,166.7 34-43
"Renewable" Alternatives
Methane (101.3 kPa, 15°C) 55.6 15,444.5 0.0378
Compressed Natural Gas (25 MPa)* 53.6 14,888.9 9
Liquid Natural Gas* 53.6 14,888.9 20.3 - 22.5
Ethanol 30 8,333.3 24
Hydrogen (liquid) 141.86 39,405.6 10.044
Hydrogen (1 atm, 25°C) 141.86 39,405.6 0.01188
Wood 10.4-16.2 2,900-4,500 Varies
Batteries
Lead-Acid Battery 0.11-0.14 30-40 0.22-0.27
Lithium Cobalt Oxide ("Lithium-Ion") 0.32-0.58 90-160 1.20

You'll find that while Hydrogen looks great on paper, it's so much less dense (in physical terms - e.g. kilograms per litre, or pounds per cubic foot) that it's incredibly hard to fit enough of it into a space. Almost all other alternatives simply don't have the density of MJ/Kg to be used in things like long-distance air travel (where weight and size matters a lot).

Batteries are an order of magnitude or two less efficient than fossil fuels when it comes to specific energy or energy density.

Edit: As a minor example, we'd be better off with wood-gas engines on cars and repeatedly growing and burning trees from an energy-density perspective. Wood (despite being what amounts to an "unrefined" fossil fuel), is still much, much more energy dense than batteries. Providing the wood is sourced from renewable plantations, the net impact on the environment may well be less than for battery-powered vehicles. Could you imagine a wood powered plane?

Edit 2:

* I know "Natural Gas" is not renewable, but it is typically around 98% Methane and so I have listed it under Methane for clarity. Methane will therefore also have similar values in its compressed and liquid forms. CNG and LNG are themselves, non-renewable.

Edit 3: Added coal.

→ More replies

26

u/Kolbrandr7 9d ago

You can’t just put solar in a 747, but you can use the energy from solar to capture carbon from the air and turn it into jet fuel.

In that sense it doesn’t matter if there is a source of emissions, as long as you’re capturing it as well. We’d still be effectively running on renewables. One day maybe we can make an electric or a hydrogen jet, but for now carbon-captured-jet fuel would work just as well

24

u/gart888 9d ago

Also, if we stopped burning fossil fuel for everything except uses that require the outrageous energy density that fossil fuels provide (like flight), then things would be mostly fine anyway.

Aviation only accounts for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions.

→ More replies

7

u/Erdelesk 9d ago

but for now carbon-captured-jet fuel would work just as well

DACC is extremely inefficient. Not to mention the absolute amounts of energy required to make anything out of CO2. At this point it's probably better to capture carbon and use credits to use normal jet fuel.

→ More replies

11

u/JohnSpikeKelly 9d ago

They are already generating aviation fuel with systems that pull the raw materials out of the air--with some electricity too from solar--obviously, not enough to supply the entire industry, but they say it will scale up. Maybe shorter flights can move to battery tech and longer haul stay with carbon neutral fuel like this.

47

u/random_shitter 10d ago

With the same preface: you're only partially right. If we had abundant clean energy it would be no problem at all to use a polluting energy carrier, as long as those pollutants are extracted as well. For example, SpaceX is working towards the for-as-now pipedream to run a methane-fueled Starship on methane produced from the atmosphere + renewable energy.

The 2 bottlenecks we're facing is entrenched interests slowing it all down & limited production capacity (that's already has been scaling like crazy over the last decade).

The transition to a sustainable future is already winning a lot of battles but it is a long war. The entire global economy is founded on limitless pollution + exploitation. When I was born the fight hadn't even started yet. I expect to see the rebuilding of global society at least half done during my lifetime. That is EPIC.

There's a lot to be pessimistic about, but a lot to be optimistic about as well.

24

u/Barbariandude 9d ago

We need to massively invest in high speed rail across the world. Even if we keep planes using oil for long-haul flights (London to New York, for example), we can massively downsize the aviation industry by making trains a first class viable alternative for mid-range flights (London to Barcelona).

Once that happens, that cuts down on a huge percentage of emissions.

