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

Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

cell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 269 posts

Re: Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

#101

Post by cryptonector »

Access to power / energy is what wealth is all about today, and has been for over 100 years.

However rapidly a "green energy transition" could possibly happen, if it means reducing access to power / energy, then it means a drop in standards of living. In some parts of the world that means more than merely tightening the belt -- it can mean real hunger, while in many others it might mean a return to poverty, though perhaps not hunger. Moreover, people will probably not accept a permanent (or permanent-seeming) reduction in standards of living.

Re: Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

#102

Post by Gare »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #61
lnsru wrote: post #29

I am just curious about manufacturing capacity of these green energy gadgets in Western World. When I look at the parts for my solar installation everything is made in Asia. My system is rather simple: 4-6 panels each ~400 Wp and stupid single phase inverter. That battery production isn’t a thing in the West is already well known fact. In my eyes this green energy transition totally depends on factories in Asia. And…

yeah that and pretty much every computer in the world

But the machines that make "computers" are designed and produced in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASML_Holding

If you know how to make the tool, you probably know how to make the product.

Re: Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

#103

Post by zdragnar »

kkfx wrote: post #78
joshe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quick answer is that we are not short of any of those materials. We might not be producing enough right now, but there's far more than enough that can be mined or recycled inexpensively. Increased prices will cause more mining and recycling, eventually the price will settle at the cost of production + something for profit. The something for profit is quite small, the coast for low risk capital is ~5% a year. Ther…

> We might not be producing enough right now, but there's far more than enough that can be mined or recycled inexpensively. That's not reality but a dream. So far we still have to find a sustainable lithium recycling on scale, there are various startups with various solutions, who actually prove to be just like most startup: PR scam for money or childish dream of someone who sold the cat before capturing it. It's not…

Locally, there are several mines that have been trying to open for years (copper and nickel, mostly) but the environmental crowd has been extremely determined in using the courts and bureaucracy to block them from opening.

The net result is the green wave will be driven largely by relying on dirty minerals from other countries.

Re: Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

#104

Post by acallaghan »

FunnyBadger wrote: post #73
01100011 wrote: post #37

Garbage comment from an uninformed SW engineer: How, in the current economic and geopolitical environment, can they project that production costs will continue to decline? Green tech requires massive amounts of dirty energy to produce. It also has been benefiting from globalization which is now going in reverse. I would add at least 5 years to any timeline given because of the recalibrating global energy and material…

You are absolutely correct. Supply Chains are primarily fossil based and can NOT be substituted with low density sources like Green Energy or even electricity at all. For example, you can't efficiently make steel or most other metals with electricity alone. Even primarily electrically refined metals like copper or aluminum REQUIRE inputs that can not be made or refined or extracted with electricity. Often this is abo…

The cargo-cult religion is unfortunately back by science and years of study and agreement amongst scientists - human activity is causing climate change and global warming. You sound like you haven't accepted this fact based reality that we live in and are a part of.

Climate change is our fault, and we have to stop it, there is no other alternative that also includes life continuing on earth as we know it. This change is already happening, it's not hypothetical. Global systems are already being affected, extreme weather and drought more common. Global temperature change has to be kept as low as possible, or we risk crop failure, famine and mass immigration at a scale that has never been seen.

I understand there are huge logistical issues with shifting off fossil fuels, but we as humans have to. We can get to the moon, we can stop burning old dinosaurs & plants to make stuff work. Even without climate change, these resources are finite. Are you just going to accept waiting for all the oil to run out before making plastic tubes from something else? The clue is in the name fossil, they take millions of years to produce and are non-renewable.

You can think of me as a green psychopath all you like, but it doesn't change the cold hard facts. I hope my reply isn't high-intensity BS.

Re: Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

#105

Post by lanstin »

clairity wrote: post #13
Bostonian wrote: post #2

Critiqued at https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-9-16-cost-of-t... . '[H]ere are what I believe to be the main problems with the work: The principal driver of the whole thing is a forecast of rapid and continuous declines in the cost of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. The assumption is that costs of these things will continue to decline exponentially without limit indefinitely into the future. Fr…

storage (and grid stability in general) is always the crucial achilles heel to renewables and it's always handwaved away with fantastical arguments positioned squarely against nuclear (here, springing up a whole global hydrogen economy out of nowhere). it's frustrating to see so much needless internecine fighting when nuclear plus renewables is the most viable answer we have right now to a fossil fuel free future. we…

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-california-ke... we are already getting gigawatts from batteries.

