4 ms·
It does make sense until renewable power, cleaner manufacturing tech and electric vehicles are able to replace the polluters. Would have been easier if more nuc
by goatlover 5y ago
It does make sense until renewable power, cleaner manufacturing tech and electric vehicles are able to replace the polluters. Would have been easier if more nuclear plants were ready to go.
- unyttigfjelltol 5y agoNeither growing forests nor any other approach I've heard is carbon-negative on a scale of more than a few decades. Maybe someone could usefully deploy the credits to fund the science necessary to know how to properly use them.
- marcosdumay 5y agoHumanity does not do large scale fundamental change in less than a few decades. We are actually changing very quickly. Now that solar is cheaper than coal, we are simply turning coal plants down, even on the middle of their lifetime. Transport electrification is basically bounded by supply, we are just not able to do it faster. The one thing that could be better is grid storage. It doesn't help that there is a patent minefield around battery chemistries, and it also doesn't help that it's only economically viable after the grid has a large share of renewables. A government could intervene on both of those problems right now, but if they are left for markets, it will take another decade after we start working really hard on them (what is still quick, by the way, and it helps that we can solve basically half of the emissions on the previous paragraph alone).
- toast0 5y ago> it also doesn't help that it's only economically viable after the grid has a large share of renewables. There's certainly already wholesale price variability throughout the day, so buy at night, sell during the day arbitrage is at least conceptially valid, although real world ROI is going to depend on capital costs, full cycle efficiency, etc, and it doesn't seem like things are quite there outside of a few installations.
- xyzzy21 5y agoChemistry is pretty much DONE for batteries. The only advancements possible are fairly limited and have to do with nanostructure of electrodes and electrolytes which won't give more than 2x-5x. There are NO 10x, 100x, 1000x futures with batteries. If you want 10x-100x, the answer is hydrocarbon fuels and nuclear energy. Period. Otherwise you are living in a fantasy bubble disconnected from STEM and factual reality.
- marcosdumay 5y agoPrice and durability are pretty much open problems. Ion exchange materials are a completely open problem. Structure of electrodes and electrolytes on dissolved chemical batteries are an open problem. Substrate for the ion exchange element of molten chemical batteries is a completely open problem. There's nothing done in grid battery chemistry. The only thing people have ever optimized for is energy density by weight, and this is an almost completely irrelevant dimension for that application.
- 71a54xd 5y agoGood thing Elon is funding the same anti-hydrogen lobbyists that the oil industry has employed for decades.
- pjc50 5y ago> 10x-100x 10x what?
- greenie_beans 5y agocarbon offsets let businesses not invest in those things, nor invest in the r&d that would create those things. further kicking the can down the road.
- goatlover 5y agoThe have the carbon offsets go into funding r&d in cleaner tech.
- greenie_beans 5y agowait, what? the companies pay forest owners to offset carbon. so you're suggesting that forest owners fund the r&d with the money they make from selling offsets? that doesn't make much sense for a forest owner. they're already doing their part by providing a carbon sink. the responsibility is on the businesses to reduce their carbon footprint. and carbon offset credits don't incentivize the businesses to do that.
- goatlover 5y agoNo, the companies pay for the R&D as their carbon offset instead of the forest owners, if that's the concern. A fossil fuel company isn't going to reduce its carbon footprint as long as energy demands need to be met by fossil fuels.
- greenie_beans 5y agoyeah that would make more sense.