Renewables surprisingly “on track” to meet net zero by 2050::undefined

  • @eleitl
    link
    English
    121 year ago

    Garbage reports like that do a lot of damage. Fraction of fossil in the primary energy use is nearly constant, and net zero is merely a greenwashing scam.

    • @SCB
      link
      English
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I work with a climate lobbying group and upwards of 95% of all new energy construction in the US is renewables. Right now the focus of the group is lobbying for energy infrastructure and lessening permitting requirements (both of which have at least some bipartisan support). If we get both of these, renewable goals are definitely reachable.

      Carbon tax is still a non-starter with Republicans in general tho, and that’s what would really tip the scales.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        When and how do we get offshore wind that’s worth a crap in the US? It seems so obvious to me that we have huge population centers right next to huge “wind reserves”.

        • @SCB
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          Permitting requirements will help there but unfortunately that solution is tied to state governments as well, which may or may not be good news depending on where you’re talking about.

      • @eleitl
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        The goals of renewable should be quantitative substitution of fossil primary energy within less than 50 years.

        • @SCB
          link
          English
          51 year ago

          I’d like a suit of power armor, if we’re just magicking things into existence.

          • @eleitl
            link
            English
            01 year ago

            Well, we don’t even have 50 years. Net energy of oil liquids is projected to peak as early as 2025. So trying to address that by trying to scale up even more volume only makes the energy cliff steeper.

            • @SCB
              link
              English
              21 year ago

              We have 50 years.

              • @eleitl
                link
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That would be sure nice, but the hard numbers of the physical reality say otherwise.

                If you think we do have 50 years I recommend to reexamine the data. E.g. https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions is pretty comprehensive.

                • @SCB
                  link
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  Ok doomer.

                  • @eleitl
                    link
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    If you want to have an argument, try using arguments. Quantitative ones, like in https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions

                    If you don’t want to have a conversation, continue to use empty assertions and slurs. But count me out of that.

                    Your choice entirely.