[j245]

You’ve missed the point. Energy use by itself does not lead to global warming.

Energy sourced by burning fossil fuels does.

Deprecating harmful sources of energy is what we care about, not total consumption.

There is no compelling argument against increasing energy consumption if it’s from clean sources.

[yazaddaruvala]

+1

If anything increasing energy production is the solution to climate change. Abundant clean energy literally enables terraforming. How we terraform will be important, but at a minimum we can terraform the climate into stagnation.

[nonrandomstring]

As a lover of science fiction and an optimist I agree with your position, and sound logic. The measure of a civilisation is correlated well with how much energy it can command. Inter-planetary travel will need another factor of growth in our capacity, and it will come from clean sources like fusion.

But that's living in the future. We're 100 years premature if we think that way. We must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.

The world as it is, is bleak. We fucked up. We took a wrong turning down 50 years of late capitalism fuelled on unsustainable and toxic resources. There's really no alternative in the immediate plan than reducing consumption.

My way of coping is to embrace that challenge as a new vision of a positive future. Taking pride in using less is it's own journey and I will leave colonising Mars to the great-grandchildren.

[gwicks56]

With enough energy we can pull CO2 out of the air, and turn into a myriad of useful things[1], not just making $$ off the things produced, but also lowering CO2 concentrations. The biggest cost input is energy itself. We need MORE energy, not less, to solve the problems we have created. Technology got us into this mess, and only new better technology can get us out of it, asking people to live worse lives just seems to me to be a political non starter.

1 (one example) :https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going-to-...

[nonrandomstring]

> asking people to live worse lives just seems to me to be a political non starter

I agree that if you ask people to live a "worse" life for the sake of future generations most people are too selfish and insecure to cooperate. My disagreement is that it is necessarily worse.

If you factor out agriculture, essential goods transport and building maintenance, which admittedly are big factors, then a period of zero growth, a life with less gratuitous material goods, helicopters, jet-skis, and a tenth gold iPhone is a hardly undesirable except to a few,

A life where I can walk to work, shop and meet people in my local community, take vacations within 200 miles by public transport, eat locally grown food, and where we all spend much less screen time plugged into the Matrix is a much better life as far as I can see.

Mostly, I think it will be worse for all the people who want to sell things that nobody really needs.

If this is to succeed, through choice and markets, without some sort of communist World Economic Forum telling us we'll have to "own nothing" then the most important thing we can sell is a mature vision of a better life. Therefore we ought to stop equating reduction of consumption with a "worse" life.

[j245]

The funny thing is you’re talking about a huge restructuring of everything and that process will require a lot of excess energy.

Don’t forget about the energy required to modify all our current systems. To fight against the current system and overcome the inertia to change it.

Also - that’s your vision of Utopia. Maybe others want to colonise the solar system ? Which is not possible by reducing our energy consumption.

Why are you so motivated to make sacrifices that don’t need to be made ?

The article talks about someone generating more electricity from solar panels, than they can use. What does it matter if they increase consumption of energy with respect to harming the climate by burning fossil fuels ??

[grey_earthling]

Where does the waste heat go?

[thomasmg]

While running, there is no additional "waste" heat: Without solar panels, 100% of the sun rays heats the earth; with solar panels, 20% is converted to electricity, and then converted to heat again.

[freemint]

Not quiet 100%×(1-albedo) heats the earth. So solar panels have a lower albedo then some surfaces so it just might heat the earth more but the CO2 not emitted reduces the isolation (green house effect) of earth and can therefore lead to a net reduction in temp.

[hypertele-Xii]

Heat escapes into space. Global warming happens because of excess of atmospheric gasses that prevent heat from escaping into space.