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

191–200 of 269 posts

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

#191

Post by TaylorAlexander »

cryptonector wrote: post #189
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article, of the 17 scientific papers they studied from 1970 to 2001, 10 of them were completely accurate and the other 7 were only slightly off, but that error was due to the fact that human emissions did not follow the predicted patterns - when correcting for actual emissions using the original calculations, those models were accurate too. Are you remembering scientific research papers? Or TV news r…

I'm referring to the various IPCC reports from the 00s and teens. They have wildly wrong models.

Hmm. I’d love to see which IPCC reports have been found to be wildly wrong if you’ve got any links. Otherwise this just kinda sounds like hearsay to me.

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

#192

Post by 01100011 »

ncmncm wrote: post #146
01100011 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters if you disrupt the dirty energy pipeline well before you've secured enough green energy to self-sustain a green energy future.

Every way to secure green energy requires some use of dirty energy. So the only choice is between dirty forever, and dirty decreasing. If the latter, the faster it decreases, the less dirty energy you use on the transition.

Dirty forever isn't an option. Dirty is not renewable.

We could decrease dirty energy usage to 0% right now. People would starve, quality of life would plummet, and we could direct our available green energy(hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, etc) to building out more green tech. Is that what you're advocating? I don't think so. So let us talk like engineers who need to make trade-offs to best achieve our goals. Cutting off dirty energy too soon hampers our green transition while needlessly killing people and lowering quality of life for those who don't starve or freeze to death.

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

#193

Post by 01100011 »

alexose wrote: post #70
01100011 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most cases no(remember, hydrocarbons and the hydrogen produced by them are often industrial/chemical feedstocks for Si, lubricants, adhesives and polymers used in green mfg) so you're right. The problem is right now these things do indeed depend on dirty energy. You're basically making the same fallacious argument as politicians do now. In the long run, everything will be green. That's not the point. The point is…

I see what you're saying-- Bootstrapping a green economy does, almost by definition, require the use of fossil fuels. I think the easier way to look at it, though, isn't the upfront cost of the transition, but the outcomes that are 10-20 years down the line. A big "spend" right now should result in less overall carbon emitted (according to most of the lifecycle analyses that I'm familiar with, anyway). It's a really…

What do you mean by 'big spend'? The federal reserve can't print oil or copper. Those supply chains need to be built out and that requires a market sufficient to pay back those investments or government essentially subsidizing(more that currently done) the profits of those endeavors. You can't get a private company to build a refinery if you simultaneously tell them there won't be a market for the product before they've paid off half of the investment. If you think that the government should spend the money to secure enough dirty energy to complete the transition then I'm 100% in agreement.

We should be bringing Si mfg back to the US where we have plenty of methane("natural" gas) needed to do so. We should build more fission. We should continue to buy solar panels, rare earths and Li from China, as long as they're willing to sell it to us. But none of this is an either/or decision. We need a realistic path to the green future or we risk screwing up the transition, ruining our economy and setting ourselves up to have regressive political revolutions.

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

#194

Post by 01100011 »

tuatoru wrote: post #141
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…

> We're probably short of copper. While copper water pipes still have a market, I don't think we can claim to be short of copper.

Copper prices are actually down quite a bit right now, but that may be due to previous hoarding in China coupled with economic slowdown and/or disruptions in their metals markets(see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-18/tycoon-ru...).

There are quite a lot of analysts claiming we will be short on copper once the green revolution gets under way(remember, you're talking billions of new EVs, generators, increases in electrical distribution, etc). Think about it this way: all the energy currently delivered by fossil fuels(more or less, due to some efficiency gains) will need to be delivered by the electrical network. We're also busy giving improved living standards to the half of the earth that still lives in less-than-modern conditions. We're going to need to use more aluminum(4th most common element in the crust?) or we're going to run out of copper.

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

#195

Post by 01100011 »

dqpb wrote: post #110
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.

Saying things like "Eventually" and "In 10 to 20 years" bypasses the important question of how to manage the transition while minimizing suffering, whether via starvation, economic disruptions, or continued negative climate effects.

Personally, I'm not doubting that we will achieve a decarbonized and sustainable energy infrastructure. But that's not the point. The point is how will we get there, and are we being realistic about the challenges and requirements to effectively make the transition? Are we being realistic about the energy and materials needed to build our sustainable power generation and delivery network?

