It doesn’t make sense to shift all consumption to renewables if there’s no thought for efficient consumption or reducing consumption. There’s a finite amount of renewable energy that can be extracted, if consumption itself isn’t managed we can be right back in the same boat of unmet needs in another century.
What do you think gets exhausted when we generate solar energy?
The very point of renewables is to not consume resources to generate energy, but merely when installing capacities.
And our current problem is not of unmet needs, it is of climate damage done by fossil fuels. Climate-wise, the planet would be better off if humans used 10x more energy in a sustainable way rather than using half as much without changing their energy mix.
Time, materials, and physical space? Ideally all of the last two is reusable/ renewable after the end of lifespan on the piece of infrastructure, but in current supply chain it is not.
I guess by “time” you mean “labor”. This is the first time I see this mentioned as a non-renewable resource.
How is “space” not renewable/reusable? You can destroy solar panels and put something else on its place.
All the materials used are abundant and in enough availability to multiply several times our current capacities, and as you point out, may even become reusable/recyclable at one point if it ever become economically profitable to do so. Or even before if we so desire.
Yes time in the context of labour and also time in terms of meeting targets to replace non-renewables.
Space may not be completely renewable, some is lost or the energy to remediate the space for use could be higher than the energy/utility we could gain from it.
In the context of meeting the targets, I see little way to invest time in a more efficient way than switching to renewables. Changing mentality takes a magnitude more time and effort. I still think it is a worthwhile endeavor, but if we wait for that transition we will have destroyed most of the earth by then.
Space may not be completely renewable, some is lost
??? Square meters are square meters.
or the energy to remediate the space for use could be higher than the energy/utility we could gain from it.
In what scenario do you see the energy to recover a solar power plant’s space being higher than the energy gained from it?
The scenario is the local population’s space requirements constrict the space that renewables can be built in, dense highrise world cast shadows across a solar field, and/or strip mining can create a space that would be awful for certain things.
It’s not like we just do one thing different, some people build out renewables and other people can build out housing and infrastructure in better ways. Do everything you can when you can as soon as you can.
It doesn’t make sense to shift all consumption to renewables if there’s no thought for efficient consumption or reducing consumption. There’s a finite amount of renewable energy that can be extracted, if consumption itself isn’t managed we can be right back in the same boat of unmet needs in another century.
By current trends the world population will stabilise or begin shrinking in the next century or so
What do you think gets exhausted when we generate solar energy?
The very point of renewables is to not consume resources to generate energy, but merely when installing capacities.
And our current problem is not of unmet needs, it is of climate damage done by fossil fuels. Climate-wise, the planet would be better off if humans used 10x more energy in a sustainable way rather than using half as much without changing their energy mix.
Not when solar is generated. Creating and maintaining infrastructure, and using space for infrastructure.
Maybe your current problem isn’t unmet needs, but there are plenty of people who do have that problem.
So, what do you think gets exhausted when we are doing this?
Time, materials, and physical space? Ideally all of the last two is reusable/ renewable after the end of lifespan on the piece of infrastructure, but in current supply chain it is not.
I guess by “time” you mean “labor”. This is the first time I see this mentioned as a non-renewable resource.
How is “space” not renewable/reusable? You can destroy solar panels and put something else on its place.
All the materials used are abundant and in enough availability to multiply several times our current capacities, and as you point out, may even become reusable/recyclable at one point if it ever become economically profitable to do so. Or even before if we so desire.
Yes time in the context of labour and also time in terms of meeting targets to replace non-renewables.
Space may not be completely renewable, some is lost or the energy to remediate the space for use could be higher than the energy/utility we could gain from it.
In the context of meeting the targets, I see little way to invest time in a more efficient way than switching to renewables. Changing mentality takes a magnitude more time and effort. I still think it is a worthwhile endeavor, but if we wait for that transition we will have destroyed most of the earth by then.
??? Square meters are square meters.
In what scenario do you see the energy to recover a solar power plant’s space being higher than the energy gained from it?
The scenario is the local population’s space requirements constrict the space that renewables can be built in, dense highrise world cast shadows across a solar field, and/or strip mining can create a space that would be awful for certain things.
It’s not like we just do one thing different, some people build out renewables and other people can build out housing and infrastructure in better ways. Do everything you can when you can as soon as you can.
Ikr