4 ms·

> Suppose it costs X to do Y Don't. You can't predict prices like that. Consider that electric cars roll out of the factory having emitted more CO2 than the eq

> Suppose it costs X to do Y Don't. You can't predict prices like that. Consider that electric cars roll out of the factory having emitted more CO2 than the equivalent combustion vehicle. It takes a lot of miles to break even. If you put a price on the CO2, you may well figure out that combustion engines end up more efficient, because carbon-neutral fuel is close to being economical. > But then they'd still be better off spending that money to subsidize electric cars or solar panels or something. This is a huge mistake. Don't pick winners. You don't have better information than the market.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Don't. You can't predict prices like that. You can predict that not emitting CO2 will cost less than emitting CO2 and then recapturing it, because it's the second law of thermodynamics. > Consider that electric cars roll out of the factory having emitted more CO2 than the equivalent combustion vehicle. It takes a lot of miles to break even. It takes about the number of miles that the average person drives in a year. New cars last a lot more than a year. Also, the CO2 it takes to make an electric car has a lot to do with the fact that existing vehicles and power generation emit CO2, which goes away as we get more electric vehicles and non-carbon power generation. > If you put a price on the CO2, you may well figure out that combustion engines end up more efficient, because carbon-neutral fuel is close to being economical. So put a price on CO2. The point isn't that subsidizing electric cars and solar panels is the best solution to the problem, it's that subsidizing carbon capture is strictly worse.
- IanCal 5y ago
  > You can predict that not emitting CO2 will cost less than emitting CO2 and then recapturing it, because it's the second law of thermodynamics. I'm not sure that's true, in two senses. Even if the _energy_ cost is higher, the _monetary_ cost may be lower as emissions and capture don't need to be in the same place. It may be cheaper for example to just burn some petrol to cover long distances where there's less infrastructure and instead capture an equivalent amount of CO2 using energy from solar panels somewhere sunny. I'm not certain the energy cost must be higher due to thermodynamics. If you were taking CO2 and water and recombining them to get back nat gas and oxygen then sure. But what if you're taking the CO2 and doing something else with it? If I'm thinking about this right the bond energy in CO2 is a little lower than the overall energy released. Of course things come down then to efficiencies but I don't think there's a thermodynamics point here.
- incrudible 5y ago
  > You can predict that not emitting CO2 will cost less than emitting CO2 and then recapturing it, because it's the second law of thermodynamics. You're mixing up watts with dollars, a mistake that "green energy" stockpickers make all the time. Consider all the energy that is hitting the Sahara. It's worth zero dollars, because it can't economically be used - but what if you could capture and transport it somehow, you know, like in a fuel? > It takes about the number of miles that the average person drives in a year. That's the lowest estimate I have ever heard - do you have a source for that? > Also, the CO2 it takes to make an electric car has a lot to do with the fact that existing vehicles and power generation emit CO2, which goes away as we get more electric vehicles and non-carbon power generation. Sure, but economics of scale apply to all technologies and unless you let the market do its thing, you won't know the minima and maxima. > So put a price on CO2. Exactly. > The point isn't that subsidizing electric cars and solar panels is the best solution to the problem, it's that subsidizing carbon capture is strictly worse. You don't know that. Ideally, nothing should be subsidized. However, in a market where profit is sooner found with dog meme cryptocurrency and other harebrained schemes, subsidies are arguably necessary, and then you shouldn't put all the money into directions that have already been mostly explored.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > You're mixing up watts with dollars Watts cost dollars. You lose a lot of watts to heat by converting fossil fuels to CO2 and back. Overcoming those losses is quite optimistic. > That's the lowest estimate I have ever heard - do you have a source for that? 13,500 miles, the same as the average annual miles driven in the US: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d... > Sure, but economics of scale apply to all technologies and unless you let the market do its thing, you won't know the minima and maxima. What market? We're talking about government subsidies for carbon capture.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > Watts cost dollars. It's not that simple. For instance, when there's too much electricity on the European grid because, say, wind energy is particularly strong that day in Germany, producers need to pay for someone else to take that electricity. It has negative cost. This is rare for now, but it does limit the rollout of renewables. I thought the example of solar energy in the Sahara was rather convincing? It's a lot of untapped potential energy, it just needs a business case. CO2 prices can make that happen. > You lose a lot of watts to heat by converting fossil fuels to CO2 and back Again, just because it's a loss in the thermodynamic sense doesn't make it a loss in an economic sense. Fuel cells are quite efficient in the thermodynamic sense, but they're not economical when the whole pipeline is considered. That said, a technological breakthrough can turn that calculation around. You can't predict that, so you shouldn't pick winners. > Reuters Fact Checkers made an attempt at science Color me suspicious with that one. At least they're pointing out that other researchers arrived at far less impressive numbers. > What market? We're talking about government subsidies for carbon capture. I'm a strong proponent of CO2 prices. That said, if the government insists on picking winners with subsidies, they shouldn't narrow themselves down too much.
- VBprogrammer 5y ago
  > It takes about the number of miles that the average person drives in a year. I wish that was true. Volvo recently put out a statement that it takes about 70k miles to recover the initially higher energy input using the world average energy mix. Some 9 years of the average UK milage. Of course, if manufacturing is made significantly less CO2 intensive then the maths change. For what it's worth, even if there was no CO2 benefit I'd still be rooting for electric cars to succeed for various other reasons including noise, particulates etc.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> Don't. You can't predict prices like that. You can predict that not emitting CO2 will cost less than emitting CO2 and then recapturing it, because it's the second law of thermodynamics. > Consider that electric cars roll out of the factory having emitted more CO2 than the equivalent combustion vehicle. It takes a lot of miles to break even. It takes about the number of miles that the average person drives in a year. New cars last a lot more than a year. Also, the CO2 it takes to make an electric car has a lot to do with the fact that existing vehicles and power generation emit CO2, which goes away as we get more electric vehicles and non-carbon power generation. > If you put a price on the CO2, you may well figure out that combustion engines end up more efficient, because carbon-neutral fuel is close to being economical. So put a price on CO2. The point isn't that subsidizing electric cars and solar panels is the best solution to the problem, it's that subsidizing carbon capture is strictly worse.

