Live data from Hacker News

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

cell.com

251–260 of 269 posts

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

#251
post #241
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will be much cheaper by then provided society does not collapse first. If it does, replacing them will be among the least of your problems. Roving bands of supersonic aluminum Nazi hell zombies from beneath the hollow Earth may figure prominently among the latter. (Maybe they do already?) But securing dietary calories would probably present more frequent difficulty.

So your theory is "let's try and HOPE we will be able before the society collapse to make the new deal works"? If so consider a thing: that's a CRIMINAL act even in case of desperation. A society MUST never act without basis. A company can, and individual can because there is a society around to help, the whole society can't because if something goes wrong there is exactly no one around to help. In desperate cases de…

It pleases you to pretend we don't know how to store energy.

But we do. You may fly off on tangents assuming we don't, but do not expect people to go with you.

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

#252

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…

Ah, the energy density canard. It's becoming a dog whistle for identifying people who don't know what they're talking about. Energy density doesn't matter; cost does. It's possible to have a high energy density and a high cost -- for example, nuclear fission.

The sun has lower energy density than a sandwich :P I guess it's useless!

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

#253
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right, he burned his other work.

So, private property was certainly there before Smith, as were individual economic decisions. But, there was a lot more price standardization and government planned trade.

So, is capitalism the same as a market economy? I feel like there are endless debates about capitalism and socialism but they are tribalized notions without clear definitions. Eg, are market regulations anticapitalist if they are government imposed or are they procapitalist if they support greater market health?

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

#254
post #251
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your theory is "let's try and HOPE we will be able before the society collapse to make the new deal works"? If so consider a thing: that's a CRIMINAL act even in case of desperation. A society MUST never act without basis. A company can, and individual can because there is a society around to help, the whole society can't because if something goes wrong there is exactly no one around to help. In desperate cases de…

It pleases you to pretend we don't know how to store energy. But we do. You may fly off on tangents assuming we don't, but do not expect people to go with you.

OK, can you indicate some of such tech? Personally I have a classic LiFeP battery (casually from a Chinese company, like 99% of those on sale) who can actually power my home without heating for a day, can last potentially ten years (6000 recharge "guaranteed"). Nothing that can scale more, behind pumped hydro who demand mountains and water to be done do better, and actually you can't sustainably power a factory from lithium batteries. We do not even know if we can produce enough of them to power just common cars. Oh, and we need planes, trucks, ships etc.

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

#255
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't pass the smell test. A "raw" solar panel in China costs about 25 cents / W, and each watt should produce about 45kWh over its lifetime (5W per day for 25 years). If the embodied energy in the panel is half of the lifetime energy, that means that there is 22kWh of embodied energy in that W of solar panel, and they're selling that embodied energy for about 1 cent / kWh. And that assumes that there are no c…

Interesting counterpoint, thanks. > A "raw" solar panel in China costs about 25 cents / W, and each watt should produce about 45kWh over its lifetime (5W per day for 25 years). I imagine that you're making assumptions on having sufficient luminosity all year round, right? So perhaps that depends on where on Earth you are. According to Jancovici [1], in most of Europe, solar panels produce about 100 kWh/m²/year, assum…

The numbers in your linked article are from 2000. The price of solar panels per watt is about 5% of what it was in 2000. Most of that cost reduction was from reduced energy use, so you need to multiply Jancovici's numbers by 5%.

You're also assuming that you have to store 100% of the energy to get to a green grid. But in a grid with a good mix of different renewable sources, grid ties large enough to cover areas with different weather, substantial amount of nuclear, hydro and a large number of EVs that can charge while energy is cheap means that very little energy needs to be stored. So you also have to multiply your storage numbers by about 5%.

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

#256
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right, he burned his other work. So, private property was certainly there before Smith, as were individual economic decisions. But, there was a lot more price standardization and government planned trade. So, is capitalism the same as a market economy? I feel like there are endless debates about capitalism and socialism but they are tribalized notions without clear definitions. Eg, are market regulations anticapitali…

> So, is capitalism the same as a market economy?

Not exactly, but that is a necessary condition. I think another necessary condition is that prices are set by the market and that the state isn't deeply involved in trade. Obviously there are grey areas, but it seems pretty clear that the export focused state trade policies of mercantilism were not capitalism.

