3 ms·

If you're a central planning committee trying to solve for the best outcome under physical constraints, nothing beats nuclear power and railroads. If you're li

If you're a central planning committee trying to solve for the best outcome under physical constraints, nothing beats nuclear power and railroads. If you're living in an economic system where investment is primarily determined by rate of profit, then you need to identify a solution where everyone involved is making more money than they would be without you. So it's very important they're competing with oil on economic terms while increasing demand for solar.

standardUser 4y ago
Maybe if natural gas was in short supply I could understand their angle. But it isn't, so I don't. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. Meanwhile, global warming, the paramount problem, needs fast solutions, not elaborate stopgap workarounds.
- krallja 4y ago
  > if natural gas was in short supply You are aware of the situation in western Europe, yes?
  - scaramanga 4y ago
    Remind me, western europe, that is the place where offshore wind is way cheaper than natural gas and other alternatives but where the political and economic system seems to be completely unable to connect investments with rational policy goals (survival, independence) and needs of the population (maintaining core temperature within non-lethal ranges, etc.)? :) So I mean, I assume the original point is about supply/demand, but supply of gas is already short, prices are already high, alternatives are already cheaper, and yet our system is still failing to take any action that might lead to a survivable outcome. So the supply/demand thing seems like a completely meaningless tangent at this point??
- sn9 4y ago
  You're missing the part where this would displace fossil fuels with "electrofuels", meaning for every ton of this stuff made, that's more fossil fuels left in the ground. Replacing a fossil fuel with a carbon neutral fuel means a reduction in net carbon emissions. The other part you're missing is that this decouples fuel production from locations with large fossil fuel sources (often run by governments with authoritarian rulers who use their exports as leverage). This means that you can spread production to anywhere the sun shines which means highly decentralized, local production of electrofuels. The third part you're missing is how this increases demand for solar panels and carbon sequestration technology which has an amazing feedback loop that makes these cheaper and more efficient over the decades, meaning that as hydrocarbon demand declines over time as other technologies take over (e.g., electric cars reducing demand from the transportation sector), this built up intellectual capital and infrastructure can be used to just sequester carbon for long-term storage, which would be net negative instead of just carbon neutral. There's probably more you're missing but I'd just recommend reading more of the blog where he explains everything.

standardUser 4y ago

Maybe if natural gas was in short supply I could understand their angle. But it isn't, so I don't. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. Meanwhile, global warming, the paramount problem, needs fast solutions, not elaborate stopgap workarounds.

krallja 4y ago
> if natural gas was in short supply You are aware of the situation in western Europe, yes?
- scaramanga 4y ago
  Remind me, western europe, that is the place where offshore wind is way cheaper than natural gas and other alternatives but where the political and economic system seems to be completely unable to connect investments with rational policy goals (survival, independence) and needs of the population (maintaining core temperature within non-lethal ranges, etc.)? :) So I mean, I assume the original point is about supply/demand, but supply of gas is already short, prices are already high, alternatives are already cheaper, and yet our system is still failing to take any action that might lead to a survivable outcome. So the supply/demand thing seems like a completely meaningless tangent at this point??
sn9 4y ago
You're missing the part where this would displace fossil fuels with "electrofuels", meaning for every ton of this stuff made, that's more fossil fuels left in the ground. Replacing a fossil fuel with a carbon neutral fuel means a reduction in net carbon emissions. The other part you're missing is that this decouples fuel production from locations with large fossil fuel sources (often run by governments with authoritarian rulers who use their exports as leverage). This means that you can spread production to anywhere the sun shines which means highly decentralized, local production of electrofuels. The third part you're missing is how this increases demand for solar panels and carbon sequestration technology which has an amazing feedback loop that makes these cheaper and more efficient over the decades, meaning that as hydrocarbon demand declines over time as other technologies take over (e.g., electric cars reducing demand from the transportation sector), this built up intellectual capital and infrastructure can be used to just sequester carbon for long-term storage, which would be net negative instead of just carbon neutral. There's probably more you're missing but I'd just recommend reading more of the blog where he explains everything.