3 ms·

"We found that the overall upfront cost to replace all energy in the 145 countries, which emit 99.7 percent of world carbon dioxide, is about $62 trillion." "F

"We found that the overall upfront cost to replace all energy in the 145 countries, which emit 99.7 percent of world carbon dioxide, is about $62 trillion." "Finally, our findings contend that a transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy in each country should occur ideally by 2035, and no later than 2050, with an 80 percent transition by 2030." The benefits sound great, but the cost is extremely high. You could argue that the consequences of inaction would be more costly, but some people do not believe that the consequences of inaction are coming. What can be done now that does not cost so much? Converting all energy to electricity alone is a huge and expensive undertaking. Some of the technology the article touts is expertimental at best and does not have widespread production use that I am aware of.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> Converting all energy to electricity alone is a huge and expensive undertaking. Some of the technology the article touts is expertimental at best You seem to be contradicting their headline finding that this lowers costs and does not require "miracle tech". What do you know that they don't?
- goatsneez 4y ago
  Of cause such articles are first, advocating for something, therefore per-definition, skewed and non-objective by very design. By that I mean that 1) it focuses on a goal rather than actual process, 2) there is no trade-off analysis. Without any need to go into details such estimate(s) are 100% wrong easily several orders of magnitude underestimating (as per point 1,2 above). Just imagine running a semi-complex industrial or technological project estimated in a similar fashion. I work on government-funded space-projects and could tell stories about overruns 2-3 orders of magnitude and schedule delay of factor 5-10. I am aware, that in business it is basically the same, and extending this to multiple-governments, as this article pre-supposes, linked through geo-politics and many other real-world constraints, is on the side of "stupid" if to be taken seriously. Is this just for activists to chat about something? It certainly has nothing to offer as actual plan to prosper for the said states, or address realistically and meaningfully environmental pressures societies create.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    What makes you think that "there is no trade-off analysis" ? I find the assertions of "overruns" to be mere hand-waving. Likewise the repeated invocation of "activists".
    - goatsneez 4y ago
      Certainly there is a cost in transmitting information, especially in short kind of paragraphs which involve abstracting away the working model of reality. I cannot turn this into unsolicited lecture on the 'iron triangle', activists, government, intellectuals. Neither can I detail Mr. Jacobson past follies published and debunked. Abstractions are opinionated by definition, so some gaps and perception of 'handwaving' is inevitable, that is the nature. I drew, in my previous post, an analogy that many might be familiar with, and that is that the more complex a problem, the most likely it will be over-run in costs and schedule. To make it even worse, throw into government management of such issue within its legal and societal dimension, and then still further, add international relationships. Now to the point. Mr. Jacobson is known very well to produce utopian sounding headlines (and studies) [google may help with that]. He has been on this message for some time, and is being debunked by his colleagues continuously. My point of criticism is that it is stupid to even start discussing any project over short paper when it is claimed that 62 trillion is all it would costs spread over 150 nations. At best, this is a fancy back-of-the-envelope calculations, however, which I do not see to have any real-world value. If you disagree, give me a step one (if you accept 100% correctness of this estimate), that any one such nation should do right now. (rhetorical, of cause you or anyone else does not have a 'step-one' it is not how it works). The issue is so complex on correlated across vast societal domains that to attack it head on and conclude something as naive as: "By electrifying all energy sectors; producing electricity from clean, renewable sources; creating heat, cold, and hydrogen from such electricity; storing electricity, heat, cold and the hydrogen; expanding transmission; and shifting the time of some electricity use, we can create safe, cheap and reliable energy everywhere." would be simply impossible. And to the degree attempted, it would be ridiculous. This conclusion has no connection to the reality, period. The authors, as usually, assume 'unconstrained choices', which cannot be remedied since they have no knowledge of the political, legal, societal and other dimensions.
- thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
  >> You seem to be contradicting their headline finding that this lowers costs and does not require "miracle tech". My biggest concern is how to pay for the $62 trillion up-front cost. Lowering costs is great, but how will the up-front cost be paid? The article states: "By electrifying all energy sectors; producing electricity from clean, renewable sources; creating heat, cold, and hydrogen from such electricity; storing electricity, heat, cold and the hydrogen" Electifying ALL energy sectors is the big miracle. Electric cars are doing pretty good, but what about electric trucks, trains, and aircraft? The tech is not there yet.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > My biggest concern is how to pay for the $62 trillion up-front cost .. but how will the up-front cost be paid? There are certain subject (social spending) where this question is always asked. There are certain subject (military / police spending) where it almost never is. Funny that. I also don't think that it's all "up-front" in the the same fiscal year.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

