Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by bryanlarsen » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 11:07 PM UTC

actually_a_dog wrote: post #87

01100011 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we are not short of any of those materials For the most part you are correct. But building the mines, refining, supply chains, etc takes time. So you are perhaps missing one of the main points I was trying, maybe unsuccessfully, to make: we need to deal with the 'right now' and not just worry about how we'll be fine in 50 years. Lithium is a perfect example. We have plenty in the ground. We don't have plenty of min…

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...

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.

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

#152

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 11:07 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #51

rascul wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a free market though? Seems like it's all taxed and regulated.

A free market doesn't have to be a perfect free market in order to work well.

Right: it has to be carefully regulated to work well. The word "free" here is carrying more than it is rated for.

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

#153

Post by bryanlarsen » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 11:10 PM UTC

01100011 wrote: post #90

Jtsummers wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We get there by a (very likely) short-term increase in current energy production and use as we ramp up manufacturing and deployment of the systems needed for clean energy production, and then see a tapering off of the current production methods as the new ones come online. How did we get the first railroads built? By a combination of horses dragging materials so humans could lay the rail lines and then trains draggin…

> We get there by a (very likely) short-term increase in current energy production Right. But right now we're incentivizing the opposite. We're telling fossil fuel companies we don't need them anymore long before we've actually figured out a way to live without them. Do you see the problem yet?

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.

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

#154

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 11:11 PM UTC

bequanna wrote: post #117

puchatek wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware of how Soros is the Boogeyman for some people but I'm curious as to what exactly you are insinuating? What's the narrative?

The idea is that Soros only gives away money with strings attached. He expects you/your group to further his political goals in order to continue to receive funding.

Obviously he only grants money where he wants things to happen.

Peter Thiel and his posse grant money to try to delay those things to get more money into their pockets.

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

#155

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 11:13 PM UTC

FunnyBadger wrote: post #63

Complete BS. Green Energy has radically lower thermodynamic efficiency and energy density than ANY other currently used energy source (especially fossil and nuclear). These two qualities of an energy source have a direct relationship to economic efficiency and utility. Economics and Energy are 1:1 causal - economic growth ONLY occurs with energy growth. Lowering the quality of energy means lowering economic productiv…

Please do not post falsehoods seeking to mislead readers. You have been corrected on this point several times before.

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

#156

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 11:28 PM UTC

kkfx wrote: post #72

I'm honestly tired about PR positions written or referring some beancounters ideas of the world, regularly completely detached from the real world. Personally, smelling rodent early enough I've built a new home, airtight as needed/possible, well insulated, with a (still rare these days) heat-pump VMC, other heat-pumps for heating (water-water) and hot sanitary water (air-water), a small p.v. plant with lithium storag…

People who insist things cannot be done get in the way of the people out there working very hard doing them.

If you cannot help, at least stay out of the way.

All of the stuff you say you will replace in 10 years will be much cheaper by then.

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

#157

Post by kbenson » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 11:29 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #79

kbenson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand, the ability to usefully interact with the stock market is very limited for the majority of people, as they do not have the extra income to invest. It's very much a system in which the lower class do not get to meaningfully benefit from most the time. On the other hand, the companies will be made of people, expand by hiring new people, and pay these people with those profits, so much of the money will…

> Companies saving vast amounts of it in war chests is, IMO (depending on how they save it), as it's effectively removing it from the economy. Nobody saves money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. All the money is invested, all of it. Even money in a checking account is invested. (The banks invest it, that's why they offer free checking accounts. They're not a charity.) The majority of people do invest in the stock marke…

> Nobody saves money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults.

Why do I feel like you're reading half my comments and responding to that?

> The majority of people do invest in the stock market.

You're right. A slight majority, at less than 60%, based on sourced I found.

Is that where we're at now? As long as you're part of that almost 60% then it's all good?

> brokers like Robinhood have made it easy for anyone with a phone to invest.

And my point is that many people don't have enough extra income to be able to usefully benefit from this, regardless of how much easier it's become.

Someone that can only afford $100 a month to invest will see far less benefit than someone that can afford to invest $1000 a month, yet the person than can afford $1000 a month is likely not making 10x the income.

Expecting everyone to be able to benefit equally from stock market gains is ridiculous, yet suggesting people buy stock if they are worried about too much profit being directed towards companies is suggesting the problem is solved by by that, and is thus itself ridiculous.

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

#158

Post by prottog » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 11:29 PM UTC

seventytwo wrote: post #8

kderbyma wrote: post #5

the cynic in me says that those savings will just become profits for the companies and government through taxes and greed....so savings are relative. Also it seems to be highly dependent on solar mass adoption

You know, collectively, we can do something about that… It’s a political decision in society to allow that added value to be sucked up by those who are already wealthy.

I would rather the value be sucked up by those who contribute towards creating it.

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

#159

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 11:31 PM UTC

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #56

gnramires wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please have a look here: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ The evidence is clear and uncontroversial (and has been for decades).

The problem is that the OP, by "just asking questions", is engaging in an enormous time imbalance. It's a standard tactic of skeptics. Ask a simple question. Takes only a minute or two. But the answer turns out to not be so simple, and requires much time in composing an answer. And of course the answer also invokes concepts, terms, models, research, etc that themselves are not simple, and so the questioner asks anoth…

Right, "just asking a simple question" where the answer is easily found is called trolling.

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

#160

Post by prottog » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 11:32 PM UTC

Gare wrote: post #102

micromacrofoot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only theoretically. In practice, it takes a lot of know-how unseen by the public to make a product in a manner that is price-competitive against other players in the market.

Europe is obviously technologically capable of building chips and assembling functioning laptops that are ready for consumption, since as you pointed out they are capable of making the machines that make the chips; but that's still a long way from saying that they can start churning out Macbook Airs.