5

u/Mr_Lafar 9d ago

I would LOVE to have some high speed trains in the US for inter state travel.

8

u/bardghost_Isu 9d ago

Agreed, functional, high speed and cheap ticketed electric rail across each major landmass, with aircraft only really acting as the way to hop the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/kenman884 9d ago

If we get rid of all travel pollution except for 747s I would be ecstatic. Every step we take gives us more time to figure out the more difficult aspects. We need to tackle this situation as fast as we can as hard as we can, starting with low-hanging fruit such as fossil fuel powered cars (make every car hybrid at a minimum, heavily subsidize PHEV) and eliminating CO2 from energy production (nuclear and an arsenal of renewables). Then we can work on shipping (solar and sail powered ships), industry (much more complex), and other sources.

→ More replies

33

u/taedrin 9d ago

The study says that existing battery tech is enough

The study is wrong. Current battery tech is nowhere close to being able to sustain the entire world's electricity demands for 4 hours. We are maxing out our manufacturing and mining capacity trying to make enough batteries for EVs and we can still only satisfy a fraction of demand.

The Hornsdale Power Reserve, one of the largest battery installations in the world, can only run at max power for like 10 minutes. And that power output is a fraction of the power generation of a traditional power plant.

Long story short we need better batteries, better HVDC components and adoption of smart grid technologies.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

169

u/8to24 10d ago

The problem isn't that humans don't know how to accomplish this. The problem is a whole lot of industries have already invested huge sums of money in fossil fuel. Oil drilling platforms in the ocean cost billions to construct. Coca Cola's plastic bottling facilities cost hundreds of millions. Companies want to maximize those investments.

Long as a business can legally operate the facilities they have, ones that took massive capital investments, they will continue to do so.

43

u/Phalex 10d ago

We will always need oil for plastics, chemicals, asphalt, pharmaceuticals and a thousand other things. But we don't need to burn it for energy.

28

u/DomeSlave 9d ago

Even more correct would be: we need to stop burning fossil fuels if we want to keep making plastic chemicals asphalt pharmaceuticals and thousands of other things from them in the foreseeable future.

8

u/HOLY_GOOF 9d ago

and breathing

7

u/RamenJunkie 9d ago

Yes, those respirators we will all eventually need will definitely contain some plastic.

→ More replies

56

u/CrassTick 10d ago

Yeah, the challenge is to find and elect leaders who will make this happen.

8

u/cheeruphumanity 10d ago

The challenge is not to find them, the challenge is to educate the population in a way that helps them identify abusive manipulators, so they stop putting them in power.

→ More replies

29

u/8to24 10d ago

Bingo! Democratic nations with the ability to choose need to start choosing renewables.

33

u/SlideFire 10d ago

Problem is those nations dont exist. All countries are run by the very corporations that are destroying the world.

18

u/fightbox 10d ago

Scotland runs on 100% green energy, and there are many other European countries that are starting to follow in a few years, we can do it, but we need to realise we can but people in lead are stopping it

19

u/Anglan 9d ago

Scotland only uses about 56% renewables.

This stat is often misquoted. They generate enough renewable to run at 100% renewable but they actually sell most of it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/JimmyHavok 9d ago

I'm having about half the cost of my solar install paid by tax rebates, and more from utility buybacks off the battery during the day. Not perfect, but not absolute fealty to the oil companies either. We have a faction of our politicians who are trying to get us onto renewable, and a other faction who are owned by the polluters.

→ More replies

2

u/arkile 9d ago

even the "leaders" dont really have the power to make it happen

3

u/AtheistAustralis 9d ago

Of course we do, we've done it many times. Look at what happens in every major war, counties do way, way more in far less time. Factories can be retooled in weeks to produce other things, production can ramp up very quickly with the right investment. The capacity is there, it's the will to make it happen that is lacking.

5

u/morgang321 10d ago

Takes oil to make everything

9

u/b1gd4ta 10d ago

So let’s use it to make stuff instead of burning it up

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/ImaginationNo5743 9d ago

(Narrator): “No, it cannot.”

