4 ms·

> dramatically by enabling the decoupling of geopolitics from oil. I can't help thinking that oil and combustion engines are here for a long time. The energy d

> dramatically by enabling the decoupling of geopolitics from oil. I can't help thinking that oil and combustion engines are here for a long time. The energy density is unbeatable. As renewables succeed, oil's utility doesn't disappear. So it seems like we would find some new equilibrium.

super256 4y ago
If we produce much more green energy than we currently need, we might see synthetic fuels becoming viable, no?
- epgui 4y ago
  In a vacuum I think that would be the natural conclusion, but IMO there's probably better uses for that energy (eg.: desalination plants). Although I could totally see this being the case for CO2 + ... -> CH4 + ...
- _hypx 4y ago
  We can just directly convert green energy into hydrogen. For a lot of cases that is already more than good enough. Synthetic fuels may be needed, but possibly only in specific situations.
  - specialist 4y ago
    Yes and: H2, ammonia, methane, direct carbon capture, heat. Probably a few more. Being a long time climate fatalist, I'm now guardedly optimistic about our eminent surplus energy future. If we can somehow keep warming to 1.5, we just might squeak thru this.
NortySpock 4y ago
That and natural gas; we're going to burn it until it's too expensive to make a buck on it (same as coal).
enslavedrobot 4y ago
60% of new generation capacity in the US was renewable last year, not for environmental reasons, but because it's the cheapest option. The reason this will continue is because renewables rely on highly scalable technologies that are nowhere close to optimized. EVs benefit from cost scaling too. In Norway >80% of new cars sold are EVs 5 years ago it was -10%. Last year 20% of the Chinese market was EVs. As costs scale (Tesla has a 25k$ car in development) the same process will happen faster than you think across most markets. Equilibrium will be established when renewable costs stop declining, this is likely to be after battery costs decline another -70% and solar declines -75%. At that equilibrium price oil will be relegated to use in plastics, lubricants, and other industrial/durable goods applications. If those cost declines are realized oil will not compete on costs with renewables and you literally will not be able to give away an old ICE car.
- censor_me 4y ago
  [dead]
rgmerk 4y ago
The power density of gas turbine engines is way better than internal combustion. But we haven’t bothered with gas turbine cars and trucks because internal combustion has good enough power density and other relevant advantages (better energy efficiency chief amongst them). Batteries aren’t good enough for long-haul aircraft, long-haul shipping, small boats and a few other sundry applications, but they’re good enough for road transport.
- _hypx 4y ago
  A gas turbine is a really bad idea for a car. They take a long time to get up to speed and spew a lot of hot exhaust in the meanwhile. Gas turbine cars weren't practical cars at all. I will argue that the finite nature of battery related materials, plus their weight, is a major impediment against all-battery powered cars in road transport. They are not "good enough" except as a stopgap until the next idea comes around. Which ironically could just be synthetic fuels, but more likely something like a hydrogen fuel cell car.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Fuel cells require catalysts like platinum which are far less common than anything in a battery.
    - _hypx 4y ago
      They don't actually require platinum. Only some types. And even then, it is basically the catalytic converter in terms of platinum needed. It is also 100% recyclable already.
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        All catalysts are way less common than the Iron, Phosphate and Lithium in a mass market car battery.
        _hypx 4y ago
_hypx 4y ago
The latest master plan ironically admits the need for green hydrogen for green energy to be viable. A big deal, because it is one of the ideas that can match or exceed fossil fuels for energy density. It is perhaps the only thing in the whole plan that is the result of clear thinking. It unfortunately has not admitted the need for nuclear, but I guess we'll have to wait for master plan 4.
- specialist 4y ago
  The people I follow are onboard with renewable hydrogen. The food fights are over automobiles and greenwashing. This plans makes the case that we can get off fossil fuels with batteries, solar, and wind alone. Nuclear, hydro, geothermal, etc, are simply out of scope. This plan also carefully omits any mention of climate change or time lines. Smart. FWIW, Saul Griffith and others anticipate future fission and maybe even fusion, but they won't arrive in time to save us. They'll still be needed. To help with the cool down. For capacity as our current solar and wind build out is retired. Etc.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    The plan admits the need for hydrogen and synthetic fuels. It has moved on from trying to solve it entirely with batteries and renewables alone.

