How about not letting the state and alarmist NGOs make that decision for me?
- caloric restriction is very often cited as global health improvement
- I personally biked everywhere in the last months and I don't miss my car, my muscle mass has been restored and cardiac health too
- less performant computing also means less addictive behavior, deeper use potentially
No energy is clean. Some sources are dirtier than others, but they all have an enormous footprint.
The only clean energy is the one you don't consume.
Also, there's no reason why frugality should lead to impoverishment, in fact what drives energy consumption the most isn't by far what benefit the user the most: tracking, ads, video as the default medium (because ads!), spam, planned hardware obsolescence, etc.
If that was true the problem of climate change wouldn't exist.
Potential, yes. We just don't have the infrastructure to harness it at the moment, nor will we have it in the close future.
In the meantime we're running on dirty energy. (Source: IEA)
Yes, it's depressing.
> It is not running out.
Unless you have a technological breakthrough to announce, the problem is not so much "clean energy running out" as "clean energy not being there yet, and dirty energy either running out or our time with a bearable climate running out."
Yes, it's depressing.
> Abstinence-only climate education is such a depressing notion.
On board with that. But this is about moderation, not abstinence.
"Wear condoms, drink sensibly, and don't change your phone every year."
Yep, it's depressing.
Except the alternative is more depressing to me. But sure, if we cure aids, vaccinate against hangovers, and perfect fusion...
It would be better if people with broken crystal balls stopped insisting on business as usual on the middle of revolutions.
We are not on the "there's no reason renewables couldn't replace fossil fuels, we just have to invest a little in R&D" anymore. We are at the "yep, we replaced all of those on your left yesterday, today we are doing the next line" stage, and we are going through it fast.
You may like this graph:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...
The rate at which electricity costs are decreasing from solar is pretty damn staggering. So much so that government estimates have been laughably wrong for decades now (they consistently over-estimate future costs and under-estimate utilization), without much sign of change (ex: https://maartensteinbuch.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-growth-...)
Which doesn't in any way change the fact that we're still nowhere close to having a comprehensive solution to climate change, but it does mean that I find the "energy austerity" side misguided at best. In the same way that economic austerity is also usually misguided.
But looking at this:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...
I do not read it as "we replaced all of those on your left yesterday" ; but rather as "we have moslty kept those on your left, but some of the new ones we're building are a not as dirty, and anyway last year was weird."
If you look at the whole "electricy mix vs energy mix", I read it as, yes, sorry, even more of a challenge.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio...
Now, "depressing" is not in anyway "desperate". Of course the grids are improving in rich countries, the mixes are improving in rich countries, the batteries are popping here and there that will make intermittency more manageable in rich countries, etc... And that's a challenge !
But I insist on "in the close future".
There's more than 60% of our electricity, and more than 80% or our energy that we need to transition.
I understand we have 10/20 years to do so, not 50.
Then again, I'm bad at predictions. Maybe we're at the start of an exponential curve - I've spent the last two years missing them.
Do you believe coal plants are going to close "viraly" in the next few years ? (Not only new hydro/wind/solar popping up)
Do you see a wave of gasoline cars getting out of the road ? (Not only new EVs poping up ?)
[Edit]: Regarding the whole "we've replaced those on your left..." https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/coal...
A patient goes to the doctor.
"You drink two bottles of scotch per week, that's too much !"
A month later, the patient comes back.
"I made progress doctor ! Now I drink half a glass of orange juice, and three bottles of scotch."Where do you see that? Coal is falling about as quickly as the fastest rate it ever grew, natural gas is falling (I didn't expect that one 2 years ago). The only fossil fuel growing is oil, very slowly and from a low initial level.
And the growth on renewables continues on an exponential curve. At some point the exponential must stop, but here we are, on the double digits of market share and still exponential. (Click on the "Relative Change" box if you can't see it on the main one.)
Anyway, we have more than 10 years if we start strong and right away. The more we do right now, the more time we have to the hardest problems. And once we have electricity surplus (solar will almost certainly give us that), we can extend it indefinitely.
> Do you believe coal plants are going to close "viraly" in the next few years ?
They have been doing that for the last 3 years.
> Do you see a wave of gasoline cars getting out of the road?
That will take time. I see a wave of diesel trucks getting out of the road, but not cars.
About your edit, yes, if you restrict your time frame and geographical area, your data gets noisier.
We'll have to wait for data about the global trend in 2021- I suspect we'll have a rebound effect after the pandemic.
That still leaves plenty to replace "on your left"... Let's do that, shall we ?
But anyway, yes, let's keep replacing them. The faster the better.