6 ms·

> the cost to decarbonize the U.S. grid alone would be $4.5 trillion They make this sound like a lot but that strikes me as actually pretty cheap. I don't thin

> the cost to decarbonize the U.S. grid alone would be $4.5 trillion They make this sound like a lot but that strikes me as actually pretty cheap. I don't think that number can be right. Edit: I mean seriously think. The F-35 has cost us 1.45 trillion dollars so far. That's roughly 1/3 of the price they're asserting here. Localizing our entire energy dependence has got to have some serious national security benefits. I mean way beyond the simple evolutionary next step of one piece of military equipment. It seems like every dollar we spend on energy sovereignity is doing like 10 or even 100 times the work 1 dollar of weapons development is doing to secure our country.

nexuist 7y ago
>Localizing our entire energy dependence has got to have some serious national security benefits It would also cause extreme instability by shooting up unemployment, destroying large corporations that offered valuable careers with good benefits, and exacerbate polarization between those who believe in man made climate change and those who don't. Don't get me wrong - I think energy independence is the way to go - but paying $4.5 trillion to effectively ruin the lives of millions of people is not a popular position, especially given that we have terrible safety nets to allow these people to find other jobs. I think the much more likely, less rough path is to continue renewable research until it becomes cheaper than fossil fuels in almost all cases. At which point the market will do the rest. The vast majority of fossil fuel users do not actually care that they use fossil fuel - they just care about energy generation. If you can give them a cheaper means to achieve that, they will go for it.
- torpfactory 7y ago
  I imagine that it would take a fair number of new workers to help burn that $4.5T. They wouldn't work for oil companies, but they might still be involved in energy production. Besides, it's not like we have some choice here. We can either decarbonize our world economy or perish. I'm awful sick of the 'but the jobs' arguments. We don't need jobs in outdated, polluting industries. That is outright theft of healthy ecosystems from future generations for short term gain, if you can call it that.
  - nexuist 7y ago
    >We don't need jobs in outdated, polluting industries Man, we don't need jobs at all. I want to live in an all-renewable automated world. But I realize that's not realistic in the short term, and it will take decades - perhaps even another century - until that desire is realized. Hence my reservation.
    - torpfactory 7y ago
      Well we are definitely in agreement about the long term then. Cheers
      - nexuist 7y ago
        Of course! I'm sorry my original post made it seem like I was disagreeing with the vision you were advocating. I just had a problem with the means :)
- notJim 7y ago
  I've got some bad news for you about what's going to happen to the economy when we have 3° C of warming because we didn't do this fast enough.
  - 8bitsrule 7y ago
    Not to mention how many people will no longer need jobs.
  - nexuist 7y ago
    Automation will screw us all far before climate change does. We need to stop caring about GDP and focus on building a jobless society - one run by cheap renewables and widespread automation - that will allow all of us to have good, healthy, safe lives.
- opportune 7y ago
  >but paying $4.5 trillion to effectively ruin the lives of millions of people is not a popular position, especially given that we have terrible safety nets to allow these people to find other jobs. Do you have any inkling of how many jobs $4.5 trillion would create? And how many climate change will destroy?
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  Renewables are already cheaper than most fossil fuels. No further research is needed. We can use current tech to displace everything except the more efficient LNG. Natural cost declines will eventually overtake LNG but for now we can replace coal and peakers quite economically, especially if fossil fuels weren't much more heavily subsidized than renewables.
StreamBright 7y ago
There are other limitations as well. Amount of lithium available, # of cycles before you have to replace the batteries, and so on.
- kragen 7y ago
  Amount of lithium available is not a limitation for several orders of magnitude more (at least until well after Kardashev Type 1), and the lithium is not consumed when you have to replace the batteries, a cost which is already included in these calculations.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    Might be. Other sources claim it to be otherwise. "As of January 2010, the USGS estimated world total lithium reserves at 9.9×109 kg (economically extractable now) and identified lithium resources at 2.55 × 1010 kg (potentially economic). Most of the identified resources are in Bolivia and Chile (9 × 109 kg and 7.5 × 109 kg, respectively). World lithium production is currently on the order of 2 × 107 kg per year. If we would like to have a North American standard of living for everyone in the world – say, 1 car for every 2 people – then we would need about 3.4 billion Nissan Leafs. This would use 32% of the identified resources (all known lithium in the world), or 82% of the reserves (all lithium that is currently economic to produce). Even with widespread recycling, that seems like an unsustainable prospect. Remember that the limits on battery capacity are fundamental. The only ways this percentage can go down are: Battery capacity exceeds 73% of the theoretical maximum (unlikely) New deposits of lithium are discovered and made economic (unknowable) Smaller lithium-ion batteries are used (shorter range) Fewer cars are built with lithium-ion batteries." http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/eason2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/eason2/
    - elihu 7y ago
      Another option would be to electrify the highways so that long-range batteries are rarely needed.
      - 7y ago
haroldp 7y ago
> Localizing our entire energy dependence has got to have some serious national security benefits. It's estimated that we spent $6.8T between 1976 and 2007 on the US policy of always maintaining an Aircraft Carrier on station all day every day in the Persian Gulf, to insure the free flow of oil. https://offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/US-miiltary-cost-of-Persian-Gulf-force-projection.pdf https://offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/US-miiltary-cost-of-...
- boringg 7y ago
  Oil and Gas indirect subsidies ;)
  - haroldp 7y ago
    Very much so. Or, somewhat less cynically, protecting our soft petro-underbelly from harm.
  - Dumblydorr 7y ago
    Not to mention the 3 military conflicts in the region we were involved in because...oil. At least now we have shale oil of our own to pollute with...yay?
marcusverus 7y ago
Your 1.45 trillion figure for the cost of the F-35 is the lifetime cost of the platform, including procurement and operations costs extending through the year 2070... the cost to date is nowhere near that figure.
geophertz 7y ago
That's ignoring the fact that these 4.5 trillion won't be lost they will have just have shifted into the hands of the public.

