5 ms·

At current rate of adoption it may be centuries, but I'm willing to bet that by the end of this century (possibly earlier) there will be a great deal more publi

At current rate of adoption it may be centuries, but I'm willing to bet that by the end of this century (possibly earlier) there will be a great deal more public pressure to revamp the underlying infrastructure. We could do it in a few decades if we decided to spend the capital on it, its ultimately a question of political willpower. I do agree that fusion would be the ultimate form of power generation and would have the least impact on the current grid. But regardless, the future of energy generation is in diversity of sources.

ThomPete 7y ago
There already is pressure today to do that. However, I am unconvinced it will actually get done on any significant scale unless there will be fundamental improvements with regards to energy sources. Otherwise, fossil fuels are simply going to be too valuable in no small part due to its multiple applications which none of the other types of energy provides. Otherwise, it will come down to economics. So I agree we will diversify but fossil fuels aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
- headcanon 7y ago
  Honestly I don't even think it would be as complicated as all that. Its all down to what becomes more valuable. Here is a breakdown of energy generation in the US: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 63% of power generation comes from "fossil fuels", but half of that comes from natural gas. If we focus purely on carbon emissions and ignore implications of fracking, natural gas can be considered "clean". Also assuming all renewables are zero-emission, this means roughly 30% of our power generation has the potential for carbon emissions. By simply instituting a carbon tax, or even requiring coal plants to sequester emissions would make burning coal expensive enough that other forms of power will become cheaper, and thus the market would align appropriately. These are things being talked about right now, so its not unrealistic. The coal lobby won't like this of course and will continue to push us away from that, but I believe in 50 years when Miami and New Orleans have turned into Venice and the new generation of people won't be working in coal, American conservatives, as well as other nations, will stop complaining about the coal industry so much. All that has to happen is a few percentage points in a certain direction and the machinations will start to work.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    You are looking at electricity generation, not energy. Electricity production is a subset of energy and that's kind of my point. We get these rosy images of how far we are with renewables when in reality once you dig into it you realize we are nowhere near anything that can replace our current primarily fossil based system. We don't appreciate how much fossil fuels are making our lives more livable and how little alternatives add to this livability. I understand the potential CO2 emission risk etc, but we are safer because we use fossil fuels, not despite of it. And we are not just talking for energy here, we are talking plastic used in more or less any industry you can think of from healthcare to textiles to toys. We are talking for greasing, we use it for fertilizers which makes it possible for us to produce the amount of food we do etc. Which means that oil will play a very very very significant part of our lives for many centuries unless of course some completely new material shows up with as much versatility and application. And now that we are drilling for the oil anyway.... I understand that this isn't what we want to hear, but that's the reality and there isn't currently much of an alternative.
    - solarkraft 7y ago
      Does HN ban trolls?
      - headcanon 7y ago
        I felt the argument was in good faith.
    - headcanon 7y ago
      Yes, my statement was purely scoped to emissions, and using fossil fuels for electricity generation, as well as powering vehicles. If fossil fuels weren't useful we would of course not continue using them. Hydrocarbons will of course continue to be used in various materials. However, for everything we make in plastic, there is a potential alternative. In many cases that alternative is more expensive than plastic for its specific purpose. Much of the reason plastic is cheaper is (conjecture here) because it is subsidized by fact that we use so much oil for energy. If all (or most) cars were electric, demand and production of crude would go down, and so would the economies of scale, possibly making plastic more expensive than biodegradable alternatives. People will continue to use the materials that are cheaper. However our economy is not set up to internalize the costs to the world and to its biosphere. In that sense fossil fuels are very expensive, and we are incurring a debt. At some point its going to be time to pay the piper, and the alternatives will become cheaper by comparison.

ThomPete 7y ago

There already is pressure today to do that. However, I am unconvinced it will actually get done on any significant scale unless there will be fundamental improvements with regards to energy sources. Otherwise, fossil fuels are simply going to be too valuable in no small part due to its multiple applications which none of the other types of energy provides. Otherwise, it will come down to economics. So I agree we will diversify but fossil fuels aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

headcanon 7y ago
Honestly I don't even think it would be as complicated as all that. Its all down to what becomes more valuable. Here is a breakdown of energy generation in the US: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 63% of power generation comes from "fossil fuels", but half of that comes from natural gas. If we focus purely on carbon emissions and ignore implications of fracking, natural gas can be considered "clean". Also assuming all renewables are zero-emission, this means roughly 30% of our power generation has the potential for carbon emissions. By simply instituting a carbon tax, or even requiring coal plants to sequester emissions would make burning coal expensive enough that other forms of power will become cheaper, and thus the market would align appropriately. These are things being talked about right now, so its not unrealistic. The coal lobby won't like this of course and will continue to push us away from that, but I believe in 50 years when Miami and New Orleans have turned into Venice and the new generation of people won't be working in coal, American conservatives, as well as other nations, will stop complaining about the coal industry so much. All that has to happen is a few percentage points in a certain direction and the machinations will start to work.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  You are looking at electricity generation, not energy. Electricity production is a subset of energy and that's kind of my point. We get these rosy images of how far we are with renewables when in reality once you dig into it you realize we are nowhere near anything that can replace our current primarily fossil based system. We don't appreciate how much fossil fuels are making our lives more livable and how little alternatives add to this livability. I understand the potential CO2 emission risk etc, but we are safer because we use fossil fuels, not despite of it. And we are not just talking for energy here, we are talking plastic used in more or less any industry you can think of from healthcare to textiles to toys. We are talking for greasing, we use it for fertilizers which makes it possible for us to produce the amount of food we do etc. Which means that oil will play a very very very significant part of our lives for many centuries unless of course some completely new material shows up with as much versatility and application. And now that we are drilling for the oil anyway.... I understand that this isn't what we want to hear, but that's the reality and there isn't currently much of an alternative.
  - solarkraft 7y ago
    Does HN ban trolls?
    - headcanon 7y ago
      I felt the argument was in good faith.
  - headcanon 7y ago
    Yes, my statement was purely scoped to emissions, and using fossil fuels for electricity generation, as well as powering vehicles. If fossil fuels weren't useful we would of course not continue using them. Hydrocarbons will of course continue to be used in various materials. However, for everything we make in plastic, there is a potential alternative. In many cases that alternative is more expensive than plastic for its specific purpose. Much of the reason plastic is cheaper is (conjecture here) because it is subsidized by fact that we use so much oil for energy. If all (or most) cars were electric, demand and production of crude would go down, and so would the economies of scale, possibly making plastic more expensive than biodegradable alternatives. People will continue to use the materials that are cheaper. However our economy is not set up to internalize the costs to the world and to its biosphere. In that sense fossil fuels are very expensive, and we are incurring a debt. At some point its going to be time to pay the piper, and the alternatives will become cheaper by comparison.