7 ms·

Ultimately, we need energy. Lots of energy. Cheap energy. It's the thing at the core of everything from food & basic materials, to the manufacture of stuff (lik

by netcan 12y ago

Ultimately, we need energy. Lots of energy. Cheap energy. It's the thing at the core of everything from food & basic materials, to the manufacture of stuff (like houses & shoes) from those materials, energy is a big piece of what goes into it and ultimately the limiting factor. It's also important to remember that there is a negative correlation between wealth in an industrialized economy and sensitivity to energy costs. IE, the poorer you are, the more sensitive your purchasing power is to energy prices. The effect runs up and down the value chains. Steel & concrete are mostly energy. Cheap enough energy opens up the possibility of desalination and improves the productive value of land. Deserts become viable places. A 10X improvement in energy availability (the supply curve) would have an economic effect that permeates everything.

7952 12y ago
>> A 10X improvement in energy availability (the supply curve) would have an economic effect that permeates everything. It is a bit like bandwidth. Everyone agrees that having gigabit internet to every device in the country would be benficial bur we can't agree on who should provide that. As a society we pour most of the money into large providers who have a vested interest in highly centralised systems. What we really need is thousands of small provders who optimise for efficienct delivery of the actual product. Society needs to invest in energy and constantly spending such vast amounts on single projects seems risky. It may deliver energy but in the long run prices will still go up.
fulafel 12y ago
Food is a good case to examine in thinking about energy problem from a consumption or supply point of view, because on one hand we are really splurging energy and land area in food production - all that meat production requires 2-3x crop production, not to mention untold animal suffering, for our luxury munchies.
- netcan 12y ago
  I don't think it's a product of inequalities. I think it's a matter of preferences. People value luxuries. Food may not be efficient in the resources/calories sense, but it is nonetheless the food people are eating and a big part of its cost is its energy cost. In industrialized countries, less/more expensive energy will lead to an increase in inequality as the basic items that everyone (including the poor) consume a lot of are very energy dependent. Transport, heating & home electricity are easy enough examples. Richer people might use slightly more energy for these (bigger houses, cars, etc.) but not much, energy consumption of this kind does not track income. Steel, concrete and other building materials are very energy intensive. Being heavy means there is a tradeoff between manufacture near high energy sources and high cost transport. Lets leave aside the carbon effects and/or other externalities. It seems to be bad for the quality of the debate to mix the discussion about the cost of reducing energy consumption and the necessity of doing so. I don't personally have very strong opinions about the carbon-climate debate. I do think the "reduce energy consumption" side of the debate underestimate the cost of drastic cuts especially on below median economic strata.
DaniFong 12y ago
We're remarkably close. Solar is already cheaper than oil and more geographically available. It's just not temporary as available -- that's the energy storage problem, and that's what we're working on. It is very difficult in many respects however. The biggest problem is that public funds, bonds, and internet companies attract most of the financing. Our best strategy to avoid this is to work with group for whom it would be strategic, and also for people who are already rich (e.g. Bill Gates, Peter Thiel) and thus are able to weather the development period and take on more long term projects.
- netcan 12y ago
  I'm not sure how to interpret statements like this, at least not without acquiring a good business understanding of these energy businesses. A lot of funding has gone into green energy in various forms over the last 10 years, in lot of countries. None if it seems to have the kind of cascading effect that I would expect from the kind of runaway success I often hear claimed. If solar and/or wind is so great, why aren't high energy activities moving near those places or developing their own renewable power source? Where are the solar desalination plants or mineral processing facilities?
  - molsongolden 12y ago
    The technology needs/needed to progress to a point where the price of implementation would be low enough to appeal to businesses. As the parent comment notes, the issue is now mostly one of availability. The sun doesn't shine 24/7, the wind doesn't blow 24/7, etc... so large scale power storage is needed to smooth the energy grid provided by renewable sources. We need to be able to harness the sun/wind when it is available, pack away the energy, then trickle it out on demand. We just aren't there yet but we're getting close.
    - netcan 12y ago
      There are some of activities where cost per joule could trump everything else. If you want to desalinate sea water you don't need to store energy. You just need to store desalinated water. If you want to desalinate water in Saudi Arabia, you can forecast weather 10 years in advance. If the underlying economics were there now, and the cost per energy (which is remarkably hard to reliably estimate, but that's an said) really was that much better there would be implementations in places with an established market for desalinated water.