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

#257
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hearsay. The IPCC reports predicted a range of possible outcomes, depending on what we did. We did the things that implied the results they predicted and we got.

Yeah. It sounds like they’ve misunderstood the worst case scenario presented in the reports as a single prediction of fact. Sigh. It is extremely discouraging that people continue to misunderstand even basic concepts around climate change.

I have come to doubt that they misunderstand, but rather they choose to misrepresent. To lie.

Why people want to lie about an existential threat to civilization is another matter. We know that many who do, via millions of sock puppet accounts on twitter and fb, are paid to do it, but that only defers the question to whoever is paying them. Surely the corporations paying them do not expect to benefit from worldwide collapse.

But I doubt many are paid to sock-puppet HN.

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

#258
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting counterpoint, thanks. > A "raw" solar panel in China costs about 25 cents / W, and each watt should produce about 45kWh over its lifetime (5W per day for 25 years). I imagine that you're making assumptions on having sufficient luminosity all year round, right? So perhaps that depends on where on Earth you are. According to Jancovici [1], in most of Europe, solar panels produce about 100 kWh/m²/year, assum…

The numbers in your linked article are from 2000. The price of solar panels per watt is about 5% of what it was in 2000. Most of that cost reduction was from reduced energy use, so you need to multiply Jancovici's numbers by 5%. You're also assuming that you have to store 100% of the energy to get to a green grid. But in a grid with a good mix of different renewable sources, grid ties large enough to cover areas with…

And since the edit window is gone, replace "multiply by 5%"with "divide by 20". Same thing, but much more clear.

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

#259
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do not post low-quality, shallow, dismissive remarks. If you have meaningful information to offer, post that instead. If not, don't.

Why not post this to Op instead, after they posted a comment full of irrelevant information? The actual amount of Li found in the crust is irrelevant.

The quantity of Li in the crust is directly relevant. It provides an overwhelmingly more meaningful measure than "reserves", which only identify how much is in the next place people will dig when their current seam is tapped out.

What the number shows is that there is no possibility of ever tapping out all available lithium, no matter how many batteries are manufactured. Once the world is saturated, used-up batteries will become the main source for materials to build new batteries from.

The more immediate limitation is rate of manufacture of batteries, because building battery factories takes a long time.

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

#260
post #254
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It pleases you to pretend we don't know how to store energy. But we do. You may fly off on tangents assuming we don't, but do not expect people to go with you.

OK, can you indicate some of such tech? Personally I have a classic LiFeP battery (casually from a Chinese company, like 99% of those on sale) who can actually power my home without heating for a day, can last potentially ten years (6000 recharge "guaranteed"). Nothing that can scale more, behind pumped hydro who demand mountains and water to be done do better, and actually you can't sustainably power a factory from…

Assuming nothing exists except what you already know about gets you reliably wrong answers.

In fact there are a lot of hills. Few places are very far away from any, even in Nebraska. Any hill may serve for pumped hydro, although those over 2000 ft (600m) and have a natural depression are best. A simple earthen levee suffices, otherwise, with a penstock extending down.

But we also can compress air, for "CAES". And we can liquify air. Both of these are extremely mature technology. Compressed air is cheaply and safely kept deep underground or underwater, and released through a turbine to recover power put in. Liquified air is vaporized with heat from ambient air.

We can electrolyse water and keep the resulting hydrogen in underground cavities, under increasing pressure; both the hydrogen and its pressure store energy. We can synthesize ammonia, to tank and transport, and burn it for fuel in ships and existing combined-cycle gas turbines.

Ammonia synthesized in the tropics or where wind is reliable may be shipped anywhere in the world to fill in for shortfalls of local storage. So, nobody needs much local storage.

Aviation will soon transition to liquid hydrogen because the value proposition is so great. Anybody lagging will find themselves wholly unable to compete. LH2 will be made and banked on-site at major airports, from power delivered via transmission line.

Another simple storage method uses buoyancy, drawing floats down toward the sea floor. Another, raising and lowering a heavy weight in a disused mineshaft. The mineshaft may also contain compressed hydrogen.

Your off-grid domestic batteries are the most expensive way to store energy. But they probably will last you longer than 10 years, just as your refrigerator will probably last longer than 3. In the near future you might come to bank hydrogen instead, and put excess in your car. Your electrolyser will last more than 10 years. The compressor might wear out in time, but is cheap.

Post reply on HN