4 ms·

Nothing really is the "best bet" in this. The correct solution is to hedge your bets by betting on just about every possible solution. The local resources avail

by doikor 5y ago

Nothing really is the "best bet" in this. The correct solution is to hedge your bets by betting on just about every possible solution. The local resources available dictate just too much what is the "best" solution but even then one should not put all the eggs in one basket. But solving the electricity problem is just solving one part (~25%) of the equation. There is still a lot of greenhouse gasses being released from cars, construction (concrete), farming and various industrial processes. But the electricity seems to be the easiest problem to solve and once we have that on track to being fixed we can move more resources into the other issues.

jabl 5y ago
> Nothing really is the "best bet" in this. The correct solution is to hedge your bets by betting on just about every possible solution. The local resources available dictate just too much what is the "best" solution but even then one should not put all the eggs in one basket. It aggravates me to no end that people are fighting this pointless nuclear vs. renewables war, all the while fossil fuels are laughing all the way to the bank. Should be invest in building nuclear? YES! Should we invest in wind and solar? YES! Should we invest in grid-scale storage? YES! Should we invest in transmission capacity? YES! > But solving the electricity problem is just solving one part (~25%) of the equation. There is still a lot of greenhouse gasses being released from cars, construction (concrete), farming and various industrial processes. But the electricity seems to be the easiest problem to solve and once we have that on track to being fixed we can move more resources into the other issues. Electricity is in some ways the easiest problem, yes, but also once we have clean electricity we can use that to decarbonize many other sectors. Transportation, to a large extent. Heating, yes. Many important industrial processes can use hydrogen, like steel production. Etc.
ncmncm 5y ago
Not true: solar is the clear winner. Thus far, storage hasn't been important, but will become so soon. Very cheap iron-air batteries will roll out in 2023. Wind will remain important, as will long-distance power transmission. Spending on other methods is not just wasted; it means not spending those dollars on solar. But replacing Portland cement with one of the numerous carbon-neutral alternatives is urgent, as is building out all-electric ammonia and hydrogen synthesis: hydrogen for steel production, and ammonia to fuel retrofitted container ships.
- civilized 5y ago
  I hope you're right about the iron-air batteries. I heard good things about them a couple months ago and hope it's going well.
  - Hypx_ 5y ago
    I also heard that iron-air batteries are just another kind of metal-air batteries. The problem is that hydrogen-air batteries already exist, and are basically the same thing. Iron-air is therefore just reinventing of the wheel.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      They vent the oxygen, and draw it back from the atmosphere as needed. Hydrogen would need to be stored, and probably liquified first. It is similar to the difference between a rocket and a turbojet: for efficiency, jets always win (except where you get to cruise through vacuum).
      - Hypx_ 5y ago
        Except we can store hydrogen quite easily. It is either pumped underground or in tanks, no different than natural gas.
- loeg 5y ago
  Every unproven battery technology is "right around the corner." I would love cheap, scalable iron-air batteries to be available in 2023, but I am not holding my breath. We need to plan around technologies that exist, because we need to act now rather than wait 5 years before acting.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    What we need to do now is build out solar panels. Until their share of generating capacity approaches a stability limit, spending on other tech is counterproductive. Iron-air is not, in fact, unproven. Factories big enough to build what will be needed are right now under construction. We will need a lot. We will also need hundreds of ammonia and hydrogen production plants.
joe_the_user 5y ago
Nothing really is the "best bet" in this. The correct solution is to hedge your bets by betting on just about every possible solution. This seems like a "fallacy of the option spectrum". Of course we don't try cold fusion or discredited options. Trying options based on how credit they seem is a reasonable approach but "try it 'cause it's a thing" isn't argument.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  I agree, but would point out that "Try every option based on how credible it seems" is also an insufficient or under-specified answer, because the viability of each option depends on how much resources are invested in that option. For example, if a trillion dollars were invested in nuclear reactors, it would probably be possible to build them fast enough and safely enough to satisfy most people, whereas spending just ten dollars on nuclear energy would not be enough to solve climate change. Similarly, over-building renewables and researching batteries with a trillion dollars might be enough to start reversing CO2 levels, but ten dollars won't make a difference. Given limited resources, determining how to allocate them to maximise the probability of success is really the essence of the problem, rather than just identifying that there are several approaches that could be tried simultaneously.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    The more money there is on offer for nukes, the bigger the corruption problem becomes. There is literally no upper limit on how much money corruption is willing to absorb. But there is a lower limit, below which corruption will look elsewhere.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    I agree, but would point out that "Try every option based on how credible it seems" is also an insufficient or under-specified answer, because the viability of each option depends on how much resources are invested in that option. I could say that how many resources an option has is a part of how credible it seems. But I didn't really specify an algorithm for choosing options, I just wanted to point out that "try it because it's an option" isn't argument in a world where one generally has unlimited hypothetical options. Edit: all that said, different energy production methods have different capital intensity levels. You get zero for a ten dollar or even a ten million dollar investment in nukes today. Solar has lower capital intensity but can still can scale to meet needs.
ashtonkem 5y ago
> But solving the electricity problem is just solving one part (~25%) of the equation. There is still a lot of greenhouse gasses being released from cars, construction (concrete), farming and various industrial processes. But the electricity seems to be the easiest problem to solve and once we have that on track to being fixed we can move more resources into the other issues. With the exception of concrete and farming, the answer to the rest of these is "produce a shit load of power cheaply". A lot of industrial uses of fossil fuels are merely using them to heat something directly, like a boiler or a furnace. These kinds of work loads can be electrified, but the demand on our grid will go up massively. Ditto with transit. We can make EVs now that are superior to ICE vehicles for 98-99% of use cases. We can make electrified rail transit a reality again if we want to. The issue is that we currently don't make enough electricity to meet current demands, industrial demands, and transit demands. We need a lot of electricity to do that, and we're currently nowhere close.