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

#196

Post by ncmncm »

01100011 wrote: post #192
ncmncm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every way to secure green energy requires some use of dirty energy. So the only choice is between dirty forever, and dirty decreasing. If the latter, the faster it decreases, the less dirty energy you use on the transition.

Dirty forever isn't an option. Dirty is not renewable. We could decrease dirty energy usage to 0% right now. People would starve, quality of life would plummet, and we could direct our available green energy(hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, etc) to building out more green tech. Is that what you're advocating? I don't think so. So let us talk like engineers who need to make trade-offs to best achieve our goals. Cut…

You very, very evidently did not read what you replied to.

That appears to be a pattern. You could learn just by paying attention to what people took time out to explain to you. Go ahead, I can wait.

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

#197

Post by Animats »

snake_doc wrote: post #167
Animats wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That battery production isn’t a thing in the West is already well known fact. Er, no. 13 large new battery factories are expected to come online in the US in the next 3 years.[1] General Motors is building four. Ford is building three. SK Innovations is building two. Stellantis (Fiat, Chrysler, etc.) is building two. Volkswagen and Toyota are building one each. This doesn't include Tesla, which isn't saying. China'…

The EV components’ raw materials (battery materials and rare earths) are largely controlled by China [1][2]. They may not control the chain end to end, but they have a strangle hold specifically on raw material processing/refinement. Many of the EU/U.S. battery factories will import lithium chemicals from China, at least for this decade. [1]IEA 2022 report, see page 5 on battery materials supply chain share by countr…

The big rare earths mine at Mountain Pass, CA is back online.[1]

The MP Materials magnet plant in Texas is supposed to start delivering to GM in 2023.[2] Although Google Earth shows a vacant lot at the announced location. Groundbreaking was a few months ago.

Australia is the largest producer of lithium ore. Over 50% of world production. China is down around 6%.

Lithium Americas finally got approval this year to build an open-pit lithium mine in Thacker Pass, Nevada. Supposedly construction should be starting about now.[3]

Things are moving forward in this area.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_mine

[2] https://mpmaterials.com/articles/mp-materials-begins-constru...

[3] https://www.lithiumamericas.com/usa/thacker-pass/

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

#198

Post by ncmncm »

01100011 wrote: post #181
bryanlarsen wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lithium is 0.002% of the Earth's crust. The Earth's crust weighs 2.77 * 10^22 kg. Each car needs about 30kg of lithium. Therefore we have enough lithium for about 2*10^15 cars.

Yes, we're going to liquify the earth's crust and efficiently extract all the lithium...

Please do not post low-quality, shallow, dismissive remarks. If you have meaningful information to offer, post that instead. If not, don't.

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

#199

Post by ncmncm »

01100011 wrote: post #182
bryanlarsen wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only signal that matters is the price signal. At $80/bbl, fossil fuel companies are getting a very strong signal that they're needed.

Sorry, no. $80/bbl is a temporary price and not sufficient to drive infrastructure investments which take upwards of 3 decades to pay back(i.e. refineries). You can't expect private companies to invest in these things when states like CA are talking about banning the sale of IC cars in a decade.

You contradict yourself. The high prices are temporary because there is still demand. As demand falls off, price falls, and wells too expensive to operate are abandoned. The remaining wells will produce enough.

CA is not banning sale of ICE cars. They are banning sale of new ICE cars.

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

#200

Post by ncmncm »

01100011 wrote: post #193
alexose wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you're saying-- Bootstrapping a green economy does, almost by definition, require the use of fossil fuels. I think the easier way to look at it, though, isn't the upfront cost of the transition, but the outcomes that are 10-20 years down the line. A big "spend" right now should result in less overall carbon emitted (according to most of the lifecycle analyses that I'm familiar with, anyway). It's a really…

What do you mean by 'big spend'? The federal reserve can't print oil or copper. Those supply chains need to be built out and that requires a market sufficient to pay back those investments or government essentially subsidizing(more that currently done) the profits of those endeavors. You can't get a private company to build a refinery if you simultaneously tell them there won't be a market for the product before they…

Building fission instead of spending those dollars building solar and wind brings climate catastrophe nearer.
Post reply on HN