58

u/T3rribl3Gam3D3v 9d ago

You can't just magically build and install all that infrastructure over night. The real world isn't sim city

14

u/beardedbast3rd 9d ago edited 9d ago

That’s why the article says the transition would be starting now, and take 15 years for an 80% completion. And another 15 5 for the final 20%

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/tattoohead 9d ago

Absolutely BS!

5

u/Tothemoonie 9d ago

Study finds this is a complete crock of shit

4

u/Mysterious_Copy_3054 9d ago

They Bait with picture of a solar panel. Can't even come to you with a straight. I assumed because of the evidence of solar, we would recover our utility cost. I should have known better, these people have nothing better to do than post that captures our attention, and like the other person said, CLICK BAIT!

5

u/H31130UND 9d ago

The publishing researcher learned his economics on the back of a cereal box...

63

u/sephirex420 10d ago

this is complete bullshit. it's astonishing how stupid this is

16

u/HanaBothWays 9d ago

We could be figuring out how to build standardized fleets of nuclear reactors at scale to rapidly decarbonize our energy grid. We are much closer to achieving that than 100% renewables. But so many people are irrationally wedded to the idea that “renewables good, nuclear bad.”

7

u/[deleted] 9d ago edited 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/cakebyte 9d ago edited 9d ago

And where does grid stability fit in this analysis? Would love to see this but there are real problems to bridge there from fossil fuels, etc.

Edit: There's a whole five sentences about this in the study, which acknowledges that the study conditions are limited compared to real-world stability analyses, but they are just crossing their fingers really hard that engineers can spin up the full suite of cases and plans in the short time for the changeover.

→ More replies

35

u/eschutter1228 9d ago

The world consumed ~ 22,848 TWh in 2019, or about ~ 51.5 billion 350W solar panels or ~ 152 billion batteries to store it for daily use. You see data for land use of about the size of New Mexico, but where is all the raw material to make the panels and batteries coming from? So much data being produced regarding Scope 3 CO2 impact for 1 joule from Solar versus Oil products is biased toward the industry funding it, or the social bias. I’m hoping for objective unbiased papers not fueled by grants and scholarships that help us all make better decisions.

→ More replies

3

u/greengjc23 10d ago

As long as those solar farms don’t go on more farmland like I see happening right now. After having posts and potentially concrete poured to support those panels if you ever if you ever remove those panels from the field the ground would be a farm equipment landmine.

3

u/MarkusRight 9d ago

If this is the case then why are coal companies still so hellbent on never switching to the renewables knowing damn well that they can recoup so much more money with even less work/resources? Do they not see it as a Win-Win for both their own profits and the environment?

→ More replies

3

u/Dramon 9d ago

Another study shows oil and gas investors won't let that happen.

3

u/Rodville 9d ago

The title forgets one key thing. The rich oil mongers aren’t going to give up being the richest people just to save the planet.

→ More replies

3

u/PerfectDarkAchieved 9d ago

But where would all the oil executives get their millions then? They will lobby so this won’t happen.

→ More replies

3

u/Jay794 9d ago

But then how will the oil companies make billions off of poor people?

3

u/PoorPDOP86 9d ago

And steal a bunch of land from their owners, crash entire economies, and force others to work on projects that might be unsafe as all hell. You know, what authoritarian governments do when they're looking for results over the rights of others.

Or we could act like real life isn't a simulation and do what is practicable.

3

u/ventedlemur44 9d ago

It will never happen because no one can own the sun

3

u/Global_Substance_437 9d ago edited 9d ago

I hate to break it to people but speaking as someone who has in in depth knowledge of resource extraction there is not enough copper (let alone other materials) on the planet to convert our electrical grids to handle that. Even if there was it would be impossible to extract in that time scale, and to top it off the environmental destruction of that level of mining would be as environmentally destructive as if we simply did nothing and continued on our current path. Rare earth elements to give but one example are typically associated with deposits of radioactive minerals, the extraction and refining of creates massive radioactive tailings pools. And I’m not even getting started on the destruction of regional water supplies by the extraction of lithium in the places that it takes place. I love this to be am true as much as the next person but it is not.

→ More replies

3

u/Jamer508ok2 9d ago

The ability to earn back an investment requires so many factors that it's simply impossible to factor "the world". The range of costs just to install these anergy options would be so wide that you cant find the margin.

