you cant leapfrog fossil fuels. Wind and solar require backup from either gas, oil, coal or nuclear or it wont be able to provide energy all the time. All you are doing is creating a much more expensive system and you are not getting rid of fossil fuel. Furthermore do you knoe how much fossil fuels goes into building windmills and solar cells? Both from a material and manufacturing perspective.
> Furthermore do you knoe how much fossil fuels goes into building windmills and solar cells? Both from a material and manufacturing perspective.
You're just describing a feedback cycle: the more we transition to renewables, the less fossil fuels will go into wind turbines and solar cells.
From your link:
> Large trucks bring steel and other raw materials to the site, earth-moving equipment beats a path to otherwise inaccessible high ground, large cranes erect the structures, and all these machines burn diesel fuel. So do the freight trains and cargo ships that convey the materials needed for the production of cement, steel, and plastics.
In other words, we should transition our vehicles to renewable power. Electric motors are already preferable when it comes to heavy machinery (bucket-wheel excavators and conveyor bridges, the largest machines ever made, being the most extreme examples). Wind/solar farms generate electricity, so they can start charging batteries or electrolysing water to hydrogen as soon as the first turbines/panels are installed; they'll eventually need hefty grid connections, so installing those early-on can also power the construction.
Managing an electric/hydrogen construction site is mostly logistics rather than engineering: we don't need new battery tech or fuel cell membranes when vehicles are operating on a single site, centrally coordinated, centrally owned/rented, etc. Battery swaps make more sense when a single entity controls all the batteries (no fear of losing a good battery for a worn-out dud). Even if you want to be incredibly pessimistic about battery/hydrogen usage: with a bit more coordination and training, construction vehicles could just be wired!
Similarly, electric trains are a thing; electric and hydrogen trucks are already available and getting better; we can sail cargo ships, for a price (time + money).
The only place which seems to require new science and engineering in all this is steel and concrete production, but (a) there are a bunch of companies bringing improvements to market already, and (b) that's no reason to avoid all the other improvements. Again, worst-case pessimism: we might need to plug excess renewables into some vastly-inefficient air capture system to offset jet aircraft, rockets (except hydrogen burners), concrete and steel; that's still easier than trying to offset all those things plus electricity and land transport and shipping and construction etc.
The only direct barriers are economic; and those are indirectly political.
Yet, it's fairly reliable in most developed countries. So how will a developing country, well, develop, if it can't build a consistent, reliable power grid?
The rich countries should emulate China's Belt and Road initiative, but instead of building ports and highways they should build electric grids and renewables in developing nations. Ideally without predatory balloon financing that results in sticky situations down the line.
electric grid based on renewables require fossil fuels to be both made and as backup to be reliable. Electricity is not going to solve the 80% of the energy needs, its not going to allow them to do manufacturing and agriculture at large scale either. Its the wrong approach to turn developing nations into developed nations. I know most people dont like to hear it but that is the reality.
We are not getting of fossil fuels anytime soon.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil?fbc...