7 ms·

But how much more expensive would it make the power for the last 15% of global power generation? What is the total cost for both scenarios?

ls612 1y ago
There’s probably nothing wrong with using fossil for the last 15% of generation for at least our lifetimes. As well as for things like airliners and rockets where energy density is king.
- SirHumphrey 1y ago
  It makes sense to start decarbonising where it’s easiest (cheapest) to do so.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Use it for the 85% first, and then when that's done, battery prices will have declined enough that the number will be a lot closer to 100%.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
  And honestly 85% would be pretty damn good all by itself. That would significantly stem the bleeding and give time to address the long tail
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    I thought we were past the stem the bleeding point?
    - datadrivenangel 1y ago
      There are reasons to be optimistic! Lots of bad things will happen from climate change, but we can mitigate the impact of many of those issues.
      - Teever 1y ago
        How many people do you think are going to die painful deaths because of climate change?
        bryanlarsen 1y ago
        IPCC estimates are about a quarter of a million excess deaths per year.
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Yes, but GP asked, how many of those are painful?
mrDmrTmrJ 1y ago
In the US Nuclear gives about 19% of total generation and hydro another 6%. So you don't have to go beyond 75% renewables to start with. Long term, we need a combination of the following technologies to get to 100% carbon free electricity with 80% renewables: 1. Long distance transmission lines. 2. Some type of "clean, firm, dispatchable" power. Examples include: Nuclear fission, fusion power, deep geothermal, and space based solar power. We can certainly use the cost savings from getting to 80% renewables to finance figuring out how to scaling production of one (or more) of the later technologies to lower cost. Simply reducing the regulatory burden on Nuclear Fusion can accomplish that if a society chooses this path. Lot of work to do. And many economic powers would loose out from this transition (e.g. Exxon or Russia) but totally feasible to accomplish. If you want to do a deep dive into cost scenarios look at the work of Christopher Clack or Jesse Jenkins. Example: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921
- candiddevmike 1y ago
  Too little, too late. We should've been switching to solar in the 80s. Even if we could switch to be carbon free tomorrow, the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere is predicted to cause breadbasket collapses within the next 20 years. If it makes folks feel better, there's a good chance you probably had no control/influence over this outcome if you were born after 1980. https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-weve-underestimated-the-risk-of-simultaneous-crop-failures-worldwide https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-weve-underestimated...
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    We were trying to switch to solar in the 80s, but it was infeasible. The technology just wasn't there. Now it is and we're adopting it en masse.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    We will spray the atmosphere to buy more time. People will haggle over it because of the unknowns, but when imminent social chaos becomes obvious, we'll be forced to pull the trigger on it.

ls612 1y ago

There’s probably nothing wrong with using fossil for the last 15% of generation for at least our lifetimes. As well as for things like airliners and rockets where energy density is king.

SirHumphrey 1y ago
It makes sense to start decarbonising where it’s easiest (cheapest) to do so.

bryanlarsen 1y ago

Use it for the 85% first, and then when that's done, battery prices will have declined enough that the number will be a lot closer to 100%.

SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
And honestly 85% would be pretty damn good all by itself. That would significantly stem the bleeding and give time to address the long tail
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  I thought we were past the stem the bleeding point?
  - datadrivenangel 1y ago
    There are reasons to be optimistic! Lots of bad things will happen from climate change, but we can mitigate the impact of many of those issues.
    - Teever 1y ago
      How many people do you think are going to die painful deaths because of climate change?
      - bryanlarsen 1y ago
        IPCC estimates are about a quarter of a million excess deaths per year.
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Yes, but GP asked, how many of those are painful?

mrDmrTmrJ 1y ago

In the US Nuclear gives about 19% of total generation and hydro another 6%. So you don't have to go beyond 75% renewables to start with. Long term, we need a combination of the following technologies to get to 100% carbon free electricity with 80% renewables: 1. Long distance transmission lines. 2. Some type of "clean, firm, dispatchable" power. Examples include: Nuclear fission, fusion power, deep geothermal, and space based solar power. We can certainly use the cost savings from getting to 80% renewables to finance figuring out how to scaling production of one (or more) of the later technologies to lower cost. Simply reducing the regulatory burden on Nuclear Fusion can accomplish that if a society chooses this path. Lot of work to do. And many economic powers would loose out from this transition (e.g. Exxon or Russia) but totally feasible to accomplish. If you want to do a deep dive into cost scenarios look at the work of Christopher Clack or Jesse Jenkins. Example: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921

candiddevmike 1y ago
Too little, too late. We should've been switching to solar in the 80s. Even if we could switch to be carbon free tomorrow, the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere is predicted to cause breadbasket collapses within the next 20 years. If it makes folks feel better, there's a good chance you probably had no control/influence over this outcome if you were born after 1980. https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-weve-underestimated-the-risk-of-simultaneous-crop-failures-worldwide https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-weve-underestimated...
- kstrauser 1y ago
  We were trying to switch to solar in the 80s, but it was infeasible. The technology just wasn't there. Now it is and we're adopting it en masse.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  We will spray the atmosphere to buy more time. People will haggle over it because of the unknowns, but when imminent social chaos becomes obvious, we'll be forced to pull the trigger on it.