L4sBot@lemmy.worldMB to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoRenewables surprisingly "on track" to meet net zero by 2050newatlas.comexternal-linkmessage-square33fedilinkarrow-up1193arrow-down14file-text
arrow-up1189arrow-down1external-linkRenewables surprisingly "on track" to meet net zero by 2050newatlas.comL4sBot@lemmy.worldMB to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square33fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareeleitl@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down2·1 year agoThe goals of renewable should be quantitative substitution of fossil primary energy within less than 50 years.
minus-squareSCB@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down1·1 year agoI’d like a suit of power armor, if we’re just magicking things into existence.
minus-squareeleitl@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down2·1 year agoWell, 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.
minus-squareeleitl@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down2·edit-21 year agoThat 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.
minus-squareeleitl@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·1 year agoIf 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.
minus-squareSCB@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·edit-21 year agoSorry bro I don’t ever buy into doomposting. Enjoy being meaninglessly sad.
The goals of renewable should be quantitative substitution of fossil primary energy within less than 50 years.
I’d like a suit of power armor, if we’re just magicking things into existence.
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.
We have 50 years.
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.
Ok doomer.
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.
Sorry bro I don’t ever buy into doomposting.
Enjoy being meaninglessly sad.