• SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Why do this threads always degrade to 100% renewable solutions only? We can generate most of our power via wind and sun, the rest we can buffer, we don’t need to eliminate burning just reduce it to sporadic buffering of the grid.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      And more importantly that “most of our power” that can be generated by wind and sun is far higher than what we do now. This is not a valid argument against building out renewables as fast as possible.

      It may be an argument about where our endpoint is but by that time technology and circumstances will both have changed so it’s still an invalid argument

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        The planet can handle low levels of C02, just not the levels we are doing.

        But insisting on a zero emissions solution is exactly what I would do if I were an oil and gas CEO.

        • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Of course the planet’s systems can handle some degree of CO₂ emissions. But there are fields much harder to decarbonize than energy supply. Waste removal for example.

          But insisting on a zero emissions solution is exactly what I would do if I were an oil and gas CEO.

          How so?

      • discocactus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not if it’s closed loop or C negative with renewable sources. There’s nothing inherently bad about combustion, it’s just the scale and externalities.