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

161–170 of 269 posts

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

#161

Post by ncmncm »

lanstin wrote: post #105
clairity wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ca…

Right, all the existing nukes will be mothballed as unable to pay for their own operations, except where tax- or ratepayers are forced to subsidize it.

Then, the actual cost of every kWh they ever delivered will jump up as the enormous capital cost is suddenly amortized over many fewer kWh.

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

#162

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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…

> Lowering the quality of energy means lowering economic productivity, efficiency and activity

So you have single glased windows, no insulation and a hole im your roof?

After all, reducing the amount of energy you waste makes you poorer.

If not, the building to passivehouse dtandard would save billions

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

#163

Post by ncmncm »

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #55

One thing I've not seen a decent discussion of is what industries benefit from enormous amounts of almost free electricity? Other than the manufacturers of wind, solar, etc systems, how does this effect the economy? Obviously that effect is going to be significant, but what exactly does it look like?

Desalination might be the best use for excess generating capacity, after the local storage is all charged up.

(Desalination costs >140x less energy than extraction by current dehumidification methods, although a recent advance in the latter may vut this to just 60x.)

Then, pump the desalinated water up to high-altitude reservoirs.

In some places (e.g. Northern California) that could be as simple as vaporizing the water and letting the wind carry it to the mountains, to be rained into reservoirs.

Desalination might then amount to pumping seawater through greenhouses and exhausting the humid air, much more cheaply than forcing it through membranes. There is no need to get every last water molecule out, as there is a plenty of seawater. The only cost is pumping. Outgoing effluent may be used both to pre-warm incoming water, and assist pumping via directly coupled turbines.

Less-concentrated, cooler effluent is better for ecosystems it drains into. It could also be be made to capture and carry away atmospheric CO2, on its way out, with enough lime added to maintain pH. Cement makers might operate these systems to avoid carbon taxes.

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

#164

Post by cryptonector »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #116
cryptonector wrote: post #101

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 pe…

I'm not sold that this would happen. It seems to me the plan in the US is to add green energy, and then slowly replace the dirty energy with more green. I admit I am ignorant of the plans of other nations, but from where I am sitting I don't see any reason to believe there will ever be a reduction in available energy.

Well, that can't be "rapid". TFA is about a "rapid" transition.

I'm saying that's just politically infeasible unless you define "rapid" as "as fast as we can without impoverishing people" or unless you define it as "damn the consequences, just do it". That's pretty obviously true. If you take the first alternative, however, you have to consider how long these touted savings will take to materialize and the opportunity cost of the investment needed to get there.

For example if you install grid-tied solar panels for your house it will take some number of years for that investment (and upkeep) to pay for itself -- if the lifetime of the installation is 30 years and it pays for itself in 10, it might be worth it, but whether it is worth it will depend not just on the 20 years' worth of savings you'll get, but also on the opportunity cost of the capital needed to fund that solar installation.

Opportunity costs are often hard to gauge, so it's easy to con people with analyses that fail to take opportunity costs into account. The opportunity cost of an investment that will yield "trillions" in savings must be substantial because the investment itself must be substantial (if it was free, we'd have done it already, so it must be substantial!).

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

#165

Post by ncmncm »

neffy wrote: post #124
acallaghan wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's accurate but not complete. The long term (600k year) climatic history of this planet is sobering, and if only climate change was just our fault. Believe me, there is nothing humanity has so far achieved that comes close to matching what nature does to this planet on a pretty regular schedule. We don't know nearly enough about this by the way, and we especially don't know enough about conditions about the end of…

Correct insofar as we are not completely sure that the ongoing precipitous rise won't tip us over an edge into an ice age.

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

#166

Post by ncmncm »

dv_dt wrote: post #145
ncmncm wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy delivered by a solar panel is overwhelmingly more than needed to make it. The gain is enormous. There is simply no contest. Consider that makers of solar panels, and of the materials that go into them, get no break on their power bills. Each and every kWh that goes into making the panel is paid for, and necessarily has its cost folded into the price of the panel. Otherwise they would be paying power out of…

One could look for more direct sources, but the summary is that energy payback happens in 1-4 years out of current 25 year "life". And that 25 years is typically a warranty to 80% of original capacity. Year 26 of operation is not a sudden drop. https://www.solarmelon.com/faqs/solar-panels-use-energy-manu...

Yes, panels at 80% have good resale value. If you have room, you just add 20% more. If not, you sell them and buy more.

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

#167

Post by snake_doc »

Animats wrote: post #65
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…

> 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 country: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-supply-chains-of-ev-batte...

[2]WSJ article on China’s monopoly on rare earths: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-set-to-create-new-state-o...

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

#168

Post by WalterBright »

kbenson wrote: post #157
WalterBright wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Expecting everyone to be able to benefit equally from stock market gains is ridiculous

That's your strawman.

> many people don't have enough extra income

And yet people find the income to buy lottery tickets, go to the movies, go to the bar, etc. Investing does mean giving up some of this spending.

> Someone that can only afford $100 a month to invest will see far less benefit

Of course. But they are also seeing far more benefit than not investing.

Remember that Gamestop stock craze a year ago? Many people playing that game were very low income people, including kids. Somehow they did have money to invest, when they thought it was worthwhile.

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

#169

Post by Schroedingersat »

RobertoG wrote: post #75
bobthepanda wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Reserves are really just a measure of "things people bothered to look for at the current price." High prices can and do induce more searching. Part of the whole hullabaloo about "peak oil" is that people stopped looking for oil reserves in an environment with low oil prices. Once prices started rising you saw fracking come into play that regenerated areas previously thought dead for oil production.

That's not the argument of peak oil. It's not about price or quantity of oil available in the planet. It's an argument about thermodynamics. The argument is that in order to extract oil, you need to spend energy, and, logically, the most easier oil to extract is extracted first. That means that oil extraction is every year more expensive (energetically not financially). Because technology can make extraction more eff…

> Is the energy that a solar panel generate in its life enough for its normal use, plus extracting the minerals that it's made of, plus push the panel, through the ocean all the way from China? or are we fooling ourselves using oil for all that?

This is such a thoroughly debunked line it's barely worth discussing.

Here's a sufficient proof.

The dirtiest cheapest coal is about $1-2/GJ at the mine front. A good brown coal power plant is about 50% efficient.

Current unsubsidized solar module cost (not whole project) for large scaleprojects is in the $0.2-0.3.

At 25% capacity factor a dollar of solar at $0.3 will produce 500MJ over 20 years and still be 80% productive.

Thus even if the only activity required to build a solar panel were burning brown coal as it comes out of the ground, it could not be profitable to burn more fossil fuels than the energy the panel released.

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

#170

Post by WalterBright »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #147
WalterBright wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. All the money is invested, all of it. Russian oligarchs invested vast amounts of money into super yahts and luzury London real estate, which sits empty 360 days a year. Is that productive investment?

I bet you own some toys you don't use, too.

A yacht and a luxury apartment ain't worth spit in the context of the global economy. Besides, they might be good investments.

Post reply on HN