1) Discard water and 96% of land because it's supposedly unavailable
2) Assume solar cells on just 1/5th of the remaining 4%
3) Complain that production of solar panels takes a lot of energy
https://t.co/tQUHLEHFnw
Some people want us to believe there's not enough solar energy available to cover our worldwide energy needs
They often use EROI (Energy Return On Investment) as their metric
This is a rant against these EROI people misinforming the debate, based on a rebuttal of a 2020 paper
1) Discard water and 96% of land because it's supposedly unavailable
2) Assume solar cells on just 1/5th of the remaining 4%
3) Complain that production of solar panels takes a lot of energy
https://t.co/tQUHLEHFnw
Discarding 96% of land seems pretty extreme:
30% of the world's land is barren
40% of the world's land is used for meat
I think we could find more than 4% if we tried
(but we don't have to: we need less than 1%)
https://t.co/rJZiNWcu7F
If cells are expensive and land is dirt cheap, covering 20% with solar cells is logical
But with cheap cells you maximize land use: 80% is easily possible
New paper headline:
"Global available solar energy over 10 times what we need"
This is something @MLiebreich and I often complain about:
If you get more energy out than you put it, that's FINE
If you get five times more energy out, that's GREAT
EROI is a USELESS metric. Let's STOP using it. At all.
What they forget is that the massive influx of solar energy invalidates that argument
https://t.co/wiM76rNq2b
Most sensible people have heard about planetary constraints. And of @KateRaworth and Doughnut Economics
So let's use THOSE and STOP using EROI
Because it's a USELESS metric
People like @mzjacobson, @ChristianOnRE, @nworbmot (and me: https://t.co/9A5qlC8nIS) have been doing that for ages
WAKE UP!
More from Economy
1) Well, also there is this:
For 400 years inflation has NOT been in a "mountain range" of up and down, but rather stair-stepped in giant increases, always associated with major transformations in economic arrangements.
For 400 years inflation has NOT been in a "mountain range" of up and down, but rather stair-stepped in giant increases, always associated with major transformations in economic arrangements.
The only way that debt comes down is if rest of world flips to trade deficit status w/US (I.e., trades accumulates $USD from prior trade surpluses w/US for actual goods & services). Not likely anytime soon. $USD as global reserve currency requires massive public debt.
— David "Most Vicious Dogs & Ominous Weapons" Herr (@davidcherr) January 15, 2021
Interesting thread, but I don't think ecosocialists or degrowthers are arguing that if German socialists had come to power the world would be green by now. Socialism is not automatically green. Eco-socialism is what it says - a green version of socialism - to be tested /1
The historical counterfactual also in not totally convincing. So let's assume Germany and Europe went socialist. The world economy would have evolved exactly the same way it did? 🤔 I doubt it, this is too deterministic. Examples: /2
We do not know if the transition from coal to oil would have taken place when it took place, the way it did. From Timothy Mitchell we know that oil was a fix for capitalism to bypass the labour strikes of coal workers. One would think that socialists would treat workers better /3
We also do not know if socialist governments would strong arm the Middle East the way capitalists did, starting wars to secure cheap oil, and setting up puppet governments. One would want to think that Rosa Luxembourg would not go down that path..../4
We also do not know if they would have continued colonial unequal exchange, extracting raw materials as cheap as possible from the rest of the world. Without cheap oil and cheap materials, it is anyone's guess if GDP and CO2 would be where it is now. /5
You get the impression from the eco-socialists and degrowthers that humanity wouldn\u2019t face the threat of climate change or biodiversity loss if it weren\u2019t for capitalism (or rather, if it weren\u2019t for capitalist modernity).
— Leigh Phillips (@Leigh_Phillips) February 2, 2021
But I see no evidence to suggest this is the case.
The historical counterfactual also in not totally convincing. So let's assume Germany and Europe went socialist. The world economy would have evolved exactly the same way it did? 🤔 I doubt it, this is too deterministic. Examples: /2
We do not know if the transition from coal to oil would have taken place when it took place, the way it did. From Timothy Mitchell we know that oil was a fix for capitalism to bypass the labour strikes of coal workers. One would think that socialists would treat workers better /3
We also do not know if socialist governments would strong arm the Middle East the way capitalists did, starting wars to secure cheap oil, and setting up puppet governments. One would want to think that Rosa Luxembourg would not go down that path..../4
We also do not know if they would have continued colonial unequal exchange, extracting raw materials as cheap as possible from the rest of the world. Without cheap oil and cheap materials, it is anyone's guess if GDP and CO2 would be where it is now. /5
You May Also Like
https://t.co/6cRR2B3jBE
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.
https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d
Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.
...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.
Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.
https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d
Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.
...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.
Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.
