3 ms·

I think this writing needs a bit more organization - it reads like a stream-of-consciousness flow from the author, and while that's okay for literature, for com

I think this writing needs a bit more organization - it reads like a stream-of-consciousness flow from the author, and while that's okay for literature, for complex energy issues it's hard to parse. If the issue is the European energy market over the next six months or so, then at least quantify all the possible inputs more systematically. There's LNG tankers coming from the USA, there's whatever Eastern European pipeline capacity, there's Middle East and North Africa production of crude oil, there's the issue of whether crude oil is being imported to be refined, or refined products, etc. France's nuclear output potential is uncertain at best over the next six months. In addition, a rough calculation of the total input of wind and solar over the next six months would also be part of the picture. Jumping from there into lithium battery production for vehicles doesn't make much sense (and note there are many other storage technologies for feeding solar/wind into the grid in a controlled steady manner that don't have the small volume footpring that lithium provides).

tuatoru 4y ago
I agree that it is very disorganised. I interpret it as follows:- "I have been reading a lot of thinkpieces by (non-technical, political) people who 1) don't understand the difference between a stock and a flow, so equate a billion dollars spent on making lithium batteries (which last 20 years) with a billion dollars spent on pumping oil, which lasts days[1]; and 2) don't understand the trends in PV/wind/battery prices and think that we are doomed to expensive energy forever, rather than the likely situation of imminent massive electricity overproduction." "Those people are wrong, and extrapolating from Europe's gas shortage to a global crisis is wrong even in the short term." ----- 1. We saw a lot of this stock/flow confusion (or capital/consumable confusion) with Falcon 9 reusability. Lots of people thought space companies were all about rockets: they didn't understand that those companies don't sell rockets; they sell launches to orbit. Some people still don't get this.

tuatoru 4y ago

I agree that it is very disorganised. I interpret it as follows:- "I have been reading a lot of thinkpieces by (non-technical, political) people who 1) don't understand the difference between a stock and a flow, so equate a billion dollars spent on making lithium batteries (which last 20 years) with a billion dollars spent on pumping oil, which lasts days[1]; and 2) don't understand the trends in PV/wind/battery prices and think that we are doomed to expensive energy forever, rather than the likely situation of imminent massive electricity overproduction." "Those people are wrong, and extrapolating from Europe's gas shortage to a global crisis is wrong even in the short term." ----- 1. We saw a lot of this stock/flow confusion (or capital/consumable confusion) with Falcon 9 reusability. Lots of people thought space companies were all about rockets: they didn't understand that those companies don't sell rockets; they sell launches to orbit. Some people still don't get this.