[palata]

> no, it mostly depends on energy

Sure, and where does most of that energy come from today, and how do you propose we replace it? Because that's the whole point, isn't it?

> can use any convenient energy source

Sure. Right now it's mostly fossil though, and it's not like photovoltaic is even close to changing that. Of course if you assume a theoretical clean energy to build your photovoltaic, then that's clean (in terms of CO2), but if you have that clean source, why do you need photovoltaic in the first place?

I think that's a real problem that gets ignored too often: fossil fuels are limited, and we seem to be around peak production right now. So fossil fuel will go down, that's pretty sure. The question is whether we will be able to compensate, and it's really not a given.

[kragen]

most of this energy today comes from fossil fuels. i propose we replace it primarily with photovoltaic energy. i am not sure how this could have been unclear from my comments above. this transition is already happening and will be essentially complete within a decade

(supplemented where possible with wind, which is cheaper where it's abundant)

but it's irrelevant where the energy comes from today when we're talking about what pv production is dependent on. it's not dependent on fossil fuels. it's dependent on access to cheap energy, and it also provides that cheap energy; the energy payback time on pv production has been under two years for decades now

if your concern is that there will be no market for additional abundant cheap energy once current fossil-fuel generation has been displaced, you should probably stop worrying about that, because that has never been a problem so far in human history

oil extraction is indeed around its peak right now, but coal reserves would last another century or more at current extraction levels. the issue is that it would be bad to turn the planet into venus. currently the world is on a path to, as you say, compensate, but it's possible that a sufficiently large disaster could halt that process

cf. https://archive.is/KMsTT https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/02/13/w...

[palata]

> i am not sure how this could have been unclear from my comments above.

It was clear. I am just saying that photovoltaic is very far from replacing fossil fuels.

> this transition is already happening and will be essentially complete within a decade

I guess let's see that. Also photovoltaic energy depends on the weather, it's not exactly something we can control (unlike fossil fuels or nuclear energy).

> that has never been a problem so far in human history

Well I think we can say that energy consumption in human history is largely correlated with fossil fuels, can't we? But I did not say that there is no market. I said that it's not clear whether we can make it work _at all_ without fossil fuels and without reducing our consumption.

> the issue is that it would be bad to turn the planet into venus.

Yep, but the biodiversity problem is not even related to climate change: we are destroying life on Earth just because we have the energy to do it. The fact that, on top of that, this energy is creating big problems that still have to happen (climate change) is just adding to the problem.

We should just drastically reduce our consumption, both because cheap energy is not a given for the future, and because we should care about not turning the planet into Venus, or Mars.

[kragen]

if it was clear then why did you ask

are you just trolling