The best way to ensure we can adapt fast enough would be to have the highest variability (ie different types of energy, different scales, different environments).
Energy diversity is not a feature intrinsically. Cheap, dispatchable, reliable, scalable energy enables maximum flexibility. In the real world this means nuclear fission.
"Cheap, dispatchable, reliable, scalable" are all functions of the environment. If the environment changes so do these values (for this and all other energy sources).
Nuclear is superior in all rational aspects (for use on Earth). Only in the irrational (unscientific regulation) can other sources be more efficient.
was it superior in the 1800s?
Researching other energy sources is fine, but keeping them alive artificially after proven inefficient is wasteful. Of course people are free to waste their own money if they like.
“A copy is just an identical image. There is the possibility that a single virus could destroy an entire set of systems and copies do not give rise to variety and originality. Life
perpetuates itself through diversity and this includes the ability to sacrifice itself when necessary. Cells repeat the process of degeneration and regeneration until one day they die,
obliterating an entire set of memory and information. Only genes remain. Why continually repeat this cycle? Simply to survive by avoiding the weaknesses of an unchanging system.”GITS
Only having 1 type of energy creates a weakness, just as if we were limited to BTC only. Having altcoins allows ppl to quickly switch as the (industry, legal, etc.) environment changes
Its a feature if you want society to be able to more quickly adapt to a changing environment (as the climate change people preach). Diversity is a weakness in an unchanging environment
Sato, Katsuhiko, et al. "On the relation between fluctuation and response in biological systems." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100.24 (2003): 14086-14090.
Forcing any one (or few) solution(s) would slow down any progress and limit our ability to evolve in the face of a changing environment. Basically decentralization > centralization.
Different energy sources is good. Keeping an old source, despite it beif uncompetitive, is not good. Geothermal, hydro, solar, wind, nuclear. These are the best sources we have so far.
if a source is uncompetitive in the market you wouldn't need to ban it
It has a monopoly power, and deep hands in many governments. They are a multi trillion dollar industry that can afford to spread competition. This is why there needs to be extra effort
& conservatives want to ban twitter & facebook bc muh monopoly. gov is not your personal bludgeon. there are people in society/market that will do things you dont like. get over it.
As it is Tesla is going to be a major disrupter despite facing so many external attacks form those invested in the industries he is looking to compete with.
As it is the free market can beat the fossil fuel industry. The market is not free though. They are a multitrillion dollar industry that are deeply involved with governments.
You really aught to watch that doc I sent you. Here, so you don't have to dig for it
&app=desktop
It isn't a simple matter of getting over it. They are causing damage. There is a lot of infrastructure to dismantle. It isn't a simple market issue.
best defined how? Solar & wind might not be better than coal in a climate change scenario with frequent high energy storms.
Defined by reliability to provide power without failing, and cheaper per unit power. The price of renewables and batteries are falling while the price of fossil fuels are raising.
By high energy storms do you mean CME's? If anything it would be smart to also spend on preventing that problem at the same time. Faraday cages in transformers and such.
no meant literally higher wind speeds being bad for wind mills & more moisture/clouds/rain in the air being bad for solar panels.
Ah, yes. Each place has advantages for different power. Nuclear is the best for a strong backbone for the grid. Batteries make the grid more stable though.
"different is good" but also, "not those old ones have to go". either you're for diversity or your not.
Not to mention the actual deaths due to air pollution. The coal industry alone puts more than enough uranium in the atmosphere to run a plant.
Admitadely it is a heavy element that wouldn't stay up long. Actual smog contributes to many deaths though.
I am not for fossil fuels at all. Diversity minus fossil fuels. They are more vastly subsidized than people realise. In actual subsidies, and in future debt they are causing.
thats not how diversity works. more variability in options now (even the ones you dont like) results in faster adaptation to a changing environment.
Diversity, sure. He problem is that fossil fuels are such a large industry that they push other things out of the market. If it wasn't for their momentum they would fail on their own.
