3 ms·

You have to be careful with "renewables" because in many cases this includes things like ethanol and wood pellets. I've been following things fairly closely bo

by AJ007 3y ago

You have to be careful with "renewables" because in many cases this includes things like ethanol and wood pellets. I've been following things fairly closely both from a broad range of sources (fossil fuels, green energy, nuclear power, climate science), and it isn't at all clear to me that solar and wind are sustainably manufactured -- a lot of coal being used to manufacture solar panels with a finite lifespan. At worst these panels will end up in a landfill in 30 years. The amount of mining to get the batteries is a real problem too. Right now, there is about a 20 year lead time to get a new mine approved, built, and online right now. Instead of expanding production, we have things like First Quantum's Cobre mine in Panama being shut down (which could be as much as 2% of global copper production.) In a short term it's a win for reducing fossil fuel use - the only "clean" method of powering these massive mining projects requires nuclear reactors on site, which no one is doing. Forget what that does to increasing the cost of a clean energy project, we can't do any more than the resources exist to do. For software developers used to thinking in infinitely scaling AWS clusters and copy and paste code, this is a very different paradigm. The really wealthy countries, especially the smaller European ones, or city states like Singapore, could probably go 100% "clean" in terms of electricity and transportation, excluding air travel and ocean transport. The amount of resources it will take somewhere like India, and maintain their standard of living, doesn't seem possible. I don't think the debates people are having right now are productive or realistic. No matter what, we will eventually run out of non-renewable resources and certainly the climate will change substantially. There are good arguments to be made that we are already past the turn back point. Yet, the lack of realistic discussion about how existing supply chains work and how they are going to scale past the wealthiest countries makes me think the odds of any real solution in the next few decades is nearly non-existent.

zamfi 3y ago
Hmm. I'm having a hard time being sad about bootstrapping renewable energy production capacity using nonrenewable energy. Sure, panels have a finite lifespan -- and then in 2040, if we succeed, all new panels will be built using renewable energy. (In other words, it's a one-time cost, rather than an ongoing cost.) Ethanol and wood pellets can absolutely be produced sustainably and with positive EROEI, so I'm not sure what the connection is here. Yes, they're not amazing from a pollution perspective, but they can be net-zero from an eCO2 perspective. One take here is that capitalism has a lot of flaws, but price action stimulating investment isn't one of them. There are quite a few executives with $$$ in their eyes figuring out how to get the raw materials needed for this transition. Moore's law has lasted us nearly 60 years, a result of a mix of process improvements--old ideas done better--as well as new techniques. Pointing out how our current resource extraction isn't enough to satisfy the world's energy needs in 20 years is a little bit like pointing out that current tech isn't enough to keep Moore's law going. It's not wrong! But it also rests on the assumptions about what's possible that may not be true.
cbsmith 3y ago
> In a short term it's a win for reducing fossil fuel use - the only "clean" method of powering these massive mining projects requires nuclear reactors on site, which no one is doing. I'm not sure I follow how that is true. Mining doesn't care where the power comes from, and while you do lose energy when you transmit power there is some loss, but it still works. I would think, if anything, hydro power would be preferable, because it also comes with an ample supply of water, which is also needed for most mining operations.

by AJ007 3y ago

zamfi 3y ago

Hmm. I'm having a hard time being sad about bootstrapping renewable energy production capacity using nonrenewable energy. Sure, panels have a finite lifespan -- and then in 2040, if we succeed, all new panels will be built using renewable energy. (In other words, it's a one-time cost, rather than an ongoing cost.) Ethanol and wood pellets can absolutely be produced sustainably and with positive EROEI, so I'm not sure what the connection is here. Yes, they're not amazing from a pollution perspective, but they can be net-zero from an eCO2 perspective. One take here is that capitalism has a lot of flaws, but price action stimulating investment isn't one of them. There are quite a few executives with $$$ in their eyes figuring out how to get the raw materials needed for this transition. Moore's law has lasted us nearly 60 years, a result of a mix of process improvements--old ideas done better--as well as new techniques. Pointing out how our current resource extraction isn't enough to satisfy the world's energy needs in 20 years is a little bit like pointing out that current tech isn't enough to keep Moore's law going. It's not wrong! But it also rests on the assumptions about what's possible that may not be true.

cbsmith 3y ago

> In a short term it's a win for reducing fossil fuel use - the only "clean" method of powering these massive mining projects requires nuclear reactors on site, which no one is doing. I'm not sure I follow how that is true. Mining doesn't care where the power comes from, and while you do lose energy when you transmit power there is some loss, but it still works. I would think, if anything, hydro power would be preferable, because it also comes with an ample supply of water, which is also needed for most mining operations.