[jorisboris]

I feel we’re framing it in a negative way

Our goal shouldn’t be to be coal free. Our goal should be to be 100% renewable.

If we set up our goals in terms of what we don’t want, we end up in the situation we are right now: high energy costs, very dependent on energy imports and a high risk of loosing our industry

[crote]

> Our goal should be to be 100% renewable.

No, our goal is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible.

Shutting down coal plants is a quick and easy win, as pretty much every possible replacement is less polluting. It might even make sense to replace them with gas turbines: base load today, peaker plant tomorrow, emergency source later on.

[1970-01-01]

Reducing is frivolous today. We will break through the tipping point in 2030. This will be the coolest century this millennium. There's no way to stop it. We needed to shut down emissions years ago. The only thing we can do proactively is invest in moon-shot tech such as fusion and ocean wave generation and wait for the planet to recover.

[zahlman]

> This will be the coolest century this millennium.

While you are making predictions 975 years out, could we see your projected graph of human population? Time estimate for establishment of a permanent extraterrestrial colony?

[1970-01-01]

No problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_projections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_lunar_outpost_concepts#Ar...

[rsynnott]

Coal is about as dirty as it gets (besides peat and lignite). _Even if you were not reducing CO2 output_, getting rid of coal would be greatly beneficial as you'd reduce COPD and other lung diseases.

[mk89]

I am not sure it's a matter of how you frame the issue, to be honest, although I have seen this argument used quite a lot.

100% renewables is the exact opposite of "100% non-renewables" and that's including also oil, gas, etc. So "coal" is only a part of the 100% non renewables, but it seems your goal is to get rid of all the non renewables.

And here the question is: why would you want a single goal? Why 100% renewable?

What drives us should be: save where it makes sense, don't where it doesn't. Iterate every 10 years and recheck.

All these single radical goals are literally killing our economy and society. And I am not just talking about coal free or renewable.

Even the "let's tear down the windfarms" is dumb because it's radical and non sense.

Or unrelated, even this "we need to digitalize everything" (although given our jobs we would profit the most) can lead to a lot of problems (privacy, security, etc).

I don't know why we have become so radical in the last 20 years.

[zahlman]

> And here the question is: why would you want a single goal? Why 100% renewable?

Overlapping goals can coexist on varying time frames.

Setting aside nuclear (technically not "renewable", but also not carbon-based, and very energy dense) the goal is to stop releasing CO2 into the air from energy generation and return to pre-industrial levels.

This is because the surplus of CO2 generated so far has already caused clear and undeniable problems (not all of which are yet fully realized), and continued excess will only make things worse.

> What drives us should be: save where it makes sense, don't where it doesn't. Iterate every 10 years and recheck.

Solar is already economically competitive in many places and is expected to improve further.

[wolvoleo]

Coal is the worst of the fossil sources though. Getting rid of coal is only the first step but it's a good one.