super256 4y ago

If we produce much more green energy than we currently need, we might see synthetic fuels becoming viable, no?

epgui 4y ago
In a vacuum I think that would be the natural conclusion, but IMO there's probably better uses for that energy (eg.: desalination plants). Although I could totally see this being the case for CO2 + ... -> CH4 + ...
_hypx 4y ago
We can just directly convert green energy into hydrogen. For a lot of cases that is already more than good enough. Synthetic fuels may be needed, but possibly only in specific situations.
- specialist 4y ago
  Yes and: H2, ammonia, methane, direct carbon capture, heat. Probably a few more. Being a long time climate fatalist, I'm now guardedly optimistic about our eminent surplus energy future. If we can somehow keep warming to 1.5, we just might squeak thru this.

NortySpock 4y ago

That and natural gas; we're going to burn it until it's too expensive to make a buck on it (same as coal).

enslavedrobot 4y ago

60% of new generation capacity in the US was renewable last year, not for environmental reasons, but because it's the cheapest option. The reason this will continue is because renewables rely on highly scalable technologies that are nowhere close to optimized. EVs benefit from cost scaling too. In Norway >80% of new cars sold are EVs 5 years ago it was -10%. Last year 20% of the Chinese market was EVs. As costs scale (Tesla has a 25k$ car in development) the same process will happen faster than you think across most markets. Equilibrium will be established when renewable costs stop declining, this is likely to be after battery costs decline another -70% and solar declines -75%. At that equilibrium price oil will be relegated to use in plastics, lubricants, and other industrial/durable goods applications. If those cost declines are realized oil will not compete on costs with renewables and you literally will not be able to give away an old ICE car.

censor_me 4y ago
[dead]

rgmerk 4y ago

The power density of gas turbine engines is way better than internal combustion. But we haven’t bothered with gas turbine cars and trucks because internal combustion has good enough power density and other relevant advantages (better energy efficiency chief amongst them). Batteries aren’t good enough for long-haul aircraft, long-haul shipping, small boats and a few other sundry applications, but they’re good enough for road transport.

_hypx 4y ago
A gas turbine is a really bad idea for a car. They take a long time to get up to speed and spew a lot of hot exhaust in the meanwhile. Gas turbine cars weren't practical cars at all. I will argue that the finite nature of battery related materials, plus their weight, is a major impediment against all-battery powered cars in road transport. They are not "good enough" except as a stopgap until the next idea comes around. Which ironically could just be synthetic fuels, but more likely something like a hydrogen fuel cell car.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Fuel cells require catalysts like platinum which are far less common than anything in a battery.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    They don't actually require platinum. Only some types. And even then, it is basically the catalytic converter in terms of platinum needed. It is also 100% recyclable already.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      All catalysts are way less common than the Iron, Phosphate and Lithium in a mass market car battery.
      - _hypx 4y ago

_hypx 4y ago

The latest master plan ironically admits the need for green hydrogen for green energy to be viable. A big deal, because it is one of the ideas that can match or exceed fossil fuels for energy density. It is perhaps the only thing in the whole plan that is the result of clear thinking. It unfortunately has not admitted the need for nuclear, but I guess we'll have to wait for master plan 4.

specialist 4y ago
The people I follow are onboard with renewable hydrogen. The food fights are over automobiles and greenwashing. This plans makes the case that we can get off fossil fuels with batteries, solar, and wind alone. Nuclear, hydro, geothermal, etc, are simply out of scope. This plan also carefully omits any mention of climate change or time lines. Smart. FWIW, Saul Griffith and others anticipate future fission and maybe even fusion, but they won't arrive in time to save us. They'll still be needed. To help with the cool down. For capacity as our current solar and wind build out is retired. Etc.
- _hypx 4y ago
  The plan admits the need for hydrogen and synthetic fuels. It has moved on from trying to solve it entirely with batteries and renewables alone.