IanCal 5y ago
> You can predict that not emitting CO2 will cost less than emitting CO2 and then recapturing it, because it's the second law of thermodynamics. I'm not sure that's true, in two senses. Even if the _energy_ cost is higher, the _monetary_ cost may be lower as emissions and capture don't need to be in the same place. It may be cheaper for example to just burn some petrol to cover long distances where there's less infrastructure and instead capture an equivalent amount of CO2 using energy from solar panels somewhere sunny. I'm not certain the energy cost must be higher due to thermodynamics. If you were taking CO2 and water and recombining them to get back nat gas and oxygen then sure. But what if you're taking the CO2 and doing something else with it? If I'm thinking about this right the bond energy in CO2 is a little lower than the overall energy released. Of course things come down then to efficiencies but I don't think there's a thermodynamics point here.
incrudible 5y ago
> You can predict that not emitting CO2 will cost less than emitting CO2 and then recapturing it, because it's the second law of thermodynamics. You're mixing up watts with dollars, a mistake that "green energy" stockpickers make all the time. Consider all the energy that is hitting the Sahara. It's worth zero dollars, because it can't economically be used - but what if you could capture and transport it somehow, you know, like in a fuel? > It takes about the number of miles that the average person drives in a year. That's the lowest estimate I have ever heard - do you have a source for that? > Also, the CO2 it takes to make an electric car has a lot to do with the fact that existing vehicles and power generation emit CO2, which goes away as we get more electric vehicles and non-carbon power generation. Sure, but economics of scale apply to all technologies and unless you let the market do its thing, you won't know the minima and maxima. > So put a price on CO2. Exactly. > The point isn't that subsidizing electric cars and solar panels is the best solution to the problem, it's that subsidizing carbon capture is strictly worse. You don't know that. Ideally, nothing should be subsidized. However, in a market where profit is sooner found with dog meme cryptocurrency and other harebrained schemes, subsidies are arguably necessary, and then you shouldn't put all the money into directions that have already been mostly explored.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > You're mixing up watts with dollars Watts cost dollars. You lose a lot of watts to heat by converting fossil fuels to CO2 and back. Overcoming those losses is quite optimistic. > That's the lowest estimate I have ever heard - do you have a source for that? 13,500 miles, the same as the average annual miles driven in the US: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d... > Sure, but economics of scale apply to all technologies and unless you let the market do its thing, you won't know the minima and maxima. What market? We're talking about government subsidies for carbon capture.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > Watts cost dollars. It's not that simple. For instance, when there's too much electricity on the European grid because, say, wind energy is particularly strong that day in Germany, producers need to pay for someone else to take that electricity. It has negative cost. This is rare for now, but it does limit the rollout of renewables. I thought the example of solar energy in the Sahara was rather convincing? It's a lot of untapped potential energy, it just needs a business case. CO2 prices can make that happen. > You lose a lot of watts to heat by converting fossil fuels to CO2 and back Again, just because it's a loss in the thermodynamic sense doesn't make it a loss in an economic sense. Fuel cells are quite efficient in the thermodynamic sense, but they're not economical when the whole pipeline is considered. That said, a technological breakthrough can turn that calculation around. You can't predict that, so you shouldn't pick winners. > Reuters Fact Checkers made an attempt at science Color me suspicious with that one. At least they're pointing out that other researchers arrived at far less impressive numbers. > What market? We're talking about government subsidies for carbon capture. I'm a strong proponent of CO2 prices. That said, if the government insists on picking winners with subsidies, they shouldn't narrow themselves down too much.
VBprogrammer 5y ago
> It takes about the number of miles that the average person drives in a year. I wish that was true. Volvo recently put out a statement that it takes about 70k miles to recover the initially higher energy input using the world average energy mix. Some 9 years of the average UK milage. Of course, if manufacturing is made significantly less CO2 intensive then the maths change. For what it's worth, even if there was no CO2 benefit I'd still be rooting for electric cars to succeed for various other reasons including noise, particulates etc.