Comment by goda90
22 days ago
This really illustrates how important it is to switch to renewable energy. I know it's not an easy task for impoverished communities to get the startup capital to install solar+batteries, especially one in such a politically tumultuous position, but that really is a path to stability for so many people around the world.
A YouTuber known for talking about dishwashers and Christmas lights recently put out a long rant about how ridiculous it is that humanity still leans so much on single use fuels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM
A fascinating takeaway from that video for me... If you take the US land that is dedicated to growing corn for ethanol that is put in gasoline, and replace all the corn on that land with solar panels, how much energy would it produce? Twice today's total electrical generation in the US, from all sources. And that's in the corn belt, which is far from ideal for solar. It would be billions of panels, but it's a pretty interesting perspective on the questions about the land use requirements of solar.
Another genuine question: I wonder how that would change the climate in those areas. I live in Iowa and "corn sweat" is a thing that never fails to make several weeks of summer completely unbearable.
It shows that bioenergy is very land inefficient.
There was a book about renewable energy in Britain about 17 years ago, "Sustainable Energy -- Without the Hot Air" that tried to make the argument that renewables could not power Britain, there wasn't enough land. But if you drilled down, this conclusion was due to use of biofuels.
The significant problem with that book is that it commits the primary energy fallacy. It sees that we need X GWh of chemical energy from fuels and says we have to replace it with X GWh of electricity. Which is of course completely wrong since it ignores the efficiencies of the processes and conflates two different things simply because they are measured in the same units.
Genuine question: How much energy, minerals, transportation, manufacturing, etc, etc. goes into making the panels. How much are the panels going to make back percentage wise in it's lifetime vs. the cost to make and transport, install?
Corn kind of reproduces itself every year (If you don't get the GMO kind), so you only need natural resources to continue to grow it right? Water, sunlight and labor?
He goes over that in the video. It's long, but very much worth watching.
> Corn kind of reproduces itself every year (If you don't get the GMO kind), so you only need natural resources to continue to grow it right? Water, sunlight and labor?
At industrial scale, it has a huge petro-chemical fertiliser input.
1 reply →
Germany uses less land for energy crops and is further north, but still could satisfy most of its electricity needs if it replaced the plants with solar panels.
Extensive deployment of renewables and battery storage is perhaps the best thing that can be done anywhere (even in developed countries) for making the grid more robust. Not only is there no fuel supply to be cut off, targets become too diffuse and decentralized to take out quickly, especially if you can manage to cover 30-40% of cities with rooftop solar.
You can hit a solar plant with a missile, and it can be back in operation with a reduced capacity within a week:
https://www.wanhossolars.com/news/ukrainian-solar-power-plan...
Honestly I'm not sure if it would take a week in most cases, just took this long in this case. Its really not worth going after the panels with a conventional missile. Maybe something that explodes well above it and litters it with ball bearings would be far more effective.
1 reply →
It also illustrates the importance of not getting caught on the wrong side of the global hegemon right next door who can choke you out and prevent you from importing energy and integrating with the global economy.
A lot of food for thought all around.
That's definitely part of the equation, but the blockade has been over for a long while. They have suffered not only the brutal effect of US colonization/hegemony but also the brutal effect of the legacy of Castro's brand of economics. If they were just suffering one or the other, they'd be significantly better off.
Edit since I am throttled on posts and cannot reply below: The US briefly blockaded Cuba in the 60s, but they have only embargoed them since then. They are not blocked from international trade by the US, except with the US. There is no meaningful block from Cuba engaging in the greater international non-US "global economy" such as EU,Asia, etc.
You are wrong. Any company that wants to do business with USA must also join the embargo.
2 replies →
Do you mean Batista?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista
> the blockade has been over for a long while.
What are you talking about?
3 replies →
It also illustrates the importance of not wrecking your own economy through pursuing socialist policies and driving the most productive people out of the country.
Is that your summary of the causes, goals and impacts of the Cuban revolution?
8 replies →
The way things are going it looks like late capitalism is on a way to eventually catch up. And all 2.5 "productive" people left would own the world and the rest will be cattle, potentially culled to keep things in check
That's not enough to keep people fed. I think the primary reason why Cuba remained socialist is that all the "capitalists" (perceived as boogieman for social ills) are voluntarily fleeing Cuba rather than opposing the government.
I think of him as known for his thoughts on the “color” brown.
> At length I remembered the last resort of a great princess who, when told that the peasants had no bread, replied: "Then let them eat brioches."
Much of the developing world is close enough to the equator that solar and batteries just have to last a few days.
In most developed countries solar is seasonal.
Solar is one type of renewable. The Nordics have done all right
https://www.nordicstatistics.org/news/the-5-large-nordic-cou...
They have small populations and so many places to install dams they have their own words for it.
Nobody else can do that.
1 reply →
Interestingly you don't want to be near the equator for the best solar resource, due to something called the "Intertropical Convergence Zone". This creates persistent storms and cloudiness in a band that waves up and down across the equator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertropical_Convergence_Zone
Peak efficiency is seasonal. Much of North America is perfectly suited for solar year round, at reduced efficiency.
[dead]