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

#221

Post by kkfx » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 2:27 PM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #139

kkfx wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mining tech is essentially the same since ever, we just have transferred some physical efforts to machines, how a local mine is "green" and some in exotic places is different? Consider a thing: all industry do not pollute because they are evil but because the tech produce pollution. Something was done, something can be done, to reduce it of course, but that's not always possible, not possible more than a certain exte…

>Mining tech is essentially the same since ever, we just have transferred some physical efforts to machines You could say that about literally anything

Not really: ICEs for instance have enormously reduced their pollution, sure they can't be "green" but a modern European diesel engine is an order of magnitude less pollutant than one from just 30 years ago.

Some energivore process in various industries have evolved to demand far less energy, cement is a good example using the EMC process [1] same others have not evolved, not because they are evil but because we do not found anything better to evolve; mining is one of them.

[1] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetically_modified_cement

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

#222

Post by snake_doc » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 2:36 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #197

snake_doc wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point wasn’t about the sourcing of natural resource.

It’s about the steps within supply chain, most of Australia’s lithium is refined/processed in China[1].

It will take roughly a decade for other countries to ramp and move back down the learning curve for refining/processing capacity at market cost. China’s control over this bottleneck step won’t change for this decade, as they continue to consolidate state investments.

Yes countries are catching up in sourcing natural resources, but the processing into chemicals and then components are still mostly done in China. For example, most battery cathode materials are made in East Asia, and battery factories import them.

[1] “Most Australian lithium is exported to China, accounting for over 85% of total value in each month of 2021 and over 94% in each month of 2022 (year to date). In June 2022, $1,128m worth of lithium was exported to China, accounting for 97% of the total lithium exports for that month (Figure 4).” https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/insights-australian-exports-...

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

#223

Post by kkfx » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 2:41 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #156

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.

Ah sure, since I've invested more than half a million euros in the "green tech" studying it and draw my conclusions and they are far different from the current propaganda I have to shut my mouth.

I can help actually, those who want that help, for instance suggesting to ARREST for crime against humanity top neoliberals in chiefs from G8/T20 to "World Government" [1] to top companies CEOs from pharma to energy stating clear to their subjects that they can do their best to cooperate building a new Democratic society or face a fierce revenge by an angry crowd who will not likely recognize humans rights on those that never recognize them.

In the meantime start debating/planning a MASSIVE de-urbanization since that's the sole way I see to evolve cities to something sustainable, targeting a vast riviera without much hubs except few districts who need to be dense for specific needs, from schools to automotive. Targeting the same evolution of IT from big mainframes to clusters of small machines.

Clearly state that ALL critical sectors like health, weapons, energy, TLCs, roads and water of a country can't NEVER ever anymore be private nor a mix of private and public bodies and trying that from the public is high treason, from the private is an attempted coup.

Creating PUBLIC ONLY research centers with funds and religious separation from the private sector to craft the evolution of the humanity not just the one of a very small cohort of oppressors.

Proposing a military service following the classic Swiss model: both sex from 18 to 28 one PAID month per year of guerrilla like training with weapon and ammo at home only AFTER being trained and check, so in case of attempted gov. coup protests would know what to do and since both parties are armed and trained both party remain peaceful fully knowing that being violent means ending in a bloodbath with no winners.

Because yes, the green new deal is not about ecology nor pollution but a new society designed like adolf hitler dreams who are now Klaus Schwab & friends dreams.

Of course veeeeery few seems to agree with that so the society keep going in it's suicidal way. My equipment's in 10 years will be probably irreplaceable due to a deep social collapse that demand at least 30 years to recover and in any case will cost more and more because their target is not a "green" revolution but pushing people to poverty to steer them better.

[1] https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/

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

#224

Post by ch4s3 » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 3:08 PM UTC

dr_dshiv wrote: post #212

ch4s3 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but they were fighting over the direction of a type of political economy that predated all of them. Smith and other original thinkers that framed capitalism did so in opposition to mercantilism. Capitalism was a reaction to. And in many ways criticism of mercantilism.

