5 ms·

This comment hits the nail on the head. Plus, what the OP conveniently ignores, is that electric cars aren‘t a talisman, but a bridgehead. If electric cars succ

This comment hits the nail on the head. Plus, what the OP conveniently ignores, is that electric cars aren‘t a talisman, but a bridgehead. If electric cars succeed on a large scale, it means we solved making electricity storage fast, dense and cheap enough to put them on the road. Putting that technology into the electric grid and combining it with renewables will enable dirt cheap, limitless energy, which will contribute in a major way towards solving all the other problems OP enumerated.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Agreed. Consider using the term "low-carbon energy" in place of "renewable energy". We want to promote the right stuff. Biofuel is considered renewable but is high carbon. Nuclear fusion would be low carbon but not considered renewable. The difference matters hugely for future energy policy.
- dTal 7y ago
  Biofuel is carbon-neutral because the carbon comes from the atmosphere. It's fine to burn it because its emissions have already been bought and paid for in its creaion. The problem with carbon is digging it up, in an open cycle. Renewable is a more strict term than carbon-neutral, it's true, but all "renewables" are by definition closed-loop and hence carbon-neutral.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    This is a common but incorrect assumption. Biofuels are very far from carbon neutral. Renewable is in no way restricted to the desirable. As an extreme case in point, wood in particular is a horrifying energy source due to health detriment from particulates. Have a look at some data: https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-co2-of-fuels.png https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-... Source: Schlomer S., et.al., 2014: Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
    - dTal 7y ago
      Setting aside other issues with it like particulate emission, how can it be anything other than carbon neutral? Where could the surplus carbon possibly come from?
      - acidburnNSA 7y ago
        When biofuels are valuable, people clear forests to make biofuel. The carbon payback period can be up to 1000 years. It's called indirect land use change [1,2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILUC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILUC [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel#Greenhouse_gas_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel#Greenhouse_gas_emissio...
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    Okay, but the problem we're trying to solve is the carbon being in the atmosphere, so even biofuel is objectively far worse than, say, solar.
    - dTal 7y ago
      Making the biofuel takes exactly as much carbon out of the atmosphere as it releases when burned, so no it is not far worse from a global warming perspective.
- kaibee 7y ago
  While I agree that technically, fusion is not renewable, I feel like it might as well be? Working fusion reactors make it economical to siphon hydrogen fuel from Jupiter and such. Did you mean fission?
  - amluto 7y ago
    I prefer “sustainable”, as in “this technology can be used as some scale for X years without causing major problems”. High-burnup nuclear power, under reasonable assumptions, is sustainable for hundreds of thousands of years. Fusion is presumably sustainable as long as the Earth exists, as are solar and wind. Coal is not sustainable at all.
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      Right on. Breeder fission reactors can power civilization for at least tens of millions of years, probably billions, thanks to seawater uranium extraction and renewal through plate tectonics.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Well, technically, nothing's really renewable. Limited but massive nuclear fusion in the sun is indirectly powering solar PV and wind and hydro for 4-10 billion more years. Limited nuclear alpha decay of Uranium inside Earth powers geothermal. The limited Earth-Moon gravitational system powers tidal. So I think it's fair to actually consider nuclear fusion and nuclear fission in breeder reactors both to be renewable. B. Cohen said the same about breeder fission reactors in the 1980s [1]. Uranium in seawater can be extracted at 10x world energy scale for billions of years. It replenishes continuously through crustal erosion and plate tectonics. Sounds pretty renewable. But according to policies we're writing today, the term renewable does not include fusion or fission in breeders. I consider this problematic. Thus I think we all should prefer either "sustainable energy" or "low-carbon energy". [1] http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/pad11983cohen.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/...
petra 7y ago
Also, the article doesn't explore whether electric cars could be manufactured in a more friendly way.

acidburnNSA 7y ago

Agreed. Consider using the term "low-carbon energy" in place of "renewable energy". We want to promote the right stuff. Biofuel is considered renewable but is high carbon. Nuclear fusion would be low carbon but not considered renewable. The difference matters hugely for future energy policy.

dTal 7y ago
Biofuel is carbon-neutral because the carbon comes from the atmosphere. It's fine to burn it because its emissions have already been bought and paid for in its creaion. The problem with carbon is digging it up, in an open cycle. Renewable is a more strict term than carbon-neutral, it's true, but all "renewables" are by definition closed-loop and hence carbon-neutral.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  This is a common but incorrect assumption. Biofuels are very far from carbon neutral. Renewable is in no way restricted to the desirable. As an extreme case in point, wood in particular is a horrifying energy source due to health detriment from particulates. Have a look at some data: https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-co2-of-fuels.png https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-... Source: Schlomer S., et.al., 2014: Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
  - dTal 7y ago
    Setting aside other issues with it like particulate emission, how can it be anything other than carbon neutral? Where could the surplus carbon possibly come from?
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      When biofuels are valuable, people clear forests to make biofuel. The carbon payback period can be up to 1000 years. It's called indirect land use change [1,2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILUC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILUC [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel#Greenhouse_gas_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel#Greenhouse_gas_emissio...
- yellowapple 7y ago
  Okay, but the problem we're trying to solve is the carbon being in the atmosphere, so even biofuel is objectively far worse than, say, solar.
  - dTal 7y ago
    Making the biofuel takes exactly as much carbon out of the atmosphere as it releases when burned, so no it is not far worse from a global warming perspective.
kaibee 7y ago
While I agree that technically, fusion is not renewable, I feel like it might as well be? Working fusion reactors make it economical to siphon hydrogen fuel from Jupiter and such. Did you mean fission?
- amluto 7y ago
  I prefer “sustainable”, as in “this technology can be used as some scale for X years without causing major problems”. High-burnup nuclear power, under reasonable assumptions, is sustainable for hundreds of thousands of years. Fusion is presumably sustainable as long as the Earth exists, as are solar and wind. Coal is not sustainable at all.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Right on. Breeder fission reactors can power civilization for at least tens of millions of years, probably billions, thanks to seawater uranium extraction and renewal through plate tectonics.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Well, technically, nothing's really renewable. Limited but massive nuclear fusion in the sun is indirectly powering solar PV and wind and hydro for 4-10 billion more years. Limited nuclear alpha decay of Uranium inside Earth powers geothermal. The limited Earth-Moon gravitational system powers tidal. So I think it's fair to actually consider nuclear fusion and nuclear fission in breeder reactors both to be renewable. B. Cohen said the same about breeder fission reactors in the 1980s [1]. Uranium in seawater can be extracted at 10x world energy scale for billions of years. It replenishes continuously through crustal erosion and plate tectonics. Sounds pretty renewable. But according to policies we're writing today, the term renewable does not include fusion or fission in breeders. I consider this problematic. Thus I think we all should prefer either "sustainable energy" or "low-carbon energy". [1] http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/pad11983cohen.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/...

petra 7y ago

Also, the article doesn't explore whether electric cars could be manufactured in a more friendly way.