this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
4 points (58.3% liked)
collapse
356 readers
85 users here now
Placeholder for time being, moving from lemm.ee
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So if you were talking about a car, there is no difference between the volume of the fuel tank and the horsepower of the engine? ;)
The whole point of this article is that people are totally muddled up about the distinction. The title starts 'power, not energy... '.
With all due respect, his point is made clear by your comment.
Also, the word he uses is 'exergy'. You said 'Energy'. I'm not clear you followed the logic.
We're not taking about cars, we're taking about electricity generation. Both renewable and fossil fuel infrastructure supply power to the grid. The work tries to muddy the waters, laud fossil fuels, and disparage renewables. You may clarify the point if you feel so inclined.
That's exactly what he is saying. Renewables deliver power to the grid.
What he is saying is that at the same time they provide power, they don't deliver energy (if you do all the accounting for the system).
This doesn't laud fossil fuels. This is only a critique on renewables if fossil fuel use is a negative. He is saying that renewables (right now) are a scam for being not enough of real solution to the problem of fossil fuels.
Do not mistake being qualified on using renewables as pro-fossil fuels. The author is actually saying renewables aren't automatically anti-fossil fuels and we are doing them wrong. He's calling for a clear minded adult conversation and not childish oversimplifications. As far as I can tell, he's saying this can't work if we don't get rid of "grid" systems entirely. We need a totally different system.
The problem is that people are fooling themselves about what is going on, really.