Because for sequestration you need to use 100% renewable energy, at scale. Which leaves you only with solar photovoltaics. Which does a lot worse than geothermal, in Iceland. And it doesn’t even work in Iceland.
Dude. I’m not discussing any of that. I’m talking purely from the energy output perspective. I don’t care about carbon sequestration, it’s not part of the discussion.
If the amount of fossil power generation goes down and renewable goes up, things are mostly stable.
I never said renewable would magically replace fossil in a year. Just saying there’s a huge emphasis on “production is down X%!” Whereas the renewables % is effectively replacing that loss.
The rest of the article is so much speculation. Companies reducing the amount they have in storage is somehow predictive of a collapse? Fewer rigs? Yea, not like there’s a ton of economic uncertainty or anything.
Listen, there are many reasons a global collapse can happen. This one is just so much damn speculation it hurts.
What does that have to do with renewable energy output?
Because for sequestration you need to use 100% renewable energy, at scale. Which leaves you only with solar photovoltaics. Which does a lot worse than geothermal, in Iceland. And it doesn’t even work in Iceland.
Dude. I’m not discussing any of that. I’m talking purely from the energy output perspective. I don’t care about carbon sequestration, it’s not part of the discussion.
If the amount of fossil power generation goes down and renewable goes up, things are mostly stable.
I’m afraid there is no energy transition https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy
The amount of fossil in primary energy use remains at about 80% and changes so slowly, it doesn’t matter.
Great website.
“No energy transition?”
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2004..latest
Did you notice the “primary energy” part?
I never said renewable would magically replace fossil in a year. Just saying there’s a huge emphasis on “production is down X%!” Whereas the renewables % is effectively replacing that loss.
The rest of the article is so much speculation. Companies reducing the amount they have in storage is somehow predictive of a collapse? Fewer rigs? Yea, not like there’s a ton of economic uncertainty or anything.
Listen, there are many reasons a global collapse can happen. This one is just so much damn speculation it hurts.