Solving climate change requires a new form of energy, but which one should we be using? Is it solar, wind, biofuel or maybe even nuclear?
Maybe I’m missing something, or maybe this video is. But it seems to me there are two aspects to energy provision - demand and supply - and the first would directly affect how much we need of the second.
The video seems to accept we have to meet the demand, ‘as is’. But why don’t we discuss why we have such a huge demand energy in the first place? If we were to live out more localised and sharing economies which entailed far less travel, far less resource, far less need for ‘stuff’, replacing the dissatisfaction this represents with intrinsically more satisfying life styles, then we wouldn’t need all this energy.
PLUS, where is the concern for buildings that are so well built they don’t need the energy levels to heat in the first place. Tell you what - basic tribal mud huts beat all our sophisticated techniques hands down!
Great comment! In response to your building query- if you have the time I highly suggest watching either of these videos to see how modern design can drastically reduce energy demand
Yes, I don’t doubt that modern techniques save energy and it’s obviously very impressive. My point though, from the point of view of materials, that there’s something of an irony that things were just fine in the first place!