cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16969151

I wasn’t aware just how good the news is on the green energy front until reading this. We still have a tough road in the short/medium term, but we are more or less irreversibly headed in the right direction.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t know about irreversibly, but the remarkable and consistent gains in solar technology especially are extremely exciting.

    As soon as one of these prototype next-gen batteries hit, that’s it for fossil fuel.

    It’s already not worth it to continue using fossil fuel commercially, but as soon as the next-gen power storage is able to be produced on scale, power plants are changing, phones, computers, cars, everything’s going to change.

    I can’t see that being more than a decade out, but even if nexgen battery tech doesn’t hit, the constant improvement on s***** traditional battery tech now is improving rapidly.

    It is a very exciting time and energy production and storage.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      Even batteries and wind have seen some pretty serious cost reduction. It’s looking pretty great for renewables.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’m getting a little more optimistic about liquid air storage.

      Fundamentally energy storage doesn’t have to be great if energy is so cheap. If you would lose x amount of energy otherwise only saving 80% or 50% or even 10% isn’t really a problem if the cost is so low.

      Right now energy is getting so cheap that these systems are now making more financial sense.

    • pujamas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, at this point we need a big push on energy storage and transportation. It’s exciting to see headlines that some country just generated 200% of their electrical needs for a week from renewables, but unless you can actually store that energy and move it where it’s needed, it mostly goes to waste

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Oh it’s happening.

        And with new vehicles like the delfast and aptera and efficiency beingb maximize, it’s such a cool future for EVs.

        • Gadg8eer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Here in Canada, I sure hope so. I, however, subscribe to the idea that - at present - they are unreliable in a Canadian winter. That means you either drive, or you start asking for better transit. Considering how rural we are I doubt my province will be able to build bus routes that can serve most car owners better than a car. It’s not an all-year thing, but yes, this part of Canada gets brutal winters with ridiculous snowfall.

          I do approve of the high speed rail project between Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary and the company with the orange rentable electric scooters. I just know it’s not as simple as “drive an electric car” or “don’t drive unless you have to” here, which admittedly is not the case for the US, China or India who are all subtropical/temperate and dense and produce tons of CO² emissions but also are the biggest drivers of advancing renewables energy. Sadly Canada does not have the advantage of density or technological focus to reduce our own sizable emissions.

          If anyone you know has died/dies of climate crisis events like floods, you have my condolences and apology, not stereotypically but genuinely. This really was partly our fault, the numbers say we produced as much as the US in carbon emissions with a tenth of the population, and among changes like Bill C-11 and corruption in the immigration process that are failing to protect people in danger, I cannot claim I have a likeable, benevolent home country. We try, but… Yeah. Life isn’t made of tropes and problems have arisen here. Hopefully we can at least rejuvenate our energy grid with all this, I’m cautiously optimistic.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Before anyone can answer the question: “Are we doomed?,” we must determine who “we” is, and what “doomed” means. If we take it to mean the near-term extinction of our species, there’s no reason to believe that will happen, even if the worst of the projected climate scenarios occurs between now and the end of the century. That being said, some people are doomed. Even under the most optimistic climate scenarios, sea levels will continue to rise, heat waves will become more severe and more frequent, as will wild fires, floods, droughts, etc. Some people will die as a result of these natural disasters. Which people? It’s more likely to be people who live in relatively poor, unstable countries, and less likely to be people who live in relatively wealthy, stable countries.

    The long and short of it is: some people are doomed, but many, if not most people, will probably be just fine.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      All true but just fine again may depend on your definition. It’s going to cause major inconvenience for everyone at minimum I think.

      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s true, “just fine” can mean different things to different people. What I consider “fine” might not be for someone else. I also think it’s entirely possible what many of us consider to be fine might change with the climate. There might not be the same abundance in the future, meaning some people might not be able to consume as much as they do today. Of course, that’s not necessarily a bad thing as many people over consume today, to their detriment, so it might be good for them if they are forced to consume less. Unfortunately, in such a scenario the poorest and most vulnerable will probably be quite desperate and destitute.

    • Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Really, the big problem are the instability from ripple effects. How will the world react to massive migrant crises and new, more intense conflict? To increasing economic recessions and the breaking away of old privileges? All things we are already seeing and that won’t go away anytime soon.

      Now, total extinction of the species, yeah, that is very unlikely, unless something really unexpected happens. But throwing us potentially back centuries in progress, and killing a majority of people? A nuclear exchange from escalating tensions could create something like that.

  • Wiz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    That is uplifting news! Thanks for sharing!

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Ooh, too bad big tech is devouring all that renewable energy (and then some) for forcing unwanted AI into our everything, making even more fossil fuel consumption necessary. That’s okay though. Over made my peace with our inevitable extinction.