And this is the predicament that people seem to either not understand or completely (wilfully?) ignore. As is said, problems have solutions; predicaments have outcomes. I think this [0] is worth a read (among many other similar analyses)
I only skimmed the article but there didn’t seem to be much written about how much of that non-electric fossil fuel is waste heat. I know there are versions of the energy source-sink graph which shows wasted energy. Why didn’t the author use it? Weird.
There are studies on how much energy is required to decarbonise everything, not just local electricity production. The energy required is far less than what you’d think if you look at the primary energy of all the energy we use today.
One aspect of this is what you see with the transition to EV or from gas to induction cook tops. It comes with a huge reduction in wasted energy.
The other aspect is the transition to heat pumps, which is over 100% efficient, so you need a lot less energy to provide the same amount of heat. There are now commercial industrial heat pumps that has reached 200°C, which enables the use in more industrial applications.
The third is the transition to recycling. At some point we will have enough materials for all that we need to do. The green energy transition requires a big temporary jump in the amount of lithium and copper we need. But once all vehicles have been transitioned to EVs, most of those material will come from recycled materials, cutting the energy required to acquire those materials to a tiny fraction of what we need now.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but the Author seems to think that the main conversion losses in electricity generation come from renewables
Edit:
I think this paragraph should be enough to show that it is not advisable to trust the author on anything to do with energy:
>Due to the weight of all this stuff, and the relatively mild heat and scattered light coming from the Sun, solar panels produce no more than 20 Watts for each kg of their mass, even on a sunny day. Meanwhile wind turbines, with their massive concrete bases and tall steel towers, generate a mere 6 Watts for every kg of their weight. (Batteries fare slightly better at 240 W/kg.) For comparison diesel fuel produces 13,000 Watts for every kg of fuel burned. A regular diesel engine weighing 150 kg can thus easily produce 110 kW of power, while the same feat would require 5.5 tons of solar panels directly lit by the Sun at noon.
That article's whole premises seems to hinge on the quote: "Energy from non-fossil fuel combustible electricity generation is accounted for on their input heat requirements and non-combustible renewables on the energy content of their gross electrical output."
But that line means the exact opposite of what the author claims it means. He claims that renewables are being overinflated, but the reverse is true. Coal and gas get evaluated based on their heat content, not their useful work output. Wind and solar get evaluated on their electrical output.
Some interesting, recent discussion: "Interview at the Technical University of Munich: Not only are forests more complex than is commonly realized, they also do more." [1]
Personally, I don't think the capitalist-driven agenda anywhere in the world gives a flying fricative about the health of anyone, only the health of the profit motive and it's benefits to shareholders. Food and healthcare is but one more example. Love or hate the JRE, I think this episode [1] provides much food (pun intended) for thought. The common person simply does not matter other than as a(n) (addicted) consumer.
Sure. The government isn't your mommy, and neither are corporations. People have to take responsibility and look out for their own health. Nobody else is going to do it for you.
What if we don't spend the effort, time, and money to 'decode' birdsong? What if we don't feel the need to uncover such, to reinforce the human exceptionalism? What if it really wasn't meant for us to know? What if we simply just relaxed and immersed ourselves in the beauty of birdsong? Would we be somehow deprived?
Both of these above responses are absurd, simplistic nonsense that does exactly what I mentioned: implicitly position those of the "global South" as nearly brainless, helpless victims of their superiors.
Nobody manufactured the desire in the developing world for more or for participating in the economic dynamo. Like humans anywhere, they desire it themselves and are absolutely participants in getting it just like those of the developed countries, only slightly more behind.
The ideology isn't even imposed and the burden has plenty of valid sharing behind it.
What a poisonous, progress stunting way of looking at the world in such an absurdly polar way. Even the term "global south" essentially denies the number of countries in that south that are effectively improving, and the countries further north that are not. It does this because to ignore such complexities spoils its rigid ideological dishonesty.
> What a poisonous, progress stunting way of looking at the world
How could my position be progress stunting... "We need to do something" is progress _advocacy_. To argue that nothing needs to change is progress _denial_.
>Nobody manufactured the desire in the developing world...
From here you reach "So nothing needs to be done, everything functioning as expected".
The problem is:
> It's so hot in Mexico that howler monkeys are falling dead from the trees.
Something must be done! And as a card-carrying member of the Global North, I will do my part to advocate for change.
> [you] implicitly position those of the "global South" as nearly brainless, helpless victims of their superiors.
I would never do such a thing. I merely accept that the Global North has hegemony on defining our culture. Those in the Global South are not brainless and helpless, but I can't help them, I am up here! I can only advocate for change within my culture which for some reason has an undue impact on other cultures.
> The ideology isn't even imposed
You may think you operate in a hyper-rationalistic post-ideological manner, but you are just as much of an ideologue as the rest of us.
Of course you can 'choose your ideology'... Hey, for example I change my ideology to socialist! Yay, now I live in socialism! Oh wait, I still have to consume in a system that requires child labor and wage-slavery. The ideology of liberal capitalism is _forced_ on us, or we can go to the woods and die alone.
[0] https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-ene...