[2Xheadpalm]

The answer is obvious, at least with our current 'clean energy' systems and their related costs. We would _all_ just need to use MUCH less energy. This of course would force major life style changes and industry output to be drastically reduced, not something most people and business are ready to accept at this time but the point is, there is a way, right now, with what we have but the terms are unacceptable to most.

[mrDmrTmrJ]

What's fascinating about 2020 is that for the first time we can radically reduce our total energy usage (as you advocated) while keeping a nearly identical current lifestyle.

How? Electrical systems (e.g. cars/heat pumps etc.) are much more efficient than fossil fuel equivalents. An example, most new gas cars get ~30 mpg today, but a Tesla model 3 gets 141 mpge. So switching from a gas-powered car to a model 3 results in a 75% reduction in energy usage (as you advocate) with the identical ‘lifestyle’. [1]

This effect is found far more generally. Quoting from a detailed report [2] on how to decarbonize America, “One key aspect of electrification makes this transformation possible, and it represents perhaps the most astonishing finding in Griffith’s modeling: Large-scale electrification would slash total US primary energy demand in half, from around 100 quads to about 45-50. This a huge deal — it means America only needs to produce about half the energy with renewables that it is currently producing with fossil fuels.”

I strongly support, dense walkable cities and public transit, but for the first time in history we’ve separated the task of reducing energy usage from convincing most Americans to give up the lifestyle they’re used to. It’s incredibly promising news for the energy transition!

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2020/02/19/the-epa...

[2] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21349200/climate-...

[nico_h]

It could be mitigated by alternative infrastructure: better insulation and ventilation, for example passive housing.

Diminish need for air conditioning by adding blinds or other sun shades on the appropriate sides. Use air foils on cargo ships, making them follow trade winds and sea currents (trading polution for increased transit time (increase crew cost)).

Make people commute less (works for white collar jobs, but blue collar?).

Increase veganism.

Look into having agriculture require less chemicals through use of perennials or alternative varieties and crop rotations.

I don't know enough about other industries to do more than yell "electrify all the things" and mandate factories to use renewable electricity, put solar panels on the roof etc...

[AstralStorm]

Unfortunately walls are the major way houses get hot. You could use something with big thermal capacity but it's expensive and heavy. AC or evaporative cooling cannot be avoided, but can be made more efficient.

Increased transit time for ships is from month to many months. Not worth it.

Veganism faces a big problem with water use.

Agriculture is being looked into all the time, but cheap always wins. We need to feed these billions of people somehow, and crop rotation won't do.

Mandating greenwashing is what we have now. The area to cover with renewables to power just a single smelter is huge.

[bryanlarsen]

> The area to cover with renewables to power just a single smelter is huge.

That would be an issue only if that prevented the land from being used for other things. Wind power generation doesn't prevent farming on the land or prevent fishing on the ocean. Solar can be deployed on rooftops or parking lots. Solar developments often support grazing animals underneath the solar panels.

[bleepblorp]

The offshore wind farms I have seen photos of have the individual wind turbines packed too closely together to safely navigate a fishing boat between them.

Fish are not uniformly distributed, however, so the fishing impacts of offshore wind farms can probably be reduced by not installing wind farms in fishing grounds.