Replying to @gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green

The more energy we consume, the more we accelerate the Sixth Mass Extinction.

As Tom Murphy has said, for Nature, the difference between "renewable" energy and fossil fuel energy is the difference between decapitation or bullet through the head.

We do not face an energy production production.

We do face an energy consumption crisis.

We consume vastly too much and produce vastly too much toxic waste.

We must face up to what the real problems are.

Jul 5, 2026, 11:18 UTCen

Replying to @gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green

"In terms of concrete, steel, copper, glass, and aluminum (not counting the fossil fuel mass itself), renewable energy requires an order-of-magnitude more material per unit of electrical energy delivered than does fossil fuel combustion. This translates to never-ending mining, manufacturing, pollution, and all the associated ecological costs. It’s not a build-it-once-and-done game.
Renewable energy is therefore not actually renewable."

"It’s evident, right?"

dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/08/mm-

dothemath.ucsd.eduMM #11: Renewable Salvation? | Do the Math

Replying to @gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green

@gerrymcgovern seems like the global electrification will need less mining than fossil fuels, even when adjusted for waste rock, according to this review
hannahritchie.substack.com/p/e

hannahritchie.substack.comThe low-carbon energy transition will need less mining than fossil fuels, even when adjusted for waste rockLow-carbon electricity will reduce material requirements, but moving to electric vehicles increases them

Replying to @ng@mastodon.eus

@ng For starters, there is no energy transition. Everything (coal, oil, wind) is at record levels.

Mining for wind and solar demands an order of magnitude more metals than for other fossil fuels.

1 GW wind requires 300 tons of rare earths = 600,000 tons of often radioactive waste.

These wind and solar machines are massively, massively material intense and need to be replaced every 20-30 years.