• JGcEowt4YXuUtkBUGHoN@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 month ago

    One thing that I’m hopefully about is that solar is so cheap now so that will continue to roll out like crazy unless someone places huge tariffs on imported goods… oh shit. I just found out about the massive tariffs that fascist is wanting to put in place.

    • eleitl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Solar and wind are only relatively cheap if you don’t need to buffer. Unfortunately, you do. And electricity production is only a fraction of primary energy use. Concrete, steel, glass, fertilizer, chemistry, diesel and bunker fuel for shipping and mining. Can’t make new renewable infrastructure without fossil extraction.

      • Sonori@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        With current battery and hydro storage prices, their cheaper than natural gas with with the cost of the buffer, and absurdly cheap for any industrial application that doesn’t.

        Also there are bulk industrial processes to make steel, concrete, fertilizer, and glass with little to no carbon emissions, they just require more electricity and so aren’t cost effective if your electricity comes from fossil fuels, hence why most such plants only started construction once the cost for electricity in general dropped below the cost for fossil electricity.

        Moreover while mining and shipping are only starting decarbonization, the required fossil fuel extraction is already far, far smaller than what’s continually required to run the generation they are replacing, and that’s only going to continue to drop as more and more primary energy is electrified with renewables.

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        About half of the fuel used in shipping is to move fossil fuel from one place to another.

  • zephorah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    As someone currently on extended vacation, enjoying several national parks, I would suspect national parks will be gutted for natural resources.

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    The oil will be drilled now or later anyway.

    The question is how much is burned when and why. I can’t really see anyone anywhere being interested in consuming more oil. If consumption stays the same, he’ll basically just be dumping the price.

    • yonder@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Reducing oil prices reduces the financial incentives for using bicycles, taking public transit, living in a city and using renewable energy sources. Drilling itself also has environmental impacts.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    How about to each his or her or their own? Like let Texas be the oil smeared radioactive smelling removed it wants to be?

  • eleitl@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    He can’t make the unextractable extractable. Nor can he make consumption stop. In terms of the Keeling curve, the impact is exactly zero.