3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > 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. If you don't have any external pressure or subsidies on you, you can turn off solar/wind in seconds. Renewables never have to pay those fees, only slow to ramp plants do.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      Those "slow to ramp" plants are necessary to provide the base load. The cause of the overload is the volatility of renewables. Whether it would be cheaper to curtail renewables and who exactly gets to foot the bill - I don't know. Doesn't seem reasonable to me that, say, France should pay Germany because their very stable nuclear plants can't accommodate for the volatility of renewables elsewhere. Either way, the cost is negative, or at least zero if you turn it off. It's worthless energy, going to waste.

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.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > 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. If you don't have any external pressure or subsidies on you, you can turn off solar/wind in seconds. Renewables never have to pay those fees, only slow to ramp plants do.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    Those "slow to ramp" plants are necessary to provide the base load. The cause of the overload is the volatility of renewables. Whether it would be cheaper to curtail renewables and who exactly gets to foot the bill - I don't know. Doesn't seem reasonable to me that, say, France should pay Germany because their very stable nuclear plants can't accommodate for the volatility of renewables elsewhere. Either way, the cost is negative, or at least zero if you turn it off. It's worthless energy, going to waste.