One problem with renewables is that they rely a lot on electronics, which relies a lot on petrochemicals (just to build them) and on globalisation. In a world without abundant oil, can we keep producing and maintaining as many solar panels as we need?

Nuclear is different in that regard.

▲

OKRainbowKid 2 days ago | parent [-]

"renewables increase oil dependency" now that is an argument I haven't seen before.

	▲	palata 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Today, pretty much everything you do increases oil dependency. What's clear is that we will have less and less oil (just because... physics: it's limited) and anyway we need to use less and less oil (because climate change). So the question is: what can we preserve once we don't have oil anymore? And my point was that renewables are piloted with electronics, and we haven't tried building and maintaining that system in a world without oil. People like to extrapolate the growth of renewables, but they tend to forget that the current growth is totally subsidised by oil: your solar panel was built and transported with oil, period. If you are serious about the "after the end of oil", you have to wonder if that system works, at scale, without oil. Don't you?