The argument is that due to the paradox new solar capacity only increases demand, and so will be an additional burden.
I don't think this is true, if solar is truly cheaper than it will drive out the more expensive power plants, but I can see this not always being true.
If it WERE true, we'd be using a lot more wood and coal still, alongside petroleum. And you'd need to constantly be finding ways around the horses and carriages on your way into work.
But for all the ways it isn't 100% true, there is still a pointing toward truth in it. It's more like 100 steps forward, 99 steps back. We're not holding still, just progressing a lot slower than it seems like we would be given the advances, and this explains why/how.
> The argument is that due to the paradox new solar capacity only increases demand, and so will be an additional burden.
Is it it a paradox? I've personally reduced a great deal of my consumption over 12 years now, mainly because the CURRENT situation doesn't warrant it when we are seeing the enormous adverse effects to the environment; but my real goal, whether it be in regenerative Ag/energy etc... was to eventually arrive to a post-scarcity World.
One in which clean energy has become so abundant that it comprises the majority of the Earth's total use (I still think fossil fuels will always have some presence, how much is uncertain) and thus we can stop laboring under the tired notion that energy use itself is a net-negative to the World. The only real analysis is to what end is the energy being used to and we can allow energy intensive business models thought to be not viable another visit.
The energy alarmists that are arguing for the opposite are also the same people who are oblivious to the fact that the Bitcoin network, while energy intensive, is making energy re-capturing technology viable and advancing what was thought to be untenable or not economically feasible and that is the long-term goal: to incentivize the building of the infrastructure Humans must have some economic incentive to do so, no amount or finger-wagging or virtue signalling works long term.
This article underscores how quickly a lifetime of habits can easily be undone when the economics change, and that is the crux of the issue.
I think it's hard to argue that energy usage alone is always negative as portrayed in this article, I (subjectively) think it almost always is if the energy usage is derived from fossil fuels with no net-benefit: like running the AC or lights in a building where no ones is in it (like many commercial buildings) and justify it and amortize the costs as a means to an end when WFH is a far better way for a majority of businesses to operate and localizes the costs of energy use to the individual who in turn can be more discerning where and how much they are willing to pay.
In short, I think this underscores the real issue and that the technology is closer to help solving this issue but short-sighted Human emotion is still a major hurdle that is holding us back (mainly political):
Given all the political barriers that renewables face, it might seem weird to talk about their emotional impact.
But emotion drives politics. This is why some renewable advocates are now trying to tout—as loudly as possible—that a world powered wholly by renewables would be an overflowing horn of plenty, with fast, sporty cars and comfortable homes...
The price barriers in the US aren’t labor or materials: “It’s all about regulations,” he says. “It could change quickly if people wanted it to.”
I don't think this is true, if solar is truly cheaper than it will drive out the more expensive power plants, but I can see this not always being true.