What we'd have to change is the way society consumes energy. Right now, we operate under the paradigm of "I request energy, the grid ramps up and down to fill demand".
Instead, we could to switch over to "I ask the grid if capacity is available and use energy when it is".
That would require the ability for the grid to say "no" and for industries to respond to "nos". Nothing terribly hard about that with current data connections.
Easiest way to set that up is with energy bidding. When production is high and demand is low, price goes down. When production is low and demand is high, price goes up. Some applications could even chose to just ignore it and always take (However, everyone could not do that).
What would be the consequence of such a system? That'd mean things like manufacturing would have to have some ramping capabilities. Homes might have to tolerate temps shifting higher or lower than is comfortable. Goods might need to be transported at a much slower pace (Trans oceanic shipping, in particular, would need to be completely changed). And some industries would probably die all together with current tech (such as the airline and cruise industry).
The next question is what do we consider as using fossil fuels? For example, I wouldn't call burning wood a fossil fuel (even though it releases CO2 into the atmosphere) nor would I consider turning vegetable oil into plastic as using a fossil fuel. Both could be done today to keep the same amount of products, but would significantly change the cost characteristics of such things. Plastics would suddenly become a lot more expensive, for example.
Steel production might go down, but would not be eliminated.
Concrete would be one that you'd have to define what you mean by "fossil fuel" as it would release CO2 but isn't technically a fossil fuel. The process of making concrete can be done without burning oil.
That's available now, if you buy power in large enough amounts. It's not popular.[1]
[1] https://seuc.senate.ca.gov/interruptibleservicecontractissue...
In order for this to really work well, we need national standards for both grid operators and grid users. The reason for all of this being both unpopular and requiring big purchases is because it's pretty much a 1 off deal between the grid operator and the purchaser. It requires that they both both come into the room to make a deal.
Instead, we need something closer to the NEM in Australia. There needs to be a standard bidding mechanism for buying/selling energy on the market.
Our electric meters need to be hooked up to a grid pricing network and our appliances need to be able to talk to that network through our meters.
Once there is a standard communication protocol and pricing network, then you'll start to see neat things happen with smarter power consuming products.
For that to work, however, it needs to be setup nationally. It won't work if every single grid invents their own market or bidding standard. Ideally, this would be an international standard.
No, not a spot market in electricity. California tried that two decades ago, with an auction every 15 minutes. It was such a disaster that PG&E, which had lobbied for it, went bankrupt. Speculators caused blackouts. The current system has a market, but it's a day-ahead system where generators bid to provide power tomorrow, and there's a small spot market for fine-tuning.
An overview.[1]
Until people have electric cars though, for most there is no point. Most of what I do with electric I will do at any price when I want to. My oven needs to work when I'm hungry. My furnace needs to keep the pipes from freezing (there is some load balance opportunities here). I turn lights on when it is dark.
Additionally, we don't have electric vehicles/machinery that can adequately replace many of the essential tools that we have today. Try mining on a fully electric system. I don't think you're going to get very far right now. Maybe some of these processing systems could be electrified but not the whole thing (hey, maybe we'd go small modular reactors and that'd power these machines? But I doubt it).
The reason I bring up such things like concrete and steel, besides the logistics of constructing them (again, getting heat is a problem), is because when we talk about fossil fuels it is really a proxy conversation for climate and emissions. It is a danger that we are only focusing on this and not other things.
>> One of the biggest challenges in climate is that the population has been so hyper focused with energy and transportation
I do think Gates[0] wrote a decent article on the subject matter and how we need to start widening our net if we're really going to solve the problem.
[0] https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-clima...
They are similar to apes in intelligence perhaps. That's not human level.
I think if these animals could write and read somehow they would be just as smart (if not smarter) than some humans :)
No, there are no animals at all, anywhere even close to the smartness of humans. It's not a small difference, it's a HUGE gap.
When we talk about how smart apes, or dolphins are, we are talking relative to other animals. Relative to humans, it's almost nothing.
They are stuck behind bronze age. I just don't see any technology without having these things as prerequisites. Even electricity is generally impossible when you live in a big conductor.
(On the other other hand, salt water is metal killer...)
I think this is the key. The modern world is an electrified world. But the other things you point out are in some cases advantages are also disadvantages. But I think the biggest thing is metal and electricity.