And what do you make of the argument that nuclear takes too long to ramp up construction? I mean Biden’s infra legislation does include support for nuclear and California just decided to keep open its last plant, but the solar/batteries combo is so cheap, easy, safe and decentralized (which a lot of the California libertarians like) that nuclear can’t compete really.

Re: Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

#106

Post by swid »

vondur wrote: post #20

Can we really build batteries at the scale needed for this? I’m a bit skeptical.

Recently I saw on HN that Australia has a path to >98% renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro) with only 5 hours of battery storage. That’s a lot of value for less battery backup than I would have thought.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32567994

Re: Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

#107

Post by 01100011 »

acallaghan wrote: post #104
FunnyBadger wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolutely correct. Supply Chains are primarily fossil based and can NOT be substituted with low density sources like Green Energy or even electricity at all. For example, you can't efficiently make steel or most other metals with electricity alone. Even primarily electrically refined metals like copper or aluminum REQUIRE inputs that can not be made or refined or extracted with electricity. Often this is abo…

The cargo-cult religion is unfortunately back by science and years of study and agreement amongst scientists - human activity is causing climate change and global warming. You sound like you haven't accepted this fact based reality that we live in and are a part of. Climate change is our fault, and we have to stop it, there is no other alternative that also includes life continuing on earth as we know it. This change…

I missed the part where OP denied global warming.

You and I both want the same thing. Our shared goals do not negate the laws of chemistry or physics.

Re: Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

#108

Post by actually_a_dog »

Gare wrote: post #97
actually_a_dog wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, we do not have "plenty" of lithium. There's not enough lithium in the world to put in all the batteries for all the EVs we'll need to replace ICE vehicles. This is entirely orthogonal to the fact that recycling lithium ion batteries is expensive, difficult, and potentially dangerous in the case of any type of mishap. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/electric-vehicles-wor...

But we do have more than enough sodium, and sodium-ion batteries could be "good enough" for most applications with technology advancement.

Maybe, but I am skeptical. Do you know when lithium ion batteries were invented? Okay, truthfully, neither do I, because accounts vary, depending on what you mean by "invented" and "lithium ion battery," but it was definitely in the 1970s. The first prototypes were created in the mid 80s, and commercial introduction wasn't until 1991. This stuff is all up on Wikipedia, so you can just look it up if you doubt it.

Even if the research is being done, we've got decades before something commercially viable comes out. The need exists now. Anything that isn't essentially ready to go by 2030 probably isn't going to do squat to help us.

Re: Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

#109

Post by 01100011 »

telchar wrote: post #99
FunnyBadger wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolutely correct. Supply Chains are primarily fossil based and can NOT be substituted with low density sources like Green Energy or even electricity at all. For example, you can't efficiently make steel or most other metals with electricity alone. Even primarily electrically refined metals like copper or aluminum REQUIRE inputs that can not be made or refined or extracted with electricity. Often this is abo…

You’re seemingly unaware that petrochemicals can be synthesized with energy and simple organic feedstocks. The chemistry is pretty well established to bootstrap up from water and CO2 to complex hydrocarbons and from there of course the same petrochemical processes can be applied. Green energy is perfectly capable of this.

They can, but that takes energy. You have to have sufficient green energy to produce it and how do you get to the place where you have sufficient energy? Currently, that means you burn massive amounts of dirty energy to make the transition over, what, decades?

Your comment is well intended but it is the same sort of 'one day it will be perfect' thinking that glosses over the messy transition that actually needs to take place first.

Re: Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

#110

Post by dqpb »

01100011 wrote: post #37

Garbage comment from an uninformed SW engineer: How, in the current economic and geopolitical environment, can they project that production costs will continue to decline? Green tech requires massive amounts of dirty energy to produce. It also has been benefiting from globalization which is now going in reverse. I would add at least 5 years to any timeline given because of the recalibrating global energy and material…

> Green tech requires massive amounts of dirty energy to produce

In theory, bootstrapping will eventually be complete.

Post reply on HN