Making energy too cheap to meter
worksinprogress.co
Making energy too cheap to meter
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Making energy too cheap to meter
#2> The way to address the real problems behind ergophobia is, counterintuitively, more energy. With enough cheap energy, we could literally pull excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and bury it again.
With cheap energy, we could literally pull excess carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen out of the air and make fats, carbohydrates and amino acids. No need for agricultural land.
Re: Making energy too cheap to meter
#3A beautiful article. Read it and think.
Re: Making energy too cheap to meter
#4> The way to address the real problems behind ergophobia is, counterintuitively, more energy. With enough cheap energy, we could literally pull excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and bury it again. With cheap energy, we could literally pull excess carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen out of the air and make fats, carbohydrates and amino acids. No need for agricultural land.
But then it will end up in the atmosphere again shortly after. I think the idea is to achieve a reduction in CO2. However, is there a process that sucks out CO2 more effectively than trees doing photosynthesis?
Re: Making energy too cheap to meter
#5Why do so many sites pop the "sign up for our newsletter" modal a few moments after you've begun to read TFA? It is jarring and disrespectful, and I feel the need to leave without reading further.
Re: Making energy too cheap to meter
#6> The way to address the real problems behind ergophobia is, counterintuitively, more energy. With enough cheap energy, we could literally pull excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and bury it again. With cheap energy, we could literally pull excess carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen out of the air and make fats, carbohydrates and amino acids. No need for agricultural land.
But then it will end up in the atmosphere again shortly after. I think the idea is to achieve a reduction in CO2. However, is there a process that sucks out CO2 more effectively than trees doing photosynthesis?
If we are able to produce food without agriculture, then we can rewild farmlands and get CO2 sequestration and more wild nature.
Re: Making energy too cheap to meter
#7Summary: If energy is free and doesn't impact anything then of course you would want to use more of it.
I don't know why they think this is a unique perspective, I guess just pointing out that people don't discriminate by electricity source when they condemn extra energy use beyond what is needed to do a job. If the electricity source is free and does no harm there is no obvious way to label the electrons.
I don't understand why they see it as harmful to use less energy to do the same job, as long as the job is done the rest is a bunch of words to confuse the issue. Use less energy = generate less heat = use less heat sink = more compact device, it's all coupled and biased towards using what we have effectively.
I think perhaps the point of the article is its strawman that people want "constant energy use" which as best I can tell is just made up? I'm literally the child of professional environmentalists and I have never heard anyone focus on "constant energy use" -- it's always about reducing waste (obviously landfill space is an issue beyond energy...), reducing pollution (containment would still be an issue beyond energy...), and improving health (maybe energy can help a little but I mean, mostly beyond energy...).
Re: Making energy too cheap to meter
#8> The way to address the real problems behind ergophobia is, counterintuitively, more energy. With enough cheap energy, we could literally pull excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and bury it again. With cheap energy, we could literally pull excess carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen out of the air and make fats, carbohydrates and amino acids. No need for agricultural land.
But then it will end up in the atmosphere again shortly after. I think the idea is to achieve a reduction in CO2. However, is there a process that sucks out CO2 more effectively than trees doing photosynthesis?
You can do both, producing hydrocarbon fuels and carbohydrate calories, and also sequestering carbon. Maybe as diamonds, instead of soot to bury.
Yes, you absolutely can trap much more CO2 per unit of collection area with photovoltaics than trees can manage. The trees are cheaper per unit of carbon capturing capacity, but what they bind the carbon into is less useful.
That said, wood can be burned in such a way that only the hydrogen oxidizes, leaving charcoal that, powdered, can massively improve soil quality particularly in rainforests. Up until 500 years ago there was a thousands-of-years-long project doing this in the Amazon, interrupted by plague and collapse.
Re: Making energy too cheap to meter
#9Summary: If energy is free and doesn't impact anything then of course you would want to use more of it. I don't know why they think this is a unique perspective, I guess just pointing out that people don't discriminate by electricity source when they condemn extra energy use beyond what is needed to do a job. If the electricity source is free and does no harm there is no obvious way to label the electrons. I don't un…
Yeah, it's weird, but some people really do think that way, and need to be gentled along.
Re: Making energy too cheap to meter
#10'... leave for work. On your commute ...'
This reads like the jetsons.
I agree we should aim for energy abundance, but for what? For a more intense version of the 20th century, with offices, commutes, dinner with the boss, etc? Bah, we need a bolder vision.
We could use abundant energy to largely remove agriculture from the environment. It is the second biggest greenhouse emitter even only by official figures, and by far the most damaging to the overall ecosystem. Grow or culture our food in factories, maybe at sea, and leave the land to nature.