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

61–70 of 77 posts

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

#61

Post by cinntaile »

tsimionescu wrote: post #49
mbgerring wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could probably get a couple million in VC money to try it. Somebody probably should!

To me it seems pretty obvious from first principles that it can't work. It's also not something that you can just try out. I'm sure it will "work" in some sense at small scales - you can probably buy a few worn batteries off a used car and connect them to the grid and perhaps make a profit. But the problem is that this can't be relied on by a whole country as a solution to ensuring power generation. This type of stor…

You claim you reach this conclusion from first principles but I don't see any calculations that back up your statements?

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

#62

Post by joshuanapoli »

Guthur wrote: post #40
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 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.

Solar and battery backup for a home should make it more resilient to disruption of the local power infrastructure.

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

#63

Post by skocznymroczny »

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…

It won't be as easy to go back to coal for heating, at least short term. In Poland for example, one of the criteria to get a subsidy for switching away from coal for heating was to dispose of the old coal oven. I did that few months ago and switched to gas heating instead. If the prices of gas go up dramatically (and given the current situation that's likely), we don't really have an alternative at the moment.

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

#64

Post by ZeroGravitas »

barney54 wrote: post #11
ben_w wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the world turn to a more expensive fuel source? Even in Germany, coal is more expensive than wind and mostly more expensive than PV: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-o...

It is not valid to compare the levelized cost of non-dispatchable sources of generation like wind and solar and dispatachable sources of generation like coal and nuclear. It’s an apples to oranges comparison, unless you some storage costs to the wind and solar. In that study you see there is overlap between coal and PV systems and batteries.

Or you sell the excess power to other countries like France does with excess nuclear.

I wonder how much their power would cost if they were forced (for no reason at all) to store all that excess nuclear power and use it themselves rather than sell it to willing buyers. It would make nuclear look really uneconomic. Even more so than it already is.

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

#65

Post by kodah »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #60
kodah wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You think that regulatory capture of the government by rich, individual Tesla owners is a key energy policy concern? That seems outlandish.

I don't think Tesla owners are that influential, no. I was merely making a joke that we get solutions codified into law that are driven primarily by rich people, and I don't think anyone would argue buying a $60k car doesn't make you rich.

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

#66

Post by kodah »

tsimionescu wrote: post #50
kodah wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You might, but that's not the question, it's the other side that's more important. Will any state be willing to rely on used car batteries as a critical component of their power grid?

Personally, I think these used car batteries will go straight to the dump and will be just another investigative journalism story about how we're damaging the local ecology. Batteries can be recycled but it's fairly expensive, so someone would have to engineer a process that optimizes for time, cost, and life of the battery. As far as I know, nothing exists in mass production like this today.

What I think is more feasible is us finding a way to store energy outside the means of a typical lithium battery. I could very well be idealistic in this sense though.

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

#67

Post by ZeroGravitas »

kodah wrote: post #65
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that regulatory capture of the government by rich, individual Tesla owners is a key energy policy concern? That seems outlandish.

I don't think Tesla owners are that influential, no. I was merely making a joke that we get solutions codified into law that are driven primarily by rich people, and I don't think anyone would argue buying a $60k car doesn't make you rich.

And the rich people you worry about influencing policy aren't the Saudi Royal family, Vladimir Putin and the giant corporations who profit from fossil fuels and literally started a conspiracy theory that scientists were lying to us in an effort to destroy modern civizilation and so on, but rather 'rich' people who have bought an EV with the same total cost of ownership as a Toyota Camry?

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

#68

Post by kodah »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #67
kodah wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Tesla owners are that influential, no. I was merely making a joke that we get solutions codified into law that are driven primarily by rich people, and I don't think anyone would argue buying a $60k car doesn't make you rich.

And the rich people you worry about influencing policy aren't the Saudi Royal family, Vladimir Putin and the giant corporations who profit from fossil fuels and literally started a conspiracy theory that scientists were lying to us in an effort to destroy modern civizilation and so on, but rather 'rich' people who have bought an EV with the same total cost of ownership as a Toyota Camry?

You're really upset about a joke, maybe take some time to cool off after this thread.

Sure, those are rich people too. In fact, so are the handful of Oil tycoons down in Texas. Since we're in super-serious mode, I don't "worry" about rich people. I tolerate their privilege just like everyone else.

When rich EV owners were given the entire first level of my companies parking garage and I had to park my cheap hybrid on the roof because it didn't have a Tesla charger I was a bit annoyed but I tolerated the fact that they were getting free energy (fuel) and a clean car while my car collected pollen.

When rich EV owners were given preferential access to highways despite having better fuel efficiency than ICE cars I was a bit annoyed but I tolerated the fact that they get to work faster and cheaper while sitting in a nicer car than mine.

When rich EV owners were given subsidies on their cars with no salary cap I tolerated the fact that my $20k hybrid had no subsidies and that I paid every cent on my own despite the car not being as fancy.

So yeah, forgive me that I take a mildly humorous approach to giving any more free stuff to EV owners when it almost exclusively benefits the rich.

For the record, I'd love to be an EV owner - I own a hybrid afterall. I can't though, market forces keep rent really high and I can't buy a house when the sale price of the house is actually $100-$300k above the listing price. If I can't afford a simple house to charge a car at, then I certainly won't look at a $60k+ car as an investment.

Edit:

Just to address your "total cost of ownership of a Toyota Camry" line: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g36278968/best-selling...

These were the top sellers of 2021. Not a single car in the $20k range. Many cars that are affordable to the every day person have limited mileage or are slow, and with rent and home prices climbing it makes it difficult for the people who could fit into those cars financially to do so when they're being pushed farther and farther out of the city.

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

#69

Post by olddustytrail »

barney54 wrote: post #11
ben_w wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the world turn to a more expensive fuel source? Even in Germany, coal is more expensive than wind and mostly more expensive than PV: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-o...

It is not valid to compare the levelized cost of non-dispatchable sources of generation like wind and solar and dispatachable sources of generation like coal and nuclear. It’s an apples to oranges comparison, unless you some storage costs to the wind and solar. In that study you see there is overlap between coal and PV systems and batteries.

Neither coal nor nuclear are dispatchable. Dispatchable means you can turn them on and off on demand.

So grid storage batteries, hydro and gas turbine (in order of fastest to slowest).

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

#70

Post by tsimionescu »

cinntaile wrote: post #61
tsimionescu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems pretty obvious from first principles that it can't work. It's also not something that you can just try out. I'm sure it will "work" in some sense at small scales - you can probably buy a few worn batteries off a used car and connect them to the grid and perhaps make a profit. But the problem is that this can't be relied on by a whole country as a solution to ensuring power generation. This type of stor…

You claim you reach this conclusion from first principles but I don't see any calculations that back up your statements?

I have my (qualitative, not quantitative) reasoning in the entire comment. You're free to ignore, agree, disagree, or counter argue.

I'm not going to spend days or weeks researching and coming up with a decent statistical model for something I don't even believe makes sense on intre the face of it for a comment thread.

I'd also note that something being infeasible from first principles explicitly implies that there's no need for calculations or experiments. For example, if someone comes up with a machine whose claimed performance makes it a perpetuum mobile, I don't need to calculate anything: I know from first principles (conservation of energy) that they are wrong or lying. Of course, this is nowhere near as cut and dry, but I did give my reasoning for why this doesn't seem to me to make any sense.

Post reply on HN