4 ms·

This, unfortunately, reads like FUD to me. There are limits to solar and wind, both in terms of their carbon footprint, their operating window and their storag

This, unfortunately, reads like FUD to me. There are limits to solar and wind, both in terms of their carbon footprint, their operating window and their storage, but all these costs are quickly dropping and availability is quickly ramping up. Solar and battery technology are experiencing a similar "Moore's Law" of their own (Swanson's law [0] for solar and Wright's law for the more general scenario [1]). Solar is at $.75 at the consumer level and sub $0.30 at the commercial level, with costs only going down (exponentially so). Deep cycle lead acid batteries are available, right now, at the consumer level, for $0.15 / Wh with LiFePo4 sub $0.10 / Wh in some cases. I would expect non lead acid batteries to also undergo exponential decay in price. I unfortunately don't have the talk I saw it in, but there's a cute anecdote they give. They show a picture of a busy street in the middle of New York city, with the street filled with horses, carriages and only one or two cars. They show the same spot 10 years later filled with cars and only one or two horses and carriages. Where I live (upstate New York state in the USA), I see solar farms popping up. My expectation is that solar will become widely deployed and adopted in the next 10-15 years. The author looks to dismiss ideas of exponential growth and adoption. I also am finding more and more FUD against solar and other "green" technology, falsely claiming the coal and the carbon footprint in it's manufacture is commensurate or outweighs the fossil fuel equivalent (it doesn't). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects

melomal 5y ago
By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it nonrecyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage.
- Gare 5y ago
  Better to bury the waste than to pump it as CO2 into the air, no?
rini17 5y ago
Pointing out that exponential growth will hit resource constraints soon, or already does (like copper which keeps getting more and more expensive) is just a FUD for you...hard to have sane discussion then.
- abetusk 5y ago
  Everyone sane understands that unfettered exponential growth hits limits quickly. Exponential is a short hand. We're on an S-curve and during the ramp up, the curve looks exponential.
  - rini17 5y ago
    Now the question is does the exponential growth of renewables allows for stopping CO2 emissions before they undo our civilization? I have not seen any credible analysis that concludes that. Only possible with major downgrade of our lifestyle. The copper shortage is only one of the bottlenecks.
    - MildlySerious 5y ago
      > Now the question is does the exponential growth of renewables allows for stopping CO2 emissions before they undo our civilization? I know this is not equivalent by any means, but the most pressing aspect of it is answered by CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, and relative savings compared to fossil alternatives. The key thing here is that most pollution is more or less local. Burying turbines we can't recycle yet, releasing chemicals during the mining, all those other fair criticisms which are slowly being addressed, as much as they suck, don't suck as much as emitting GHG that affect the planet as a whole and every living being on it. The other big one is plastics pollution, specifically micro plastics, but let that be a separate topic for now. The rapid change in CO2 levels fucks with every environment in which life exists. The acidification of the oceans, desalination through glacier melt, its long term warm up, warm up of the atmosphere and the resulting changes to climate and weather will grind down every ecosystem we rely on to not have our civilization undone. Food supply, quality of life, long term stability will deteriorate as time goes on, that's the risk we are dealing with when it comes to emissions. The longer we do nothing, the greater the risk that these things spiral out of control. Another forest gone, or another lake poisoned, as much as it sucks, and it really does, is a drop in the bucket compared to Pandora's Box being opened by polluting the atmosphere and fucking with the oceans to the degree that we are. That's why we focus on reducing emissions and why I think the emissions question has enough overlap with the 'undoing civilization' question that, to answer your one question, you may want to look for answers to the other question, which is much better explored.
sofixa 5y ago
Battery costs are already going up due to demand far outstripping supply and the exploding costs of raw materials ( nickel, copper, lithium, etc.).
polotics 5y ago
The only way to know is to have a valid model, and do the math... Swanson's observation/hypothesis of linear continuation on a few data points is far from a solid model, definitely not going to be added to thermodynamics just yet! You need World-3 and much understanding of the EROEI of everything, intermittency, and so on. My readings lead me to believe that the current batch of renewable energy is heavily subsidised by many still-functioning CO2-producing activities, and a true renewable-based world looks a lot more like that street with horses than what you believe.

melomal 5y ago

By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it nonrecyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage.

Gare 5y ago
Better to bury the waste than to pump it as CO2 into the air, no?

rini17 5y ago

Pointing out that exponential growth will hit resource constraints soon, or already does (like copper which keeps getting more and more expensive) is just a FUD for you...hard to have sane discussion then.

abetusk 5y ago
Everyone sane understands that unfettered exponential growth hits limits quickly. Exponential is a short hand. We're on an S-curve and during the ramp up, the curve looks exponential.
- rini17 5y ago
  Now the question is does the exponential growth of renewables allows for stopping CO2 emissions before they undo our civilization? I have not seen any credible analysis that concludes that. Only possible with major downgrade of our lifestyle. The copper shortage is only one of the bottlenecks.
  - MildlySerious 5y ago
    > Now the question is does the exponential growth of renewables allows for stopping CO2 emissions before they undo our civilization? I know this is not equivalent by any means, but the most pressing aspect of it is answered by CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, and relative savings compared to fossil alternatives. The key thing here is that most pollution is more or less local. Burying turbines we can't recycle yet, releasing chemicals during the mining, all those other fair criticisms which are slowly being addressed, as much as they suck, don't suck as much as emitting GHG that affect the planet as a whole and every living being on it. The other big one is plastics pollution, specifically micro plastics, but let that be a separate topic for now. The rapid change in CO2 levels fucks with every environment in which life exists. The acidification of the oceans, desalination through glacier melt, its long term warm up, warm up of the atmosphere and the resulting changes to climate and weather will grind down every ecosystem we rely on to not have our civilization undone. Food supply, quality of life, long term stability will deteriorate as time goes on, that's the risk we are dealing with when it comes to emissions. The longer we do nothing, the greater the risk that these things spiral out of control. Another forest gone, or another lake poisoned, as much as it sucks, and it really does, is a drop in the bucket compared to Pandora's Box being opened by polluting the atmosphere and fucking with the oceans to the degree that we are. That's why we focus on reducing emissions and why I think the emissions question has enough overlap with the 'undoing civilization' question that, to answer your one question, you may want to look for answers to the other question, which is much better explored.

sofixa 5y ago

Battery costs are already going up due to demand far outstripping supply and the exploding costs of raw materials ( nickel, copper, lithium, etc.).

polotics 5y ago

The only way to know is to have a valid model, and do the math... Swanson's observation/hypothesis of linear continuation on a few data points is far from a solid model, definitely not going to be added to thermodynamics just yet! You need World-3 and much understanding of the EROEI of everything, intermittency, and so on. My readings lead me to believe that the current batch of renewable energy is heavily subsidised by many still-functioning CO2-producing activities, and a true renewable-based world looks a lot more like that street with horses than what you believe.