by doikor 5y ago

jabl 5y ago

> Nothing really is the "best bet" in this. The correct solution is to hedge your bets by betting on just about every possible solution. The local resources available dictate just too much what is the "best" solution but even then one should not put all the eggs in one basket. It aggravates me to no end that people are fighting this pointless nuclear vs. renewables war, all the while fossil fuels are laughing all the way to the bank. Should be invest in building nuclear? YES! Should we invest in wind and solar? YES! Should we invest in grid-scale storage? YES! Should we invest in transmission capacity? YES! > But solving the electricity problem is just solving one part (~25%) of the equation. There is still a lot of greenhouse gasses being released from cars, construction (concrete), farming and various industrial processes. But the electricity seems to be the easiest problem to solve and once we have that on track to being fixed we can move more resources into the other issues. Electricity is in some ways the easiest problem, yes, but also once we have clean electricity we can use that to decarbonize many other sectors. Transportation, to a large extent. Heating, yes. Many important industrial processes can use hydrogen, like steel production. Etc.

ncmncm 5y ago

Not true: solar is the clear winner. Thus far, storage hasn't been important, but will become so soon. Very cheap iron-air batteries will roll out in 2023. Wind will remain important, as will long-distance power transmission. Spending on other methods is not just wasted; it means not spending those dollars on solar. But replacing Portland cement with one of the numerous carbon-neutral alternatives is urgent, as is building out all-electric ammonia and hydrogen synthesis: hydrogen for steel production, and ammonia to fuel retrofitted container ships.

civilized 5y ago
I hope you're right about the iron-air batteries. I heard good things about them a couple months ago and hope it's going well.
- Hypx_ 5y ago
  I also heard that iron-air batteries are just another kind of metal-air batteries. The problem is that hydrogen-air batteries already exist, and are basically the same thing. Iron-air is therefore just reinventing of the wheel.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    They vent the oxygen, and draw it back from the atmosphere as needed. Hydrogen would need to be stored, and probably liquified first. It is similar to the difference between a rocket and a turbojet: for efficiency, jets always win (except where you get to cruise through vacuum).
    - Hypx_ 5y ago
      Except we can store hydrogen quite easily. It is either pumped underground or in tanks, no different than natural gas.
loeg 5y ago
Every unproven battery technology is "right around the corner." I would love cheap, scalable iron-air batteries to be available in 2023, but I am not holding my breath. We need to plan around technologies that exist, because we need to act now rather than wait 5 years before acting.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  What we need to do now is build out solar panels. Until their share of generating capacity approaches a stability limit, spending on other tech is counterproductive. Iron-air is not, in fact, unproven. Factories big enough to build what will be needed are right now under construction. We will need a lot. We will also need hundreds of ammonia and hydrogen production plants.

joe_the_user 5y ago

Nothing really is the "best bet" in this. The correct solution is to hedge your bets by betting on just about every possible solution. This seems like a "fallacy of the option spectrum". Of course we don't try cold fusion or discredited options. Trying options based on how credit they seem is a reasonable approach but "try it 'cause it's a thing" isn't argument.

dane-pgp 5y ago
I agree, but would point out that "Try every option based on how credible it seems" is also an insufficient or under-specified answer, because the viability of each option depends on how much resources are invested in that option. For example, if a trillion dollars were invested in nuclear reactors, it would probably be possible to build them fast enough and safely enough to satisfy most people, whereas spending just ten dollars on nuclear energy would not be enough to solve climate change. Similarly, over-building renewables and researching batteries with a trillion dollars might be enough to start reversing CO2 levels, but ten dollars won't make a difference. Given limited resources, determining how to allocate them to maximise the probability of success is really the essence of the problem, rather than just identifying that there are several approaches that could be tried simultaneously.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  The more money there is on offer for nukes, the bigger the corruption problem becomes. There is literally no upper limit on how much money corruption is willing to absorb. But there is a lower limit, below which corruption will look elsewhere.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  I agree, but would point out that "Try every option based on how credible it seems" is also an insufficient or under-specified answer, because the viability of each option depends on how much resources are invested in that option. I could say that how many resources an option has is a part of how credible it seems. But I didn't really specify an algorithm for choosing options, I just wanted to point out that "try it because it's an option" isn't argument in a world where one generally has unlimited hypothetical options. Edit: all that said, different energy production methods have different capital intensity levels. You get zero for a ten dollar or even a ten million dollar investment in nukes today. Solar has lower capital intensity but can still can scale to meet needs.

ashtonkem 5y ago

> But solving the electricity problem is just solving one part (~25%) of the equation. There is still a lot of greenhouse gasses being released from cars, construction (concrete), farming and various industrial processes. But the electricity seems to be the easiest problem to solve and once we have that on track to being fixed we can move more resources into the other issues. With the exception of concrete and farming, the answer to the rest of these is "produce a shit load of power cheaply". A lot of industrial uses of fossil fuels are merely using them to heat something directly, like a boiler or a furnace. These kinds of work loads can be electrified, but the demand on our grid will go up massively. Ditto with transit. We can make EVs now that are superior to ICE vehicles for 98-99% of use cases. We can make electrified rail transit a reality again if we want to. The issue is that we currently don't make enough electricity to meet current demands, industrial demands, and transit demands. We need a lot of electricity to do that, and we're currently nowhere close.