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

“Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

resilience.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 86 posts

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#11

Post by exporectomy »

jdblair wrote: post #9

If you're interested in learning more about the big picture connection between our human society and energy, I recommend "Energy and Civilization: A History," by Vaclav Smil. My biggest takeaway from his book is that transitioning a society to affluence requires, at minimum, 22.6 megawatt hours of energy per capita per year. High energy societies like the United States use far more. To de-carbonize, we have to plan n…

That's surprisingly low. 2.6 megawatt hours per year is 300 watts per person which is almost the same order of magnitude of what the human body can produce.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#12

Post by elijaht »

ThomPete wrote: post #7
cosmic_shame wrote: post #4

Given how long these problems have been staring us in the face, it's truly hard not to be totally pessimistic about the future. If we haven't changed yet, do we even have the capacity to do so?

Problems are solved by optimists. Dont be pessimistic, we will solve problems as they arise. If you are truly worries about your future the best way is to get into the trenches.

I just wanted to let you know this was a beautiful comment. I had a brutal day at work today and spent all evening moping about issues that arose that were intimidating and daunting. Seeing this was exactly what I needed

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#13

Post by jdblair »

exporectomy wrote: post #11
jdblair wrote: post #9

If you're interested in learning more about the big picture connection between our human society and energy, I recommend "Energy and Civilization: A History," by Vaclav Smil. My biggest takeaway from his book is that transitioning a society to affluence requires, at minimum, 22.6 megawatt hours of energy per capita per year. High energy societies like the United States use far more. To de-carbonize, we have to plan n…

That's surprisingly low. 2.6 megawatt hours per year is 300 watts per person which is almost the same order of magnitude of what the human body can produce.

Arggh... I made a typo. It is 22.6 megawatt hours per capita per year, so an order of magnitude higher.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#14

Post by nitrogen »

rdiddly wrote: post #10
ThomPete wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problems are solved by optimists. Dont be pessimistic, we will solve problems as they arise. If you are truly worries about your future the best way is to get into the trenches.

I admire the spirit of this comment but can't quite get onboard, because "the trenches" can be kind of a demoralizing place, especially when you're not winning the war. I've spent 30 years bike-commuting for example and have been car-free for much of that time. The lifestyle has many liberating aspects but it strongly encourages without quite requiring, that you forgo or reduce certain things, like day-trips, sightse…

Sounds like a great experiment and a lifestyle choice that should be available to those who want it. But individual action will always be trumped by invention. The fully optimistic way forward isn't self sacrifice, it's developing the things -- neighborhoods, vehicles, fuels, whatever -- that make it possible for everyone to do more stuff with less energy, and enjoy doing it.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#15

Post by acuozzo »

ThomPete wrote: post #7
cosmic_shame wrote: post #4

Given how long these problems have been staring us in the face, it's truly hard not to be totally pessimistic about the future. If we haven't changed yet, do we even have the capacity to do so?

Problems are solved by optimists. Dont be pessimistic, we will solve problems as they arise. If you are truly worries about your future the best way is to get into the trenches.

How do you know that the problems you're solving are contributing globally rather than just getting you out of local extrema?

I imagine global warming will present many such problems with solutions that will have no impact on global warming itself.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#16

Post by burlesona »

This strikes me as a very defeatist and Malthusian take on the world, and, frankly, too US-centric.

While the US hasn’t managed the political will for significant climate reform, we are far from the majority of the world, and even if we magically had a green revolution and became the worlds first zero-emission nation, it’s unlikely that this would be enough to avert climate change. The developing world wants modern life, and if they have to burn fossil fuels to catch up, they will.

There are really only a few situations that lead to radical global change:

1. Severe crisis, such as a nation-ending war.

2. Extraordinary visionary leadership in the right place at the right time... which often leads to serious crises such as nation-ending wars.

