• FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is part of why reducing our total energy usage is as important if not more important than just removing carbon from energy production. Every energy source has some kind of impact, some more than others. We should strive to make the least impactful energy we can and respect that energy by being effecient with it.

    • ArachnidMania@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      This always confuses me as to why we are still using energy usage busywork like AI and blockchain right now. Even if we get 100% renewable we still need to be efficient to reduce impact on our world, and put that into other important things. And we are definitely not in a position to be wasting away energy right now.

    • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Most home energy use is heating and cooling. Heating air, water, and clothes drying. Cooling for refrigeration and air.

      But home energy is a small portion of per capita energy. Transportation of goods (buy local), manufacturing of goods (bricks, steel, ceramics, concrete, aluminum, and glass are all kiln fired), etc. Consumers do not have information about energy of goods other than price. And many price-based decisions are worse for the environment - like buying plastic containers every few years vs. glass ones that last decades.

      As energy becomes less expensive, its usage will naturally increase. A huge portion of the world doesn’t have indoor climate control or hot water on tap. Anyway energy usage is determined by demand, and demand is currently limited by price. Lower price will bring higher demand for the foreseeable future.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Realistically, it’s not gonna happen.

      Energy usage is going to increase (quite a lot, if you ask me) in the future due to low-cost solar power. But also, I have to say, that’s a good thing. Solar power has almost no environmental impact at all, and if you can’t cherish that, but still doom into depression, then I would recommend reconsidering your lifestyle and maybe talk to a therapist.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        The solar panels in my area are often in empty fields that could have been forests, farms, or houses with panels on the roofs. The panels still contain minerals mined from the earth, which has an impact. Broken panels will still have to be disposed of safely and ideally recycled, either way creating an impact.

        If we let the rules of captialism continue to control our mindset of course we will continue to use more and more energy, just like companies expect more and more growth and profits.

        • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Solar panels consist mostly of Silicon, which is the most abundant material in earth’s crust. There’s really no “mineral” whose mining causes fewer problems. And i put “mineral” in quotes because it’s not your typical mineral that you have to dig up to use.

          Also, solar panels are entirely non-toxic, making their safe disposal a non-problem.

        • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          My God, they cut down forests, destroyed farms, and tore down houses to build those solar panels?! Or were the empty fields they were in just empty beforehand? So despite that land being put to good use, you’re upset because… What?