[opo]

It is actually worse than that. Even the relatively small amounts of money we are willing to spend to combat this are often not spent well.

One example, is rooftop solar. Rooftop solar is very, very, expensive compared to utility grade solar. A dollar that goes to subsidize residential rooftop solar is a dollar that would go much, much further if it was used to subsidize utility grade solar or wind.

Another example of poor decision making is Germany which decided to start shutting down nuclear power plants while they were still burning coal. So last year hard coal and lignite still produced 35.3 percent in German power production (compared to 35.2% from renewables. (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal-germany). Before the phase out of nuclear, it generated about 25% of the electricity. It is all really hard to believe...

[dagss]

I don't think rooftop solar is that simple:

1) Does the extra cost of rooftop solar go to installers doing a lot more manual work per panel?

Installers who need a source of income to live anyway?..

2) As I see it a lot of the pollution in the world is due to fear of people loosing their jobs. One could scale down many sectors, or more aggressively shift to a greener economy, if it wasn't for the fear of people/voters loosing their jobs.

-- So when considering options I think one needs to give smaller weight to salaries ("somone had to feed that person anyway") and more weight to natural resource extraction needed...which is the "real" cost. Basically count further CO2 emissions invested, not work hours.

[opo]

>I don't think rooftop solar is that simple:

Money is fungible and not unlimited - a dollar that goes to subsidize residential rooftop solar is a dollar that would go much, much further if it was used to subsidize utility grade solar or wind.

The original poster pointed out:

>...We would rather die and kill most of the biological world than face economic austerity, so we get what we order.

As I pointed out, it is worse than that - we often waste the small amounts of money we are willing to spend. If people know that rooftop solar is an inefficient use of people's money, but justify it because it can be a jobs program for roofers - that won't help convince tax payers that policy makers are committed to fighting climate change.

[_w1tm]

> Money is fungible and not unlimited

There is no limit to the numbers in central bank databases. Resources and labor are not unlimited, though.

[mahkeiro]

Yes but installing solar rooftop is simple and won't use any additional land and get opposed by environmental groups. From that point of view, your $ will be more actionable than waiting 15 years to get your utility solar deployed.

[mmarx]

> Another example of poor decision making is Germany which decided to start shutting down nuclear power plants while they were still burning coal. So last year hard coal and lignite still produced 35.3 percent in German power production (compared to 35.2% from renewables. (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal-germany). Before the phase out of nuclear, it generated about 25% of the electricity. It is all really hard to believe...

That article is from January 2023, so the numbers in there are 2022, not last year, and even then it says that nuclear produced only 11.7%. In any case, comparing to the official numbers[0], those seem to be closer to the 2021 numbers than the actual 2022 numbers: 31.3% coal, 6% nuclear, and 44% renewable. For 2023, coal was down to 26.22%, nuclear (which was only phased out in April) was down to 1.5%, and renewables were at 56%. Nuclear has not contributed more than 20% to electricity generation since 2011[2].

[0] https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris... [1] https://www.smard.de/page/home/topic-article/444/211756 [2] https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/STR...

[opo]

>That article is from January 2023, so the numbers in there are 2022, not last year,

Thanks for the clarification. The numbers are a little different, but unfortunately the main point is still true. Before the phaseout started, nuclear contributed more than 20% to electricity generation. Even now with nuclear basically eliminated, coal is still being used in 2024 to provide electricity in Germany. Earth just experienced its hottest 12 months in recorded history and it was really incredibly poor decision making to start shutting down nuclear power plants while still burning coal.

[mmarx]

> Before the phaseout started, nuclear contributed more than 20% to electricity generation.

That's true, but also quite meaningless. Before the nuclear phaseout started, renewables contributed less than 7% to electricity generation, now it's over 56%, so it more than compensates for the missing nuclear generations. Furthermore, replacing coal with nuclear is not easily done, since most coal plants also generate heat, whereas none of the nuclear plants did.

> Earth just experienced its hottest 12 months in recorded history and it was really incredibly poor decision making to start shutting down nuclear power plants while still burning coal.

None of the remaining reactors had usable fuel left, even just acquiring new fuel would already take 12 or more months (besides, all of the remaining reactors were already several years overdue on safety inspections). The decision to phase out nuclear power has been made well in advance of those 12 months: originally in 2002, partially pushed back in 2010, then finalised in 2011, and again pushed back (by 3.5 months) in 2022. The poor decision making is not phasing out nuclear power, the poor decision making is not also phasing out coal and pushing renewables from at least 2011 onwards.

[opo]

>That's true, but also quite meaningless. Before the nuclear phaseout started, renewables contributed less than 7% to electricity generation, now it's over 56%, so it more than compensates for the missing nuclear generations.

You misunderstood what I was saying. Earth just experienced its hottest 12 months in recorded history and it was really incredibly poor decision making to start shutting down nuclear power plants while still burning coal. If one thinks that climate change is important, it makes zero sense to eliminate nuclear plants while you are still burning coal. Zero sense. Even if someone thinks it is better to pander to the coal industry or doesn't believe climate change is an existential threat to human civilization, burning coal by itself directly kills thousands of people each year. One recent estimate puts that at 1800–2260 deaths in Germany each year. As climate scientist James Hansen has said, “Coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet”.

[neom]

I literally dream about Sovereign Solar. If the Canadian government was like "yo, we're doing a crown corporation and we're gonna transition the country to solar wind and tidal" - that's my actual pipe dream.