8 ms·

We are already using the most economically viable option. The trouble is that it's not sustainable long term. The solution then will not be the most economical

We are already using the most economically viable option. The trouble is that it's not sustainable long term. The solution then will not be the most economical one.

scottLobster 3y ago
Right, but from an emissions standpoint this is a bad idea too. You not going to create an emission-free iron mine/processing supply chain any time soon. This just moves the emissions up the chain and would take decades to build out. It might be just as bad as coal in terms of emissions at the end of the day, and marginally better at best. Solar, Wind, more/better batteries and nuclear are our best paths forward if we want to take the immediate action we need to take. If crap like this gets traction we'll just have a greenwashed future where all the coal and natural gas plants will be gone, but global emissions will still be high and power will be many times more expensive. Maybe then people will start to do math. Back when I was in college the Environmental Science majors were a joke because the chemistry classes they took senior year were the same classes the Chemical Engineers took freshman year. I thought my university just had a crappy environmental science program, but after reading a number of articles like this one I'm thinking it might be a more pervasive issue.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Then the issue is with the chemical engineers, who haven't learned the waste, counterproductiveness and foolishess of dismissing other ideas, viewpoints and people. It's a vicious cycle - it greatly limits their ability to learn what they don't already believe, or deal with challenges to their ideas. The only solution is to give no validity to such dismissals. I was taught that, in part, by a fed-up engineering professor.
  - scottLobster 3y ago
    Actually rejecting someone's perspective because they lack expertise in the thing they claim to be an expert in is a pretty smart thing to do. Particularly if you can explain why their perspective is wrong because you are in fact an expert and have superior knowledge. I would hope Environmental Scientists, who are purportedly concerned with things like ocean acidity, pollution, atmospheric makeup, etc would have the chemical knowledge necessary to understand what they're looking at. Apparently whoever designed their curriculum at my almamater thought it was unnecessary.
wolverine876 3y ago
> We are already using the most economically viable option. Arguably we always are doing that, by definition. Investment is spending money on current non-optimal returns in exchange for much greater returns later. If an investment had guaranteed success; if it had no flaws, then it would already have been made. There is nothing flawless in this world - not you or me, not Facebook or Messi, not oil or iron or renewables or nuclear.
_hypx 3y ago
The second most economically viable option is basically going to be hydrogen in some way. Either made from renewables or nuclear power, possible natural sources if they exist in quantity. That is why you hear about it so much. But this fact causes large scale confusion on all sides. For those invested in the existing system, this is a threat. But for those who think it will be some other kind of green technology, this means admitting they were betting on the wrong horse the whole time.
dv_dt 3y ago
Not really economically viable unless you narrowly focus on profits. For total direct and external costs (i.e. total societal costs) it's already nonviable.

We are already using the most economically viable option. The trouble is that it's not sustainable long term. The solution then will not be the most economical one.

scottLobster 3y ago

Right, but from an emissions standpoint this is a bad idea too. You not going to create an emission-free iron mine/processing supply chain any time soon. This just moves the emissions up the chain and would take decades to build out. It might be just as bad as coal in terms of emissions at the end of the day, and marginally better at best. Solar, Wind, more/better batteries and nuclear are our best paths forward if we want to take the immediate action we need to take. If crap like this gets traction we'll just have a greenwashed future where all the coal and natural gas plants will be gone, but global emissions will still be high and power will be many times more expensive. Maybe then people will start to do math. Back when I was in college the Environmental Science majors were a joke because the chemistry classes they took senior year were the same classes the Chemical Engineers took freshman year. I thought my university just had a crappy environmental science program, but after reading a number of articles like this one I'm thinking it might be a more pervasive issue.

wolverine876 3y ago
Then the issue is with the chemical engineers, who haven't learned the waste, counterproductiveness and foolishess of dismissing other ideas, viewpoints and people. It's a vicious cycle - it greatly limits their ability to learn what they don't already believe, or deal with challenges to their ideas. The only solution is to give no validity to such dismissals. I was taught that, in part, by a fed-up engineering professor.
- scottLobster 3y ago
  Actually rejecting someone's perspective because they lack expertise in the thing they claim to be an expert in is a pretty smart thing to do. Particularly if you can explain why their perspective is wrong because you are in fact an expert and have superior knowledge. I would hope Environmental Scientists, who are purportedly concerned with things like ocean acidity, pollution, atmospheric makeup, etc would have the chemical knowledge necessary to understand what they're looking at. Apparently whoever designed their curriculum at my almamater thought it was unnecessary.

wolverine876 3y ago

> We are already using the most economically viable option. Arguably we always are doing that, by definition. Investment is spending money on current non-optimal returns in exchange for much greater returns later. If an investment had guaranteed success; if it had no flaws, then it would already have been made. There is nothing flawless in this world - not you or me, not Facebook or Messi, not oil or iron or renewables or nuclear.

_hypx 3y ago

The second most economically viable option is basically going to be hydrogen in some way. Either made from renewables or nuclear power, possible natural sources if they exist in quantity. That is why you hear about it so much. But this fact causes large scale confusion on all sides. For those invested in the existing system, this is a threat. But for those who think it will be some other kind of green technology, this means admitting they were betting on the wrong horse the whole time.

dv_dt 3y ago

Not really economically viable unless you narrowly focus on profits. For total direct and external costs (i.e. total societal costs) it's already nonviable.