3 ms·
> The appropriate counterfactual here is if we'd made investments into renewables back in the 70s/80s/90s of a scale similar to those we made in the 00s/10s/20s
by empath-nirvana 3y ago
> The appropriate counterfactual here is if we'd made investments into renewables back in the 70s/80s/90s of a scale similar to those we made in the 00s/10s/20s.
I'm not really sure it would have gone faster instead of just having been a very large waste of money. A lot of the reason that renewables are cheaper now has to do with 30 years of advancements in electronics and power storage and semiconductors and solid state materials etc etc etc that just _took that long to invent_. It's not like people decided a few years ago that 'oh it's time to invent better batteries'. There's always been motivation to build better batteries and people have been working on that non-stop since electricity was discovered.
That counterfactual is like: What if we had invested more in building neural networks in 1970, where would we be today. Well, the problem is we didn't have cheap powerful GPUs back then, so it probably wouldn't have mattered?
We sort of got cheap renewable energy "for free" from a lot of technologies that we invested in for other reasons.
- matthewdgreen 3y agoThat is one opinion, and I'm curious if there's a stronger (more expert) case to be made for it anywhere. It's true that many necessary advancements happened recently, but it's also true that some of these developments occurred due to massive research and commercial investments (many of which are still under the radar to people who didn't notice they were occurring.)
- DexesTTP 3y agoThe advances of renewables are definitely dependent on strong compute and widespread global (or at least widespread local) networking. Smart grids need all of the different tools from different manufacturers to talk to each other, which an agreed-upon networking protocol like IP on top of an existing internet backbone makes very easy to ipmlement. On-demand energy storage and providing from battery banks - or even hydroelectric storage or (as mentioned in the article) gas-powered backup turbines need the analytics power to study and predict load variations on all of the collected data, which existing data centers for search or even apps makes trivial to acquire. Now, there could have been technical solutions for these issues found in the 80s or 90s, but more probably than not the engineers back then would not have thought about this beyond the obvious corporate aspects - after all, it's much more "practical" to focus on connecting the big power plants together and just vaguely estimate the required consumption. It's probable that, if you sat at a design meeting in the 80s and proposed, as "an energy-efficient solution", to have a small computer in every consumer's breaker box that monitors the incoming electricity, sends the info through a combination of radio and country-spanning wires to a central server, and then do analytics on it to predict when the power is needed, you'd have been laughed out of the room. And yet, that's how smart grids work nowadays and it is the correct solution to this problem. The improvements in energy storage and solar/wind renewables would have started decades earlier, sure, and that would have mattered. But I don't think anybody would have been able to use them the way we can use them today if it was done twenty or thirty years ago, and the technology might have died down instead. It's hard to know for sure, but it's a very plausible outcome.