Did Adam Smith invent capitalism? Did he advocate for capitalism? I still don’t really understand what we mean by capitalism

He is often called the "Father of Capitalism", based on his two surviving works The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). He is also often referred to as a founder of modern economics.

In this case what we mean by capitalism loosely is a system of private property, free/open trade, market based pricing mechanisms, economic decisions being made by individual actors, etc.

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

#225

Post by tricky777 » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 3:58 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #201

01100011 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, i…

If copper price is down, that means we have too much copper, not too little.

reading the post is essential. here is the bit adressing this:

> that may be due to previous hoarding in China coupled with economic slowdown and/or disruptions in their metals markets

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

#226

Post by ip26 » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 4:27 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #82

ip26 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perhaps naive and over-simplistic, but the s-curve is so well-established you can probably fit the production cost curve over time to the s-curve and get a useful prediction. There's lots of hard work that goes into making it happen, of course.

The s-curve has two important parameters, but looking at any amount of history before the first inflection you can only ever deduce one of them. So, how exactly to you intent to fit the renewables (that are pre-inflection) production curves into it?

You are certainly right about renewables that are pre-inflection. I was thinking of solar and wind, which I understand are both in the steep part of the S curve.

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

#227

Post by Yoric » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #217

Yoric wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm mistaken, that's based on the assumption that you're in position to use 100% of the energy produced during the day, exactly when it's produced. I'm sure that there are scenarios in which that's true (e.g. keep the refrigerator on all day long, use some other energy source for the night) but if your main use for the energy is not correlated with the sun being up (e.g. power your computer when you're back ho…

Panels are so cheap now that they pay even if you waste most of what they could have produced. A smallish battery that captures only some of the excess, and delivers it when you need it, suffices. Battery cost is still falling fast as new chemistries come online. Hydrogen synthesis and storage might displace batteries for domestic use, particularly if hydrogen-fueled cars succeed. (Advice: keep all that equipment out…

Are you tokey of monetary cost or the total amount of energy needed to actually build/deliver/install/maintain/dispose of these technologies?

If the former, you are clearly right.

If the latter, I'm not so sure (with current tech).

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

#228

Post by WalterBright » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 5:48 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #174

WalterBright wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fa…

> That's your strawman. If it's a strawman than your original statement was a non-sequitur, as I cover below. > Of course. But they are also seeing far more benefit than not investing. I believe your statement was that people can invest in the stock of these companies that would theoretically be getting most the profit to get "your share" of the profits, as opposed to it being slurped up by the wealthy. This isn't ab…

> disproportionately

You get the benefits in exact proportion to how much you invest in it.

> You mean the

Yes. And if they used the money unwisely, they're responsible for the results. The point is, they got the money, and were able to invest it.

The same thing happens to wealthier people - if they invest the money unwisely, they lose it.

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

#229

Post by pfdietz » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

01100011 wrote: post #180

pfdietz wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rare dark/calm periods can be countered by storage technologies other than batteries. These technologies typically have lower efficiency than batteries, but that doesn't matter when they're only rarely called on. For these technologies, low per-energy-stored capital cost is much more important than high efficiency. As an example: hydrogen can be stored in solution-mined salt caverns for as little as $1/kWh of storage…

Context my friend. Read what OP and I are talking about and note how your post has nothing to do with it. We're certainly not discussing things which are currently in the realm of unrealized dreams.

I was giving a solution to the obstacle you pointed out. It doesn't get more relevant than that.

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

#230

Post by pfdietz » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

01100011 wrote: post #183

pfdietz wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most uses of fossil fuels these days are for fuel, not petrochemicals. The energy needed to get to petrochemicals (and the fraction of carbon currently coming from fossil fuels to get to petrochemicals) are relatively modest.

Citation needed. Sorry but it takes, more or less, as much energy as that which is stored within the chemical bonds of a petrochemical to make that chemical from raw materials. Also, what? Your comment doesn't seem to fit into the context of our discussion. Where is the energy and raw materials to produce the green energy materials going to come from?

The quantity of carbon in petrochemicals (rather than fuels) is small enough that it could be supplied with the carbon in waste biomass streams. This carbon is reduced; the energy cost of reducing CO2 has already been paid.