Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: “Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects

#31

Post by fny »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #8
fny wrote: post #6

I hate to say it, but if energy prices keep rising this perspective is going to be disposed of rapidly. High energy prices mean rampant inflation and social unrest. With crude and natural gas prices skyrocketing, developing nations will again turn to coal as an energy source. Developed nations will return (see Germany) to coal as a heating source. Green energy will be thrown to the wayside for the sake of social stab…

You know what else causes social unrest? Starvation induced by crop failure. We’re already seeing the first signs with recent extreme weather and the megadrought. Wait just a short few years until it really gets moving.

Natural gas is an incredible important input in the development of fertilizers. This is part of the reason cereal prices have skyrocketed so far.

Unfortunately, everything is interlinked. Carbon is certainly an issue, but we've clearly put the cart before the horse.

Re: “Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects

#32

Post by mrpopo »

ben_w wrote: post #10
montalbano wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand correctly, what you're describing is often called 'embodied carbon' or 'embedded emissions' [0]. Many people spend their lives estimating embedded emissions and, more importantly, the time it will take for any emission-reducing technology (e.g. electric cars) to amortise away the CO2e emissions required to produce it. For instance, it's been estimated that a Tesla Model 3 "needs to be driven for 13,50…

> it's been estimated that a Tesla Model 3 "needs to be driven for 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before it does less harm to the environment than a Toyota Corolla" Huh, that’s a factor of 5-10 less miles than I was expecting. Good to know.

This also depends a lot on the electricity source mix that you're powering your car with today and in the next 10 years.

As a matter of fact, electric cars would be more efficient than ICE cars even with a very high-carbon electricity mix, because thermal power plants are much more efficient than ICE engines (due to size + available cooling source), and the power transmission/battery/electric engines are optimized enough that they don't gobble all the efficiency gains.

Electric cars are better CO2-wise, no question. But it will not reduce emissions enough. People who can afford not having a car should do so, and public authorities should develop public transportation. Of course, people who can't do so will be better off with an electric car, but environmentalists are worried that a push to full-electric will undermine needed efforts to reshape society towards a less energy-hungry world.

Re: “Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects

#33

Post by 0x53 »

hedora wrote: post #16
fny wrote: post #6

I hate to say it, but if energy prices keep rising this perspective is going to be disposed of rapidly. High energy prices mean rampant inflation and social unrest. With crude and natural gas prices skyrocketing, developing nations will again turn to coal as an energy source. Developed nations will return (see Germany) to coal as a heating source. Green energy will be thrown to the wayside for the sake of social stab…

Three of four home states for my extended family are under continuous threat of burnining down, and air quality has been unacceptably low (due to fires) for years. Also, at least one is running out of water, to the point that is has been causing food shortages elsewhere for years. I honestly think the US will end up in a civil war if it ends up being necessary to force action on climate change. As an aside, I own a p…

The book “American war” is an interesting fiction take on the idea of a civil war based on climate change policies

Re: “Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects

#34

Post by nl »

offmycloud wrote: post #22
woodruffw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might have been true 20 years ago, but the economic envelope has changed: solar and wind power are both consistently cheaper than fossil fuels. This holds true even in developing nations[1], which means that countries that are still building out their initial power generation and distribution systems stand to benefit from skipping a costly transition entirely (not to mention eliminating a geopolitical lever.) [1…

> solar and wind power are both consistently cheaper than fossil fuels Solar power is not cheaper than combined-cycle natural gas at midnight. The article that you cited does not contain the words "battery" or "storage", and one really needs to compare the all-in levelized cost of energy (and storage) over the life of the project. It does mention hydrogen, but does not go into the efficiency calculations.

There's pretty decent analysis of levelized costs including storage by Lazard[1].

This type of analysis is pretty difficult though. A modern grid with both solar and wind power is pretty resilient and calculating the amount of storage needed depends on the things like if it has long distance transmission lines (increasing reliance by increasing the geography).

I think this is why a lot of places end up having a gas peaker plant. In terms of running costs it's not great, and the climate impact is bad (although I guess hydrogen helps is that is available anywhere yet). But it's cheap to build ($85M gets you 55MW[2]). These days batteries are cost competitive with that though[3]:

> a 250MW, four-hour (1,000MWh) battery system in New South Wales would be a cheaper option for meeting peak demand than a 250MW new-build OCGT from both levelised cost of energy (LCOE) and levelised cost of capacity (LCOC) perspectives.[3]

[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... (scroll down for storage)

[2] https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/04/08/peabody-peaker-natural-...