nexuist 7y ago

>Localizing our entire energy dependence has got to have some serious national security benefits It would also cause extreme instability by shooting up unemployment, destroying large corporations that offered valuable careers with good benefits, and exacerbate polarization between those who believe in man made climate change and those who don't. Don't get me wrong - I think energy independence is the way to go - but paying $4.5 trillion to effectively ruin the lives of millions of people is not a popular position, especially given that we have terrible safety nets to allow these people to find other jobs. I think the much more likely, less rough path is to continue renewable research until it becomes cheaper than fossil fuels in almost all cases. At which point the market will do the rest. The vast majority of fossil fuel users do not actually care that they use fossil fuel - they just care about energy generation. If you can give them a cheaper means to achieve that, they will go for it.

torpfactory 7y ago
I imagine that it would take a fair number of new workers to help burn that $4.5T. They wouldn't work for oil companies, but they might still be involved in energy production. Besides, it's not like we have some choice here. We can either decarbonize our world economy or perish. I'm awful sick of the 'but the jobs' arguments. We don't need jobs in outdated, polluting industries. That is outright theft of healthy ecosystems from future generations for short term gain, if you can call it that.
- nexuist 7y ago
  >We don't need jobs in outdated, polluting industries Man, we don't need jobs at all. I want to live in an all-renewable automated world. But I realize that's not realistic in the short term, and it will take decades - perhaps even another century - until that desire is realized. Hence my reservation.
  - torpfactory 7y ago
    Well we are definitely in agreement about the long term then. Cheers
    - nexuist 7y ago
      Of course! I'm sorry my original post made it seem like I was disagreeing with the vision you were advocating. I just had a problem with the means :)
notJim 7y ago
I've got some bad news for you about what's going to happen to the economy when we have 3° C of warming because we didn't do this fast enough.
- 8bitsrule 7y ago
  Not to mention how many people will no longer need jobs.
- nexuist 7y ago
  Automation will screw us all far before climate change does. We need to stop caring about GDP and focus on building a jobless society - one run by cheap renewables and widespread automation - that will allow all of us to have good, healthy, safe lives.
opportune 7y ago
>but paying $4.5 trillion to effectively ruin the lives of millions of people is not a popular position, especially given that we have terrible safety nets to allow these people to find other jobs. Do you have any inkling of how many jobs $4.5 trillion would create? And how many climate change will destroy?
Dumblydorr 7y ago
Renewables are already cheaper than most fossil fuels. No further research is needed. We can use current tech to displace everything except the more efficient LNG. Natural cost declines will eventually overtake LNG but for now we can replace coal and peakers quite economically, especially if fossil fuels weren't much more heavily subsidized than renewables.

StreamBright 7y ago

There are other limitations as well. Amount of lithium available, # of cycles before you have to replace the batteries, and so on.

kragen 7y ago
Amount of lithium available is not a limitation for several orders of magnitude more (at least until well after Kardashev Type 1), and the lithium is not consumed when you have to replace the batteries, a cost which is already included in these calculations.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  Might be. Other sources claim it to be otherwise. "As of January 2010, the USGS estimated world total lithium reserves at 9.9×109 kg (economically extractable now) and identified lithium resources at 2.55 × 1010 kg (potentially economic). Most of the identified resources are in Bolivia and Chile (9 × 109 kg and 7.5 × 109 kg, respectively). World lithium production is currently on the order of 2 × 107 kg per year. If we would like to have a North American standard of living for everyone in the world – say, 1 car for every 2 people – then we would need about 3.4 billion Nissan Leafs. This would use 32% of the identified resources (all known lithium in the world), or 82% of the reserves (all lithium that is currently economic to produce). Even with widespread recycling, that seems like an unsustainable prospect. Remember that the limits on battery capacity are fundamental. The only ways this percentage can go down are: Battery capacity exceeds 73% of the theoretical maximum (unlikely) New deposits of lithium are discovered and made economic (unknowable) Smaller lithium-ion batteries are used (shorter range) Fewer cars are built with lithium-ion batteries." http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/eason2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/eason2/
  - elihu 7y ago
    Another option would be to electrify the highways so that long-range batteries are rarely needed.
    - 7y ago

haroldp 7y ago

> Localizing our entire energy dependence has got to have some serious national security benefits. It's estimated that we spent $6.8T between 1976 and 2007 on the US policy of always maintaining an Aircraft Carrier on station all day every day in the Persian Gulf, to insure the free flow of oil. https://offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/US-miiltary-cost-of-Persian-Gulf-force-projection.pdf https://offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/US-miiltary-cost-of-...

boringg 7y ago
Oil and Gas indirect subsidies ;)
- haroldp 7y ago
  Very much so. Or, somewhat less cynically, protecting our soft petro-underbelly from harm.
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  Not to mention the 3 military conflicts in the region we were involved in because...oil. At least now we have shale oil of our own to pollute with...yay?

marcusverus 7y ago

Your 1.45 trillion figure for the cost of the F-35 is the lifetime cost of the platform, including procurement and operations costs extending through the year 2070... the cost to date is nowhere near that figure.

geophertz 7y ago

That's ignoring the fact that these 4.5 trillion won't be lost they will have just have shifted into the hands of the public.