Oddbean new post about login | logout If the problem is that hydrocarbon fuels provably gave us unimaginable potential at a cost derived from fear, while futuristic energy sources (except for nuclear) give us less potential with more immediate & real costs, what exactly is the hypothesis? "More people in immediate emergy poverty is better for the planet" seems to be seriously backwards.
Wind & Solar & Batteries are here right now. #EV s & #heatpumps are 4x more efficient than fossil equivalent. If you're just worried about energy security, certainly for the #UK 🇬🇧 where we do not have any #oil or #Uranium, #wind #Solar & #batteries make perfect sense but also make financial sense. Imediate costs (AKA investment) are just a fact of life, but uk government just gave £22Billion to big #oil 🤦♂️ , that would have bought an awful lot of wind solar & batteries.
More folks would buy those technologies if they're here already in any complete semse. If people don't buy them enough, make them better, cheaper, even more efficient, until the technology's success speaks for itself. Cars vs. horses. As an economical business, you do not demonize or make unavailable the next best options, until yours are obviously holistically better. If you do, you're business is already a long term failure. Energy is literally the stuff of existence. It isn't a competition; we use what we can, when we can, as best as we can. Demanding anything less is antihuman.