3 ms·

This can’t work because of Jevon’s paradox [0]. Every barrel of gasoline created by this process just displaces a barrel of fossil gasoline, pushing down the pr

This can’t work because of Jevon’s paradox [0]. Every barrel of gasoline created by this process just displaces a barrel of fossil gasoline, pushing down the price of gasoline at the margins resulting in increased consumption. CO2 neutral gasoline can only work if you can get the cost below the marginal cost of production of fossil gasoline such that the oil stays in the ground. This is a massive ask on thermodynamic grounds. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

mrob 7y ago
Jevon's paradox only applies because governments subsidize fossil fuels by failing to correct the market failure of their externalities. If they were taxed appropriately to compensate for the damage they do then synthetic hydrocarbon fuels would probably be viable in the cases where batteries are unsuitable because of insufficient energy density (e.g. long-distance aviation).
- anticensor 7y ago
  We heavily tax fuel in Turkey, yet everyone buys petrol powered cars.
- danieltillett 7y ago
  No. I think you really need to understand Jevon's paradox. I highly encourage you to do so - once I learned about it so much of the world became clearer.
  - mrob 7y ago
    The price does not need to be below the marginal cost of production of fossil fuel. It only needs to be below the cost of production + the cost of taxes on fossil fuel. I suggest that a taxation level that allows Jevons paradox to occur is too low.
    - danieltillett 7y ago
      Taxes on fossil fuels just raise the marginal cost of production. They are a totally separate issue from the effect of introducing a new fuel into the market. Given the amount of down voting I have received basic economics is not popular on HC. Increasing the supply of gasoline will reduce its price which will cause increased demand greater than the original supply. The original example used by Jevon was coal consumption which rose 10 fold as the price halved. If Promethus succeeds they will cause an increase in consumption of fossil fuels (assuming no other changed) as they will lower the price of gasoline increasing its consumption. The only way that such an approach can work is if they can get the price of gasoline below the cost of production from fossil fuels. While this may be possible, on thermodynamic grounds it is hard to compete with all the stored sunlight in fossil fuels, let alone the sunk costs in the fossil fuel infrastructure. I am very much in favour of doing something about us burning fossil fuel, but I want us to concentrate on those things that make economic sense. In respect to gasoline that would be electrification of the transport system and better electric storage. The one thing that would potentially be worth pursuing is not the production of gasoline, but avgas (diesel) as there really is no viable alternative to these for air and sea transport.
      - mrob 7y ago
        >Increasing the supply of gasoline will reduce its price This is not an inevitability. The state can and does tax things, and I am suggesting that they should tax fossil fuels sufficiently to prevent Jevon's paradox from happening. The correct taxation to prevent the market failure of externalities is not any percentage of the production cost, it's the cost of the harm done. If Jevon's paradox would increase the harm done then tax should increase to prevent this.
        danieltillett 7y ago
        There is no need to have some alternative gasoline in order to implement a tax to decrease consumption of gasoline. Just a straight carbon tax would do this. The problem of course has been getting these implemented. We really should keep the topic of what Prometheus wants to do seperate from other things like carbon taxes. I think the best bang for our buck would be to just buy the oil before it is pumped out of the ground and leave it there. The producers would stop fighting us doing something about climate change and the increase in gasoline prices would drive the adoption of carbon neutral energy sources.

mrob 7y ago

Jevon's paradox only applies because governments subsidize fossil fuels by failing to correct the market failure of their externalities. If they were taxed appropriately to compensate for the damage they do then synthetic hydrocarbon fuels would probably be viable in the cases where batteries are unsuitable because of insufficient energy density (e.g. long-distance aviation).

anticensor 7y ago
We heavily tax fuel in Turkey, yet everyone buys petrol powered cars.
danieltillett 7y ago
No. I think you really need to understand Jevon's paradox. I highly encourage you to do so - once I learned about it so much of the world became clearer.
- mrob 7y ago
  The price does not need to be below the marginal cost of production of fossil fuel. It only needs to be below the cost of production + the cost of taxes on fossil fuel. I suggest that a taxation level that allows Jevons paradox to occur is too low.
  - danieltillett 7y ago
    Taxes on fossil fuels just raise the marginal cost of production. They are a totally separate issue from the effect of introducing a new fuel into the market. Given the amount of down voting I have received basic economics is not popular on HC. Increasing the supply of gasoline will reduce its price which will cause increased demand greater than the original supply. The original example used by Jevon was coal consumption which rose 10 fold as the price halved. If Promethus succeeds they will cause an increase in consumption of fossil fuels (assuming no other changed) as they will lower the price of gasoline increasing its consumption. The only way that such an approach can work is if they can get the price of gasoline below the cost of production from fossil fuels. While this may be possible, on thermodynamic grounds it is hard to compete with all the stored sunlight in fossil fuels, let alone the sunk costs in the fossil fuel infrastructure. I am very much in favour of doing something about us burning fossil fuel, but I want us to concentrate on those things that make economic sense. In respect to gasoline that would be electrification of the transport system and better electric storage. The one thing that would potentially be worth pursuing is not the production of gasoline, but avgas (diesel) as there really is no viable alternative to these for air and sea transport.
    - mrob 7y ago
      >Increasing the supply of gasoline will reduce its price This is not an inevitability. The state can and does tax things, and I am suggesting that they should tax fossil fuels sufficiently to prevent Jevon's paradox from happening. The correct taxation to prevent the market failure of externalities is not any percentage of the production cost, it's the cost of the harm done. If Jevon's paradox would increase the harm done then tax should increase to prevent this.
      - danieltillett 7y ago
        There is no need to have some alternative gasoline in order to implement a tax to decrease consumption of gasoline. Just a straight carbon tax would do this. The problem of course has been getting these implemented. We really should keep the topic of what Prometheus wants to do seperate from other things like carbon taxes. I think the best bang for our buck would be to just buy the oil before it is pumped out of the ground and leave it there. The producers would stop fighting us doing something about climate change and the increase in gasoline prices would drive the adoption of carbon neutral energy sources.