5 ms·

It is true electryifying everything and going green on the grid is important, but do you think that when there’s oil available, no one’s going to use it? You ca

It is true electryifying everything and going green on the grid is important, but do you think that when there’s oil available, no one’s going to use it? You can put laws in the big countries but what about the shady ones?

Schiendelman 5y ago
Once the big countries seriously start to transition, they’ll need the shady countries to stop benefiting from oil as well. We’ll all end up paying poor countries to not use oil, and embargoing them if they keep it up - and that’ll be a worthy thing to pay for.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  I've got one word for you: China. The US can't just cut off China without serious second order effects rippling through the economy. Therefore, it won't happen. And, if you can't get China to cooperate, none of it matters. They're currently the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, have publicly said they'll be increasing their emissions for some time, and have not committed to net zero before 2060.
  - Stupulous 5y ago
    China's emissions per capita are half that of the US, and it seems very reasonable that they would see an increase in carbon emissions as the average standard of living goes up. The US is only aiming for carbon neutral by 2050, and we have less work to do and more money to do it with. I'm no fan of China, but I think we're on the same page regarding renewables.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      That's all well and good, but your real problem is that both of those pages fall well after the book is closed on being able to make a real difference. I also forgot to note that India has only committed to net zero emissions by 2070, and that's far too late to avoid serious issues.
    - lambdadmitry 5y ago
      Per capita emissions don't matter for the atmosphere, aggregate emissions do. Yes this makes big population a liability, but it is what it is.
      - Stupulous 5y ago
        They matter if we're asking whether China is on the US' side on this. China's people shouldn't be forced to live in worse conditions because they live in more populous nation. You could split China into two countries with US-level emissions, and we'd be in exactly the same place globally.
        lambdadmitry 5y ago
        > China's people shouldn't be forced to live in worse conditions because they live in more populous nation According to the logic of degrowth, they should be forced to live in conditions that allow for net zero total emissions of the country they live in. If anything, it should be easier for them because they're a unitary dictatorship, so can degrow by edict. I can't see how not focusing on China in that regard can make sense, they're emitting more currently, they are rapidly increasing their emissions (unlike the US), and they have a great potential to increase it much higher because they have lots more people. Therefore any degrowth strategy should be first and foremost applied to curb their emissions, yet somehow the conversation is always derailed into useless per-capita emissions that do nothing to the planet.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        > You could split China into two countries with US-level emissions Well first of all, two wouldn't suffice. It's at least three, and I think it might even be four. And with a bunch of mini-Chinas, there'd be more competition for where manufacturing happens, and it could drive emissions down the same way that breaking up a monopoly drives price down.
        Stupulous 5y ago
        By Wikipedia's 2019 numbers (14 Gt China/6.6 Gt US) you'd need 2.12 mini-Chinas.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
AFAIK, there is only a single country that isn't part of the global economy and thus isn't vulnerable to sanctions, and North Korea doesn't have any oil. Carbon tariffs are one of those brilliantly awesome ideas that would solve a lot of issues like these.
- Schiendelman 5y ago
  Great point! We replied at the same time and I think we’re thinking the same way. :)
- fogihujy 5y ago
  They still use, and export coal though.
Retric 5y ago
As Oil loses economies of scale it’s only going to get more expensive not less. Meanwhile batteries, solar, and wind just keep getting cheaper. Future EV sales are going to come down to technology not subsides. Also biofuels aren’t significant at current consumption levels, but could become so if we get close to net zero emissions.
- lambdadmitry 5y ago
  It's a really, really bad idea to extrapolate price reductions in solar/wind into carbon free grids. Unfortunately there's a ridiculous wall of increasing overprovision required as you go deeper and deeper into renewables. Have a look at [0] if you can make the paper fall from the back of a truck, especially at Fig. 3. Assuming absolutely perfect grid able to transmit arbitrary amount of electricity and disregarding any real constraints, going purely by geophysical constraints on the amount of wind and sun available, continental US would need at least x7 as much wind+solar capacity as it does consume on average to have no more than one day of blackouts per year, assuming 12hrs of full consumption stored and immediately dispatchable. The only scenario in which that number goes to about x1 requires 32 days of full storage, which is just impossible with our current tech. And as you can imagine, in any real scenario that number would need to be several times higher. It's an absolutely ridiculous cost barrier that is not talked about enough and that effectively guarantees that we will be burning fossils for the foreseeable future. [0]: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/ee/c7ee03029k https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/ee/c7ee0...
  - liketochill 5y ago
    Not sure why you are downvoted you have a valid point with regards to over provisioning and storage. I wonder how much dispatchable generation has to be kept around to only have two 12 hour blackouts per year due to lack of generation.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      3 hours, some overbuilding and a good grid to get to 99.99% reliability (under an hour of blackouts). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z

