4 ms·

I'm a proponent of investing in solar and wind energy, but it will be only cheap because we build solar panels and wind turbines using fossil and nuclear fuel.

I'm a proponent of investing in solar and wind energy, but it will be only cheap because we build solar panels and wind turbines using fossil and nuclear fuel. Oil and urnanium have a miraculous energy density, and can be easily transported. It's good we build alternative capabilities while we have cheap energy, but we should not forget why we can.

goethes_kind 3y ago
Well, fossil fuels are indeed very convenient. However I disagree that they are/were cheap. The costs are just hidden. I mean, that's the whole point we are having to replace them.
- hkt 3y ago
  Here's a thought: if Russia didn't have a market for its oil and gas, would anyone be on the hook for war materiel in Ukraine?
  - epistasis 3y ago
    This is pretty far afield from the current conversation, but I think that there would be far far more support for Ukraine if Russia didn't have massive amounts of fossil fuels. Russia's ability to withhold them is a source of economic and political power.
    - hkt 3y ago
      It is absolutely related to the current conversation, though - fossil fuels as diplomatic leverage. Russia's economy couldn't support the war without trade in fossil fuels either.
hkt 3y ago
I don't really see the point of remembering this. More salient perhaps is the behaviour of the oil companies: their cover ups of climate science and pollution, their lobbying, their massive, massive subsidies and their (frankly cruel) profiteering. It'll be good that they're gone, when they're gone, and may we never have to rely on such morally unsound people or technology ever again.
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  Well, it's important because if we want to transition, we need a strategy and we need people to understand it. If you can't understand energy density, you may be under the impression we can go 100% renewable right now. But we can't sustain our current life-style with them today. Also if you think oil companies are going to disappear after we migrated, you are going to be disappointed if you don't understand the role they play in systems.
  - hkt 3y ago
    > But we can't sustain our current life-style with them today. Yes, indeed. We need to very substantially decrease our per-capita energy usage. It is going to be hard for some people.
epistasis 3y ago
> only cheap because we build solar panels and wind turbines using fossil and nuclear fuel. This is not logical. We are building solar panels and wind turbines with fossil fuels becuase that's the energy source we have now, now becuase they are cheap. Once we have enough energy from solar and wind, that energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels, and that input to their production will be cheaper, reducing the cost of wind turbines and solar panels further. Fossil fuels have been made obsolete for most use cases, and we are building the industrial capacity to replace them as fast as we possibly can. If you don't believe me, check out what the world is deploying for new electricity production. Especially in profit driven markets like Texas' ERCOT. Outside of ERCOT, most of the grid decisions are smoky-room deals with lots of corruption, and there fossil fuels tend to have a huge leg up, since more expensive electricity means a higher profit level for the utility.
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  No. Fossil fuel are dense, easy to transport, and extracting energy from it is super simple. It's not the case for wind and solar. Right now, we are calculating the cost of wind and solar energy by evaluating the cost of transport and manufacturing of very complex system powered by fossil fuel. We say they are profitable in this context, and only in this context. If we were to transport and manufacture them solely self-bootstrapped by solar and wind, it would not be cost efficient. I think most people underestimate how much energy transport and metal work uses. Every single electronic circuit, every single screw, tire and wire are made using fossil fuel. And the food, home, roads and heat systems of the people working on those are all powered mostly with fossil fuel. Not just because it's a habit. It turns out you can escape thermodynamics . Energy density matters A LOT. If you take an entire cinema of air and pass it through a wind turbine, you get the equivalent of a drop of oil. That's how magical oil is. Now it's quite possible in the future we improve the tech so much, and we have such an abundance of it that it will be a net win. I'm rooting for that. Oil has terrible side effects, no matter how awesome it is, we need to get rid of it. But for now, we are funding the green revolution with fossil fuel. Don't get me wrong, this is a smart strategy. There is no way around it. However, putting our head in the sand is not going to help.

goethes_kind 3y ago

Well, fossil fuels are indeed very convenient. However I disagree that they are/were cheap. The costs are just hidden. I mean, that's the whole point we are having to replace them.

hkt 3y ago
Here's a thought: if Russia didn't have a market for its oil and gas, would anyone be on the hook for war materiel in Ukraine?
- epistasis 3y ago
  This is pretty far afield from the current conversation, but I think that there would be far far more support for Ukraine if Russia didn't have massive amounts of fossil fuels. Russia's ability to withhold them is a source of economic and political power.
  - hkt 3y ago
    It is absolutely related to the current conversation, though - fossil fuels as diplomatic leverage. Russia's economy couldn't support the war without trade in fossil fuels either.

hkt 3y ago

I don't really see the point of remembering this. More salient perhaps is the behaviour of the oil companies: their cover ups of climate science and pollution, their lobbying, their massive, massive subsidies and their (frankly cruel) profiteering. It'll be good that they're gone, when they're gone, and may we never have to rely on such morally unsound people or technology ever again.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago
Well, it's important because if we want to transition, we need a strategy and we need people to understand it. If you can't understand energy density, you may be under the impression we can go 100% renewable right now. But we can't sustain our current life-style with them today. Also if you think oil companies are going to disappear after we migrated, you are going to be disappointed if you don't understand the role they play in systems.
- hkt 3y ago
  > But we can't sustain our current life-style with them today. Yes, indeed. We need to very substantially decrease our per-capita energy usage. It is going to be hard for some people.

epistasis 3y ago

> only cheap because we build solar panels and wind turbines using fossil and nuclear fuel. This is not logical. We are building solar panels and wind turbines with fossil fuels becuase that's the energy source we have now, now becuase they are cheap. Once we have enough energy from solar and wind, that energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels, and that input to their production will be cheaper, reducing the cost of wind turbines and solar panels further. Fossil fuels have been made obsolete for most use cases, and we are building the industrial capacity to replace them as fast as we possibly can. If you don't believe me, check out what the world is deploying for new electricity production. Especially in profit driven markets like Texas' ERCOT. Outside of ERCOT, most of the grid decisions are smoky-room deals with lots of corruption, and there fossil fuels tend to have a huge leg up, since more expensive electricity means a higher profit level for the utility.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago
No. Fossil fuel are dense, easy to transport, and extracting energy from it is super simple. It's not the case for wind and solar. Right now, we are calculating the cost of wind and solar energy by evaluating the cost of transport and manufacturing of very complex system powered by fossil fuel. We say they are profitable in this context, and only in this context. If we were to transport and manufacture them solely self-bootstrapped by solar and wind, it would not be cost efficient. I think most people underestimate how much energy transport and metal work uses. Every single electronic circuit, every single screw, tire and wire are made using fossil fuel. And the food, home, roads and heat systems of the people working on those are all powered mostly with fossil fuel. Not just because it's a habit. It turns out you can escape thermodynamics . Energy density matters A LOT. If you take an entire cinema of air and pass it through a wind turbine, you get the equivalent of a drop of oil. That's how magical oil is. Now it's quite possible in the future we improve the tech so much, and we have such an abundance of it that it will be a net win. I'm rooting for that. Oil has terrible side effects, no matter how awesome it is, we need to get rid of it. But for now, we are funding the green revolution with fossil fuel. Don't get me wrong, this is a smart strategy. There is no way around it. However, putting our head in the sand is not going to help.