CriticalUnit t1_jedrdnr wrote

> It's always a rude awakening when you look at gross energy consumption though. Renewable share drops a lot when we include transportation, heating etc.

Sure, but you really need to get the electricity generation to a certain level of Low CO2 production before the electrification of other industries. It's a multiplier. Just like electricity generation, the economics of switching these other industries has recently (or currently is) at the tipping point, where it makes financial (or Security) sense to switch.

People will be surprised how fast these other industries transform. Jut like they are today with electricity generation


CriticalUnit t1_j6m5ev1 wrote

> I mean that we cannot replace hydrocarbons

Of course not. they are a non-renewable energy source.

We can stop using them though by phasing in the next generation during our energy transition. Some applications will be easy, others more difficult. Not only can we, but we have to for our own survival. (not to mention in the long run it will be cheaper)


CriticalUnit t1_j5xrqcl wrote

> The more solar panel use, the more fossil fuel use,

Sure, currently most manufacturing and extraction runs on FF. But that Is also changing.

>deploying those less harmful solutions will be as harmful in the long run.

This is blatantly false.

More solar panel use means LESS Fossil fuel use vs not using the solar panels. Each electron produced by solar displaces electrons made from fossil fuels. How are you not understanding this? It's a transition process. It doesn't happen from one day to the next. The transition will take decades.

>I think it's better to get an economic and financial revolution rolling,

Sure, lets see your plan for that. I'm interested how you expect to do that.


CriticalUnit t1_ixq8ly6 wrote


CriticalUnit t1_ivf4kf7 wrote

> China was a larger more relevant example

Yes, they still have blackouts and industry shutdowns due to lack of electricity, green or otherwise.

This dream of shipping hydrogen isn't going to help, because you need 3x the energy to be generated and massive transportation needed to get it where the demand is. (in a situation where there is already not enough TOTAL energy)
You may not think it, but the reality is that it's easier to just build more grid transmission than roll out the rube goldberg hydrogen infrastructure needed.

>There is not an availability issue of green energy in most of the world

Again, this is 100% wrong. There is a massive lack of green energy generation happening. Now there is no lack of green energy POTENTIAL in most of the world, but we are significantly lacking in actual production.

>the transmission is an astronomical barrier.

Transportation of hydrogen is an astronomical barrier too. But you conveniently ignore that.

EDIT: Downvote all you want. It doesn't change the reality.


CriticalUnit t1_ivf2zj5 wrote

> To cite my home country, Scotland,

Where 5 million people live and little to no heavy industry is.

You might have well suggested that the entire world follow the example of Iceland or Costa Rica.

>we do not have an availability issue with green energy

We have an OVERALL energy availability issue. Or have you been asleep this decade? To say we do not have an availability issue with green energy is just pure ignorance about energy in general