• bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yes time in the context of labour and also time in terms of meeting targets to replace non-renewables.

    Space may not be completely renewable, some is lost or the energy to remediate the space for use could be higher than the energy/utility we could gain from it.

    • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      In the context of meeting the targets, I see little way to invest time in a more efficient way than switching to renewables. Changing mentality takes a magnitude more time and effort. I still think it is a worthwhile endeavor, but if we wait for that transition we will have destroyed most of the earth by then.

      Space may not be completely renewable, some is lost

      ??? Square meters are square meters.

      or the energy to remediate the space for use could be higher than the energy/utility we could gain from it.

      In what scenario do you see the energy to recover a solar power plant’s space being higher than the energy gained from it?

      • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        The scenario is the local population’s space requirements constrict the space that renewables can be built in, dense highrise world cast shadows across a solar field, and/or strip mining can create a space that would be awful for certain things.

        It’s not like we just do one thing different, some people build out renewables and other people can build out housing and infrastructure in better ways. Do everything you can when you can as soon as you can.