Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JumpCrisscross 959 days ago
> No nuclear, no solar, no wind can replace the sheer amount of energy we extract out of oil and coal

What are you basing this on? You realise we have localised grids that go 100% renewable regularly, and could easily keep doing that with electrified transport?
1 comments
bobim 959 days ago
Well, global surveys show how oil, gas and coal are going.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

link
JumpCrisscross 959 days ago
Well sure, we’re consuming more fossil fuels because they’re cheaper. Nothing I’ve seen suggests we can switch primary production to clean sources. It would be more expensive. But that’s far from a hard limit.

I’m genuinely curious if someone is credibly speculating we are unable, versus economically unwilling, to replace fossil fuels with clean options.

link
bobim 959 days ago
My understanding is that there are no clean sources able to replace fossil fuels. Or we would need to cover useful land with solar panels (largely produced in China with coal electricity btw).

Anyway, we should transition to EV and these cars manufacturers bad practices are just keeping old inefficients cars on the streets.

link
JumpCrisscross 959 days ago
> we would need to cover useful land with solar panels

About the land area of New Mexico, if we went 100% solar [1]. Remove current hydroelectric, potential geothermal and then mix in wind and nuclear, and you have a realistic mix that could replace fossil fuels.

[1] https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/

link