[ZeroGravitas]

This slightly mad take seems very popular with people who at the very same time seem to hate cheap solar and wind energy and love expensive (and/or nonexistent) nuclear and fossil fuels.

It's a really weird subculture that's grown out of climate denial.

Energy efficiency is a thing. The lowest hanging fruit is EVs and heat pumps that provide 4x more travel or heat than using fossil fuels directly. They're so much more efficient that you could burn the fossils in power plants to generate electricity and still come out ahead. That would be silly though since wind and solar are the cheapest available electricity.

And of course you can power these with nuclear, which would be relevant if they weren't just pretending to like nuclear and really just stalling progress for fossil fuel interests.

[troupo]

> ho at the very same time seem to hate cheap solar and wind energy and love expensive (and/or nonexistent) nuclear and fossil fuels.

Now this is a mad take

> Energy efficiency is a thing.

Yes, it is. There's a limit to how efficient you can go though

> The lowest hanging fruit is EVs and heat pumps

What do you think will happen to the power grid when everyone switches to EVs?

> That would be silly though since wind and solar are the cheapest available electricity.

They are also intermittent sources of electricity.

> if they weren't just pretending to like nuclear and really just stalling progress for fossil fuel interests.

Another mad take.

All in all you never addressed my post

[ZeroGravitas]

> What do you think will happen to the power grid when everyone switches to EVs?

Well the people who run grids keep suggesting that it'll help them make better use of their grid assets and so reduce the average cost of a kWh of electricity to consumers. It is after all a giant fleet of smart batteries.

But you, the person who thinks more energy use is better for society, are apparently making an exception for electricity use, which if it goes up will cause some unspecified calamity?

That doesn't seem very consistent? Well, I suppose it's consistently pro-fossil fuels.

[troupo]

> Well the people who run grids keep suggesting that it'll help them make better use of their grid assets

Do they? Or are they also concerned about the increasing strain on grid infra, especially due to the fact that so many energy sources are now intermittent?

> which if it goes up will cause some unspecified calamity?

It's not an unspecified calamity. Failure modes for grids are known.

> Well, I suppose it's consistently pro-fossil fuels.

Funny how you accuse others of making mad takes while keeping doing one mad take after another

[Wowfunhappy]

> Yes, it is. There's a limit to how efficient you can go though

This is why reducing energy use needs to be in addition to everything else: solar, nuclear, wind, batteries, the works. Some of the R&D won't work out as planned; some solutions will only work in specific situations. That's okay, as long as we don't have all our eggs in one basket.