> Converting all energy to electricity alone is a huge and expensive undertaking. Some of the technology the article touts is expertimental at best You seem to be contradicting their headline finding that this lowers costs and does not require "miracle tech". What do you know that they don't?

goatsneez 4y ago
Of cause such articles are first, advocating for something, therefore per-definition, skewed and non-objective by very design. By that I mean that 1) it focuses on a goal rather than actual process, 2) there is no trade-off analysis. Without any need to go into details such estimate(s) are 100% wrong easily several orders of magnitude underestimating (as per point 1,2 above). Just imagine running a semi-complex industrial or technological project estimated in a similar fashion. I work on government-funded space-projects and could tell stories about overruns 2-3 orders of magnitude and schedule delay of factor 5-10. I am aware, that in business it is basically the same, and extending this to multiple-governments, as this article pre-supposes, linked through geo-politics and many other real-world constraints, is on the side of "stupid" if to be taken seriously. Is this just for activists to chat about something? It certainly has nothing to offer as actual plan to prosper for the said states, or address realistically and meaningfully environmental pressures societies create.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  What makes you think that "there is no trade-off analysis" ? I find the assertions of "overruns" to be mere hand-waving. Likewise the repeated invocation of "activists".
  - goatsneez 4y ago
    Certainly there is a cost in transmitting information, especially in short kind of paragraphs which involve abstracting away the working model of reality. I cannot turn this into unsolicited lecture on the 'iron triangle', activists, government, intellectuals. Neither can I detail Mr. Jacobson past follies published and debunked. Abstractions are opinionated by definition, so some gaps and perception of 'handwaving' is inevitable, that is the nature. I drew, in my previous post, an analogy that many might be familiar with, and that is that the more complex a problem, the most likely it will be over-run in costs and schedule. To make it even worse, throw into government management of such issue within its legal and societal dimension, and then still further, add international relationships. Now to the point. Mr. Jacobson is known very well to produce utopian sounding headlines (and studies) [google may help with that]. He has been on this message for some time, and is being debunked by his colleagues continuously. My point of criticism is that it is stupid to even start discussing any project over short paper when it is claimed that 62 trillion is all it would costs spread over 150 nations. At best, this is a fancy back-of-the-envelope calculations, however, which I do not see to have any real-world value. If you disagree, give me a step one (if you accept 100% correctness of this estimate), that any one such nation should do right now. (rhetorical, of cause you or anyone else does not have a 'step-one' it is not how it works). The issue is so complex on correlated across vast societal domains that to attack it head on and conclude something as naive as: "By electrifying all energy sectors; producing electricity from clean, renewable sources; creating heat, cold, and hydrogen from such electricity; storing electricity, heat, cold and the hydrogen; expanding transmission; and shifting the time of some electricity use, we can create safe, cheap and reliable energy everywhere." would be simply impossible. And to the degree attempted, it would be ridiculous. This conclusion has no connection to the reality, period. The authors, as usually, assume 'unconstrained choices', which cannot be remedied since they have no knowledge of the political, legal, societal and other dimensions.
thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
>> You seem to be contradicting their headline finding that this lowers costs and does not require "miracle tech". My biggest concern is how to pay for the $62 trillion up-front cost. Lowering costs is great, but how will the up-front cost be paid? The article states: "By electrifying all energy sectors; producing electricity from clean, renewable sources; creating heat, cold, and hydrogen from such electricity; storing electricity, heat, cold and the hydrogen" Electifying ALL energy sectors is the big miracle. Electric cars are doing pretty good, but what about electric trucks, trains, and aircraft? The tech is not there yet.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > My biggest concern is how to pay for the $62 trillion up-front cost .. but how will the up-front cost be paid? There are certain subject (social spending) where this question is always asked. There are certain subject (military / police spending) where it almost never is. Funny that. I also don't think that it's all "up-front" in the the same fiscal year.