4 ms·
Also - to elaborate - it doesn't actually cost billions of money to build nuclear reactors. Or wind turbines, or solar panels for that matter. Ultimately it cos
by spurgu 5y ago
Also - to elaborate - it doesn't actually cost billions of money to build nuclear reactors. Or wind turbines, or solar panels for that matter. Ultimately it costs energy. You could argue that money is a claim on future energy. EROEI is the ratio between energy input and output. This goes back to humanity starting to use horses. This positive EROEI allowed some people to not have to work all day long anymore and could instead become blacksmiths and other professions. Fastforward a bit and the EROEI of coal and oil supercharged the growth/economy. That's the wave we've been riding so far, up until now, allowing us to get to almost 8 billion people on the planet. But with a lot of external costs.
We've depleted all the easy to extract oil resources and the golden age of abundant EROEI is over. Since a good while ago (EROEI for oil started dropping in the 70's or 80's IIRC). And this is what we should have been preparing for, for decades already. But oil companies fought tooth and nail against policymakers even bring it up, and tried to refute it by stating that there is tons of oil still left to be extracted (without bothering to mention the cost).
It's not a popular talking point if you're a politician but climate change on the other hand is something people can easily grasp and get outraged about and policy makers can't avoid. It's simple: The world heats up, sea levels rise, weather becomes increasingly aggressive and erratic - we're fucked if we don't do something. But that's not the whole picture. We'd be fucked anyways.
When the EROEI sinks below a certain threshold the economy (that runs on human brains and external energy inputs) starts shrinking. This has arguably been going on for a while already (even though economists have been trying hard to doctor the numbers to look favorable). And if it drops enough it's a death spiral (the negative logarithmic curve).
People end up blame policy, the economy, the capitalists, globalization, immigrants or racism, but what it actually boils down to is that energy is becoming more expensive to extract, and the whole thing is hitting us from behind (well some alarmists have for decades but have been considered fringe or "conspiracy theorists").
Nuclear is our best bet at this point, but it seems somewhat of a pipe dream. Throw some China into the mix where they are ramping up coal plants, or Russia, and there's no way we're going to be reaching any CO2 targets. We'd have to actually change society, people's behavior, how we live.
One simple example is public transportation. We're frantically expending a ton of resources at converting existing transportation to electric, but we're not thinking it through. Instead of converting existing ICE vehicles to electric we should (somehow) be shifting to public transportation (not an attractive proposition in the middle of a pandemic). High efficiency vs counting on limitless abundant cheap energy. But people like their cars, and won't change their habits unless they are forced to. And this is why I think we're doomed.
- margalabargala 5y agoI'm with you on this being a possibility, but I'm curious if you have a couple specific numbers that I'd want to better evaluate this possibility. It of course costs energy to create solar panels and wind turbines (let's ignore nuclear for now), but the energy output potential of a given solar panel over its lifetime isn't really inherently tied to the energy required to produce it. Theoretically production of these devices should become significantly more efficient at certain levels of scale, and if solar panels production were to increase by 10x, the amount of energy needed to produce those panels would increase by some other smaller multiplier. Given that people presumably can see this coming, it makes sense that some entrepreneurs will take advantage of the current climate of relatively cheap power to create and stockpile energy production capacity in anticipation of the failing of fossil fuels from an EROEI perspective. This, combined with ample opportunity for additional hydroelectric development if we're willing to sacrifice certain riparian ecosystems, makes me think that electricity generation itself will not really fall, and instead the problem will mainly be seen with things that require dense, portable energy i.e. airlines.
- spurgu 5y agoHere's a refreshing read on some of the issues with solar specifically: https://doomberg.substack.com/p/herbie-spoils-the-party https://doomberg.substack.com/p/herbie-spoils-the-party
- margalabargala 5y agoGreat article, thanks. Something that occurs to me- currently, the main way that countries with an excess of electricity export that excess is via smelting aluminum (Tiwai in NZ and Hafnarfjörður in Iceland, for example). It looks like it costs about $1.5 billion and takes ~2 years to create a new large polysilicon plant. Perhaps we'll see some of these places with an excess of unrealized hydroelectric capacity moving towards polysilicon production rather than aluminum. Looks like the polysilicon plant in Washington (also an area with a lot of hydro power) is being restarted: https://www.bernreuter.com/newsroom/polysilicon-news/article/rec-silicon-planning-to-restart-its-plant-in-moses-lake-in-2022/ https://www.bernreuter.com/newsroom/polysilicon-news/article...