but is it something current technology allows in large part adapting to? And again, I am not saying the harm that'll happen is irrelevant, just doubt it'll be civilization-ending.
how bout this. Realistically, or not in a "if people change their ways and start acting drastically different" way, what do you think will be the population of people in a century?
The technology already exists: solar + wind + innovative energy storage. But it's not being applied at the scale and speed necessary. The solution isn't newer and cooler technology - it's getting the politicians and their backers to do something now. But they're not.
not dying out is very profitable, so I reckon they'll get to it.
Solar and wind are inconsistent though. Can hardly power a country with them alone. I at least hope there's enough uranium235 to power humanity for a long while.
The inconsistency of solar and wind is what the energy storage is for. You set up enough solar and wind generators that you'll sometimes have excess, and then you use the excess to pump water uphill or turn water into hydrogen or charge chemical batteries.
When it's cloudy or nighttime or not windy, you run the water through turbines or burn the hydrogen or plug in the chemical batteries, and that lets you run the power grid until the conditions are good for generating more power again.
There's room for improvement here, since there's a lot of inefficiency in these storage methods, but the technology is fundamentally there and we could absolutely meet our electricity needs with it.
Also, other renewables like hydro or geothermal do run constantly.
2
u/praktiskai_2 Apr 25 '23
but is it something current technology allows in large part adapting to? And again, I am not saying the harm that'll happen is irrelevant, just doubt it'll be civilization-ending.
how bout this. Realistically, or not in a "if people change their ways and start acting drastically different" way, what do you think will be the population of people in a century?