Schiendelman 5y ago

Once the big countries seriously start to transition, they’ll need the shady countries to stop benefiting from oil as well. We’ll all end up paying poor countries to not use oil, and embargoing them if they keep it up - and that’ll be a worthy thing to pay for.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
I've got one word for you: China. The US can't just cut off China without serious second order effects rippling through the economy. Therefore, it won't happen. And, if you can't get China to cooperate, none of it matters. They're currently the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, have publicly said they'll be increasing their emissions for some time, and have not committed to net zero before 2060.
- Stupulous 5y ago
  China's emissions per capita are half that of the US, and it seems very reasonable that they would see an increase in carbon emissions as the average standard of living goes up. The US is only aiming for carbon neutral by 2050, and we have less work to do and more money to do it with. I'm no fan of China, but I think we're on the same page regarding renewables.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    That's all well and good, but your real problem is that both of those pages fall well after the book is closed on being able to make a real difference. I also forgot to note that India has only committed to net zero emissions by 2070, and that's far too late to avoid serious issues.
  - lambdadmitry 5y ago
    Per capita emissions don't matter for the atmosphere, aggregate emissions do. Yes this makes big population a liability, but it is what it is.
    - Stupulous 5y ago
      They matter if we're asking whether China is on the US' side on this. China's people shouldn't be forced to live in worse conditions because they live in more populous nation. You could split China into two countries with US-level emissions, and we'd be in exactly the same place globally.
      - lambdadmitry 5y ago
        > China's people shouldn't be forced to live in worse conditions because they live in more populous nation According to the logic of degrowth, they should be forced to live in conditions that allow for net zero total emissions of the country they live in. If anything, it should be easier for them because they're a unitary dictatorship, so can degrow by edict. I can't see how not focusing on China in that regard can make sense, they're emitting more currently, they are rapidly increasing their emissions (unlike the US), and they have a great potential to increase it much higher because they have lots more people. Therefore any degrowth strategy should be first and foremost applied to curb their emissions, yet somehow the conversation is always derailed into useless per-capita emissions that do nothing to the planet.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        > You could split China into two countries with US-level emissions Well first of all, two wouldn't suffice. It's at least three, and I think it might even be four. And with a bunch of mini-Chinas, there'd be more competition for where manufacturing happens, and it could drive emissions down the same way that breaking up a monopoly drives price down.
        Stupulous 5y ago
        By Wikipedia's 2019 numbers (14 Gt China/6.6 Gt US) you'd need 2.12 mini-Chinas.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

AFAIK, there is only a single country that isn't part of the global economy and thus isn't vulnerable to sanctions, and North Korea doesn't have any oil. Carbon tariffs are one of those brilliantly awesome ideas that would solve a lot of issues like these.

Schiendelman 5y ago
Great point! We replied at the same time and I think we’re thinking the same way. :)
fogihujy 5y ago
They still use, and export coal though.

Retric 5y ago

As Oil loses economies of scale it’s only going to get more expensive not less. Meanwhile batteries, solar, and wind just keep getting cheaper. Future EV sales are going to come down to technology not subsides. Also biofuels aren’t significant at current consumption levels, but could become so if we get close to net zero emissions.

lambdadmitry 5y ago
It's a really, really bad idea to extrapolate price reductions in solar/wind into carbon free grids. Unfortunately there's a ridiculous wall of increasing overprovision required as you go deeper and deeper into renewables. Have a look at [0] if you can make the paper fall from the back of a truck, especially at Fig. 3. Assuming absolutely perfect grid able to transmit arbitrary amount of electricity and disregarding any real constraints, going purely by geophysical constraints on the amount of wind and sun available, continental US would need at least x7 as much wind+solar capacity as it does consume on average to have no more than one day of blackouts per year, assuming 12hrs of full consumption stored and immediately dispatchable. The only scenario in which that number goes to about x1 requires 32 days of full storage, which is just impossible with our current tech. And as you can imagine, in any real scenario that number would need to be several times higher. It's an absolutely ridiculous cost barrier that is not talked about enough and that effectively guarantees that we will be burning fossils for the foreseeable future. [0]: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/ee/c7ee03029k https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/ee/c7ee0...
- liketochill 5y ago
  Not sure why you are downvoted you have a valid point with regards to over provisioning and storage. I wonder how much dispatchable generation has to be kept around to only have two 12 hour blackouts per year due to lack of generation.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    3 hours, some overbuilding and a good grid to get to 99.99% reliability (under an hour of blackouts). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z