3 ms·

Remember we're not just talking about power plants. We also need to replace our petrochemical distribution networks, beef up our grid in a real way, replace all

Remember we're not just talking about power plants. We also need to replace our petrochemical distribution networks, beef up our grid in a real way, replace all of the petrochemical based heating (a majority of heating in the US, often built centrally into buildings), both replace all petrochemical-powered vehicles and make any changes required to routing, replace all on-demand power generation with non-gas-based solutions, rebuild all industrial facilities to not use petrochemicals...and so on. This is all happening concurrently and would largely focus on existing infrastructure and it would need to happen FAST. World war two, the example raised the most often, required only increased output. It had no limits on how to get there. This requires both. I really don't think it's like anything we've ever tried to do before. In particular it wouldn't be this hard to...replace everything eventually when it makes sense. In order to maximally dampen climate change we would need to do this as quickly as possible.

oezi 3y ago
Cost estimates of attaining net zero are on the order of 100-200% of global GDP. To get this done by 2050 we would need to spend 3-6% of global GDP on the energy transition. Not a small ask, but also not insane.
- aeturnum 3y ago
  I would love to see the estimates you're talking about because, as I said (and linked) above the estimates I've seen are much more dire!
  - oezi 3y ago
    There are various studies from consultancies such as McKinsey, the IEA or national thinktanks (e.g. Fraunhofer in Germany) that have put out ballpark figures like these. Commonly the total is on the order of 100-300 trillion USD. Current global GDP is 100 trillion.
    - aeturnum 3y ago
      I think the point of the reports in that I linked is that we don't avoid climate change by following that time frame. Instead, we'd spend 100-300% of GDP on avoiding old projections, while moving forward into more poorly understood territory. Ignoring the timeliness of a particular change has been a common error / delay tactic of groups that urge less expeditious responses. Obviously, unless you link these reports, I don't really know if that critique applies - but it is a common critique for plans with a longer time frame. Edit: I also want to add that any project that needs 100-300% of global GDP certainly qualifies as "one to two orders of magnitude bigger than anything we have done." Wikipedia puts the 1940 world GDP at 3,000 billion USD[1]. The manhatten project cost ~$2bn (0.06%). The whole war was estimated to cost the US ~$288bn (9.6%)[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product [2](unreliable but fine for a ballpark) https://www.whatitcosts.com/world-war-ii-cost-united-states-facts/ https://www.whatitcosts.com/world-war-ii-cost-united-states-...

oezi 3y ago

Cost estimates of attaining net zero are on the order of 100-200% of global GDP. To get this done by 2050 we would need to spend 3-6% of global GDP on the energy transition. Not a small ask, but also not insane.

aeturnum 3y ago
I would love to see the estimates you're talking about because, as I said (and linked) above the estimates I've seen are much more dire!
- oezi 3y ago
  There are various studies from consultancies such as McKinsey, the IEA or national thinktanks (e.g. Fraunhofer in Germany) that have put out ballpark figures like these. Commonly the total is on the order of 100-300 trillion USD. Current global GDP is 100 trillion.
  - aeturnum 3y ago
    I think the point of the reports in that I linked is that we don't avoid climate change by following that time frame. Instead, we'd spend 100-300% of GDP on avoiding old projections, while moving forward into more poorly understood territory. Ignoring the timeliness of a particular change has been a common error / delay tactic of groups that urge less expeditious responses. Obviously, unless you link these reports, I don't really know if that critique applies - but it is a common critique for plans with a longer time frame. Edit: I also want to add that any project that needs 100-300% of global GDP certainly qualifies as "one to two orders of magnitude bigger than anything we have done." Wikipedia puts the 1940 world GDP at 3,000 billion USD[1]. The manhatten project cost ~$2bn (0.06%). The whole war was estimated to cost the US ~$288bn (9.6%)[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product [2](unreliable but fine for a ballpark) https://www.whatitcosts.com/world-war-ii-cost-united-states-facts/ https://www.whatitcosts.com/world-war-ii-cost-united-states-...