[3] https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-30-cheaper-t...

Re: “Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects

#35

Post by marcosdumay »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #27

Funny how all these studies completely ignore methane emissions from abandoned wells.

Everybody seems to willfully ignore every kind of methane leakage on the fossil fuels production chain.

But this one study is about projected growth, so old wells are really not the point.

Re: “Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects

#36

Post by est31 »

fny wrote: post #6

I hate to say it, but if energy prices keep rising this perspective is going to be disposed of rapidly. High energy prices mean rampant inflation and social unrest. With crude and natural gas prices skyrocketing, developing nations will again turn to coal as an energy source. Developed nations will return (see Germany) to coal as a heating source. Green energy will be thrown to the wayside for the sake of social stab…

Rising energy prices are good for renewables, not bad. A rise makes renewable infrastructure more profitable just as it makes non-renewable infrastructure more profitable. Thus, renewables get even more competitive to non-renewable alternatives.

Re: “Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects

#37

Post by tsimionescu »

jlmorton wrote: post #30
offmycloud wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> solar and wind power are both consistently cheaper than fossil fuels Solar power is not cheaper than combined-cycle natural gas at midnight. The article that you cited does not contain the words "battery" or "storage", and one really needs to compare the all-in levelized cost of energy (and storage) over the life of the project. It does mention hydrogen, but does not go into the efficiency calculations.

An important point to be made is that as electric vehicles take off, we'll soon start to find ourselves with an avalanche of worn batteries that no longer adequately support EVs, but work just fine as grid storage. There are 280 million vehicles in the US. If fifty million of those were electric vehicles, then ten years later we'd have enough already-produced batteries to power the entire United States overnight. The…

Do you really believe it is feasible to collect 50 million used car batteries in various states of wear and connect them to the grid while expecting this to be a stable solution to solar power during the night?

Re: “Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects

#38

Post by kodah »

tsimionescu wrote: post #37
jlmorton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important point to be made is that as electric vehicles take off, we'll soon start to find ourselves with an avalanche of worn batteries that no longer adequately support EVs, but work just fine as grid storage. There are 280 million vehicles in the US. If fifty million of those were electric vehicles, then ten years later we'd have enough already-produced batteries to power the entire United States overnight. The…

Do you really believe it is feasible to collect 50 million used car batteries in various states of wear and connect them to the grid while expecting this to be a stable solution to solar power during the night?

If you were rich enough to buy a Tesla wouldn't you try to talk the government into buying your battery off of you?

Re: “Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects

#39

Post by londons_explore »

tsimionescu wrote: post #37
jlmorton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important point to be made is that as electric vehicles take off, we'll soon start to find ourselves with an avalanche of worn batteries that no longer adequately support EVs, but work just fine as grid storage. There are 280 million vehicles in the US. If fifty million of those were electric vehicles, then ten years later we'd have enough already-produced batteries to power the entire United States overnight. The…

Do you really believe it is feasible to collect 50 million used car batteries in various states of wear and connect them to the grid while expecting this to be a stable solution to solar power during the night?

If the power market is fully 'open', then yes, it will happen.

All it takes is for a car scrap dealer to realise that for every EV battery he grabs out and hooks up to the grid he'll earn $200/year. Before long, every scrap dealer will be doing it to every car.

However, I suspect that small players will be barred from the electricity markets via mountains of bureaucracy and certification, so that might not happen.

Re: “Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects

#40

Post by Guthur »

woodruffw wrote: post #13
fny wrote: post #6

I hate to say it, but if energy prices keep rising this perspective is going to be disposed of rapidly. High energy prices mean rampant inflation and social unrest. With crude and natural gas prices skyrocketing, developing nations will again turn to coal as an energy source. Developed nations will return (see Germany) to coal as a heating source. Green energy will be thrown to the wayside for the sake of social stab…

This might have been true 20 years ago, but the economic envelope has changed: solar and wind power are both consistently cheaper than fossil fuels. This holds true even in developing nations[1], which means that countries that are still building out their initial power generation and distribution systems stand to benefit from skipping a costly transition entirely (not to mention eliminating a geopolitical lever.) [1…

Solar and wind are strategically untenable. I can harden, concentrate and layer my defenses around dense energy production facilities. I can also concentrate my remedial assets to bring them back online asap.

With the solar in particular it's one cluster munition away from massive degradation.

Post reply on HN