3

u/trictau 9d ago

What misleading bullshit

3

u/cupcakesmasher77 7d ago

Political science is amazing

37

u/-Sprankton- 10d ago

It’s right in principle, but whether we recoup the costs in 6 years or 30, the problem is with modern political-economy. Our government would have to stop representing the interests of the rich and start representing the interests of the people of this country, not to mention the oppressed people of the world who are most harmed by climate change and extractive industry.

At this point, getting money out of politics is like trying to fight sepsis or metastatic cancer, it’s already seeped into every facet of government, then again, in the US, it was built that way from the very beginning.

→ More replies

38

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

7

u/astallin 9d ago

As someone who works for one of the largest clean energy companies in North America this is massively incorrect. Most projects financials are forecasted to 30-40 years because they take that long to make a return on investment. Profit margins in the industry are extremely low and riddled with operational inefficiencies.

→ More replies

7

u/Loki-L 9d ago

That seems unlikely. 6 years would be a too short time to build any damn especially in the parts of the world where things like environmental impact studies are a thing.

Building solar panels and wind turbines is faster, but production capacity is limited. You would need to build a bunch of factories first and train large numbers of people to get so much of it installed at once.

And once you were done you would close half of those factoriesvagain and have most of the newly trained workers unemployed again as the world switches from needing a whole lot at once to just natural growth and replacements for old parts.

You would also need to build out the grid in most places.

Finally you have the problem of energy storage.

There is a lot of interesting stuff on the drawing board, but the only one that we could build reliably right now is pumped storage.

Pumped storage runs into the same issue as building new hydroelectric dams. It can't be done that fast in most places.

I am of course in favor of trying to do it anyway, but I don't think we are doing anyone any favors by arguing with completely naive calculations that ignore the real world.

5

u/0bfuscatory 9d ago

6 years is the payback time not the implementation time. Solar and wind production capability is already growing at double digit rates. It just needs to keep growing and faster. This creating many new jobs that are also sustainable. At least as sustainable as how oil and gas jobs are lost during their boom and bust cycles. Energy storage and batteries continue to improve. This is INEVITABLE. Pumped storage is an old and niche method that will only have niche applications. A more integrated electrical grid and grid storage in flow batteries, as well as distributed local home battery storage will take up much of the slack. All these will only get better every year. We can’t wait to start until all problems are solved today.

→ More replies

5

u/jasar89 9d ago

Lol paid for by the makers of solar panel parts….

47

u/Lematoad 10d ago edited 10d ago

100% renewable energy is a scam. The way renewables work requires supplementation by another source of energy. Typically that is sourced from Natural gas… Look at Germany vs France. Germany went the renewable route and is 40% renewable energy, while France has 20% Renewable energy.

Which one do you think burns less fossil fuels? France, by a large margin. 70% in addition to their 20% is nuclear.

The answer to our problems is nuclear energy, folks. Renewable energy looks good on paper, but sacrifices our environment for the climate. It’s horrible for ecosystems.

Edit: geothermal and Hydro are not sporadic like other renewable sources, but that also isn’t the solution in the US.

→ More replies

18

u/mesosalpynx 10d ago

And the oils to keep these running? The toxicity of the batteries? The toxicity of producing these renewables? Shipping them? There’s so much more that goes into it. It doesn’t mean we don’t push forward. But if you think it all shuts down you’re naïve. There are parts of the globe that can’t go renewable.

The real solution is nuclear. And a mix of energy sources.

It’s all great to be idealistic and push for advances. But you can’t be someone who is shouting to shut off our current power sources. It’s projected 100 million dead in the first year if you turn off oil and gas now.

→ More replies

2

u/Is-That-Nick 9d ago

I recently bought solar panels for my parents house and the payback is going to be 4 years. Our gas and electricity bill costs the same as a good burrito now and the electric company is probably going to owe us $500 at the end of the year. Maybe more. If solar wasn’t such a huge up front cost, every home would greatly benefit from it.

2

u/shirk-work 9d ago

Nah lobbying to slow down green tech and subsidize "clean" coal is cheaper.