by netcan 12y ago

7952 12y ago

>> A 10X improvement in energy availability (the supply curve) would have an economic effect that permeates everything. It is a bit like bandwidth. Everyone agrees that having gigabit internet to every device in the country would be benficial bur we can't agree on who should provide that. As a society we pour most of the money into large providers who have a vested interest in highly centralised systems. What we really need is thousands of small provders who optimise for efficienct delivery of the actual product. Society needs to invest in energy and constantly spending such vast amounts on single projects seems risky. It may deliver energy but in the long run prices will still go up.

fulafel 12y ago

Food is a good case to examine in thinking about energy problem from a consumption or supply point of view, because on one hand we are really splurging energy and land area in food production - all that meat production requires 2-3x crop production, not to mention untold animal suffering, for our luxury munchies.

netcan 12y ago
I don't think it's a product of inequalities. I think it's a matter of preferences. People value luxuries. Food may not be efficient in the resources/calories sense, but it is nonetheless the food people are eating and a big part of its cost is its energy cost. In industrialized countries, less/more expensive energy will lead to an increase in inequality as the basic items that everyone (including the poor) consume a lot of are very energy dependent. Transport, heating & home electricity are easy enough examples. Richer people might use slightly more energy for these (bigger houses, cars, etc.) but not much, energy consumption of this kind does not track income. Steel, concrete and other building materials are very energy intensive. Being heavy means there is a tradeoff between manufacture near high energy sources and high cost transport. Lets leave aside the carbon effects and/or other externalities. It seems to be bad for the quality of the debate to mix the discussion about the cost of reducing energy consumption and the necessity of doing so. I don't personally have very strong opinions about the carbon-climate debate. I do think the "reduce energy consumption" side of the debate underestimate the cost of drastic cuts especially on below median economic strata.

DaniFong 12y ago

We're remarkably close. Solar is already cheaper than oil and more geographically available. It's just not temporary as available -- that's the energy storage problem, and that's what we're working on. It is very difficult in many respects however. The biggest problem is that public funds, bonds, and internet companies attract most of the financing. Our best strategy to avoid this is to work with group for whom it would be strategic, and also for people who are already rich (e.g. Bill Gates, Peter Thiel) and thus are able to weather the development period and take on more long term projects.

netcan 12y ago
I'm not sure how to interpret statements like this, at least not without acquiring a good business understanding of these energy businesses. A lot of funding has gone into green energy in various forms over the last 10 years, in lot of countries. None if it seems to have the kind of cascading effect that I would expect from the kind of runaway success I often hear claimed. If solar and/or wind is so great, why aren't high energy activities moving near those places or developing their own renewable power source? Where are the solar desalination plants or mineral processing facilities?
- molsongolden 12y ago
  The technology needs/needed to progress to a point where the price of implementation would be low enough to appeal to businesses. As the parent comment notes, the issue is now mostly one of availability. The sun doesn't shine 24/7, the wind doesn't blow 24/7, etc... so large scale power storage is needed to smooth the energy grid provided by renewable sources. We need to be able to harness the sun/wind when it is available, pack away the energy, then trickle it out on demand. We just aren't there yet but we're getting close.
  - netcan 12y ago
    There are some of activities where cost per joule could trump everything else. If you want to desalinate sea water you don't need to store energy. You just need to store desalinated water. If you want to desalinate water in Saudi Arabia, you can forecast weather 10 years in advance. If the underlying economics were there now, and the cost per energy (which is remarkably hard to reliably estimate, but that's an said) really was that much better there would be implementations in places with an established market for desalinated water.