Otherwise, progress comes from the chaotic, messy evolution of humanity. Perhaps we will innovate our way out of climate disaster, perhaps the ecology will gradually change and we’ll be forced to adapt, or (my guess) perhaps some of both. The good news is we actually have a lot of the technology we need, and more is being developed all the time. I for one am optimistic that between innovation and adaptation the future will continue to be bright.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#17

Post by burlesona »

api wrote: post #3

Solar power and batteries have come a long way, but there's still little political will to change things. Nuclear power could progress a lot further too, but again no political will. There's no economic forcing function either since coal and gas remain on average the cheapest and easiest to deploy and manage sources of energy, and that won't change unless there's enough investment in alternatives to get them over the…

Good comment, don’t know why you got downvoted.

I will say I disagree about fossil fuel being cheapest though. The data show we’re at the inflection point now such that new renewables are cheaper even than natural gas and coal. That is very likely to get even cheaper.

I think the real exciting and interesting challenge is how to adopt society to energy that is incredibly cheap and abundant BUT not necessarily stable. Batteries are the most obvious and likely best solution, but are there other adaptations that we could make?

Consider, for example, and two-priority grid: your house could have one circuit that it “interruptible” and may cut off during severe shortages, while a second circuit is uninterruptible and powers things like your heating in the winter. This is just an idea off the top of my head, but there are many many other things that we could potentially do to adapt.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#18

Post by credit_guy »

burlesona wrote: post #16

This strikes me as a very defeatist and Malthusian take on the world, and, frankly, too US-centric. While the US hasn’t managed the political will for significant climate reform, we are far from the majority of the world, and even if we magically had a green revolution and became the worlds first zero-emission nation, it’s unlikely that this would be enough to avert climate change. The developing world wants modern l…

> even if we magically had a green revolution and became the worlds first zero-emission nation, it’s unlikely that this would be enough to avert climate change.

It's actually quite likely that it would go a long way towards averting climate change. Sure, the US contributes only about 6 GT of greenhouse gases of the 50 GT emitted by the whole world annually, so it first seems that zeroing out this would still result in 44 GT worth of emissions left.

But going from 6 GT to zero cannot be done without huge innovation. Technological innovation, innovation in policy, oversight, enforcement. These pieces of innovation can (and will) be shared with the rest of the world. When the price of solar panels went down, it went down globally. If the US Navy implements a way to scrub CO2 out of seawater and make fuel out of it [1], others can use the method too. Even if the US won't share the technology outright, just knowing it can be done will let others know the idea is worth investing in.

[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715123120.h...

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#19

Post by ThomPete »

acuozzo wrote: post #15
ThomPete wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problems are solved by optimists. Dont be pessimistic, we will solve problems as they arise. If you are truly worries about your future the best way is to get into the trenches.

How do you know that the problems you're solving are contributing globally rather than just getting you out of local extrema? I imagine global warming will present many such problems with solutions that will have no impact on global warming itself.

I think the answer (at least to me) is obvious. Maybe because I think about climate a little different than most, who knows.

Climate and nature have always been a problem for humans, and will always be a problem for humans. The good news is that we have never been better able to deal with the problems that the climate throws at us even if some of them are partially self-inflicted.

If you are worried about climate change because of CO2 emissions there is one problem you need to solve and that is energy. Not by some low energy-dense and elaborate daisy-chain rube-goldberg constellation that will only make energy more expensive, require all sorts of backup and complex infrastructure and thus make it harder for poor people to get out of poverty and as you point to, not actually change much.

Instead look for clean, energy-dense solutions like Thorium, Fusion or maybe even some sort of fuel-cell that can scale at affordable economics. We are going to need a lot more energy in the future so better find something that actually works on large scale, that's the #1 problem to work on.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#20

Post by ThomPete »

rdiddly wrote: post #10
ThomPete wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problems are solved by optimists. Dont be pessimistic, we will solve problems as they arise. If you are truly worries about your future the best way is to get into the trenches.

I admire the spirit of this comment but can't quite get onboard, because "the trenches" can be kind of a demoralizing place, especially when you're not winning the war. I've spent 30 years bike-commuting for example and have been car-free for much of that time. The lifestyle has many liberating aspects but it strongly encourages without quite requiring, that you forgo or reduce certain things, like day-trips, sightse…

With the trenches I mean get into into energy :)

That's the #1 area to solve for any future civilization and we are going to need a hell of a lot more than what wind, solar or even fossil fuel can deliver in the future. Energy-density is where it's at IMO.

Post reply on HN