5 ms·

Summary: Zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over wi

Summary: Zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over within the next 40 years.

altcognito 12y ago
The summary was worse than that: We need to switch over in 40 years AND remove large amounts of carbon from the air as well.
- vixen99 12y ago
  Need? Fierce debate continues but the global warming “hiatus,” followed by up to 50 different reasons for nature not following the prediction of dramatically increased global temperature provides at least some doubt on the matter. Yes, it may catch up later! Meanwhile satellite imagery has shown that the Earth has greened very significantly. It's depressing to note that the advantages of this have rarely been heralded. One has the distinct impression that were some Newton of climatology to publish a paper showing beyond reasonable argument that we do not need to worry be worried at all by the CO2 increase, climatologists and much of the Left (as it happens) would be struck down with misery rather than joy.
dubfan 12y ago
From the article: > Let’s face it, businesses won’t make sacrifices and pay more for clean energy based on altruism alone. Instead, we need solutions that appeal to their profit motives. This is what I keep trying to explain to my environmentalist friends, but there's a strong motivation in that circle to pretend the economic factor doesn't exist and it's as simple as saying "screw you" to oil companies. It doesn't get a good reaction.
- gaius 12y ago
  I hope they all have organic laptops woven from hemp and twigs, or they'd be massive hypocrites...
  - mnw21cam 12y ago
    Environmental scientists do have a habit of flying all round the world to attend conferences on how to stop people flying around the world. Yes, they do tend to see the irony in it all.
    - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
      > Environmental scientists do have a habit of flying all round the world Maybe because worldwide scientific activities would grind to a halt if we suddenly went back to three masted schooners and bullock carts.
- protomyth 12y ago
  India, China, and all the emerging economies in South America and Africa are going to take the same economic route (coal & gas) unless we give them a cheaper alternative. Your right, environmentalists don't seem to understand economics or human nature. People will not sacrifice so we really need to tech our way out of this.
  - mnw21cam 12y ago
    India and China are chucking research and money at new nuclear technology. It's not unreasonable to predict that in 20 years, the west will probably be buying molten salt reactors from China. I think, regarding the economics, there are quite a few environmental scientists who are very cognisant of economics and how that interacts, such as Tim Jackson at the University of Surrey, UK. However, where they do know anything about it, they tend to recognise that economics is not helping the environment at all, so perhaps they should work in areas where they are likely to make a difference instead. There is a fundamental mis-match between the environment and economics. In economics, eternal exponential growth is mandatory. In the environment, eternal exponential growth is impossible.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      China is throwing research and money at everything. They are still opening new coal plants, I think the rate is one per week.
    - protomyth 12y ago
      I hope both succeed and if we do we should buy the fruits of their efforts since we seem to not be going that direction. I have seen nothing but environmentalists who understand economics being vilified. I hope this attitude changes. Economics does not require "eternal exponential growth is mandatory", although some popular schools of economics do. Economics is just a very good way to actually judge cost.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      There are two different aspects of economics here; on one hand, it's blindingly obvious that growth-based economy is unsustainable. On the other hand, it's what is driving the world right now, so effective ways to fix the system will likely need to use it for their advantage, and not ignore it.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  One easy way round that is to just nationalize the oil companies.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    No, even after buying them up, they now become part of the sovereign wealth, and the sovereign still cares about its bottom line. Or look at the middle east, where a lot of oil companies are already nationalized, and see how much they are worrying about CO2 emissions.
    - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
      An interesting corollary of that logic is that if suddenly this sovereign interest was spanning the whole Earth (instead of being fragmented into over a hundred countries), then there would be bigger incentives to strong-arm a solution to this problem more quickly.
- andreasvc 12y ago
  If there is an impending catastrophe, the profit motive is irrelevant. The issue is one of short term (profit) vs. long term (environment) thinking. Saving the planet while still appealing to the profit motive would be great, but if that's not feasible, do we just let the planet go to hell...?
  - ianlevesque 12y ago
    Depressingly, the answer appears to be yes.
vixen99 12y ago
Could be cheap as chips but without storage, forget it as a solution for most of the world. Nuclear is an exception of course.

Summary: Zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over within the next 40 years.

altcognito 12y ago

The summary was worse than that: We need to switch over in 40 years AND remove large amounts of carbon from the air as well.

vixen99 12y ago
Need? Fierce debate continues but the global warming “hiatus,” followed by up to 50 different reasons for nature not following the prediction of dramatically increased global temperature provides at least some doubt on the matter. Yes, it may catch up later! Meanwhile satellite imagery has shown that the Earth has greened very significantly. It's depressing to note that the advantages of this have rarely been heralded. One has the distinct impression that were some Newton of climatology to publish a paper showing beyond reasonable argument that we do not need to worry be worried at all by the CO2 increase, climatologists and much of the Left (as it happens) would be struck down with misery rather than joy.

dubfan 12y ago

From the article: > Let’s face it, businesses won’t make sacrifices and pay more for clean energy based on altruism alone. Instead, we need solutions that appeal to their profit motives. This is what I keep trying to explain to my environmentalist friends, but there's a strong motivation in that circle to pretend the economic factor doesn't exist and it's as simple as saying "screw you" to oil companies. It doesn't get a good reaction.

gaius 12y ago
I hope they all have organic laptops woven from hemp and twigs, or they'd be massive hypocrites...
- mnw21cam 12y ago
  Environmental scientists do have a habit of flying all round the world to attend conferences on how to stop people flying around the world. Yes, they do tend to see the irony in it all.
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    > Environmental scientists do have a habit of flying all round the world Maybe because worldwide scientific activities would grind to a halt if we suddenly went back to three masted schooners and bullock carts.
protomyth 12y ago
India, China, and all the emerging economies in South America and Africa are going to take the same economic route (coal & gas) unless we give them a cheaper alternative. Your right, environmentalists don't seem to understand economics or human nature. People will not sacrifice so we really need to tech our way out of this.
- mnw21cam 12y ago
  India and China are chucking research and money at new nuclear technology. It's not unreasonable to predict that in 20 years, the west will probably be buying molten salt reactors from China. I think, regarding the economics, there are quite a few environmental scientists who are very cognisant of economics and how that interacts, such as Tim Jackson at the University of Surrey, UK. However, where they do know anything about it, they tend to recognise that economics is not helping the environment at all, so perhaps they should work in areas where they are likely to make a difference instead. There is a fundamental mis-match between the environment and economics. In economics, eternal exponential growth is mandatory. In the environment, eternal exponential growth is impossible.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    China is throwing research and money at everything. They are still opening new coal plants, I think the rate is one per week.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    I hope both succeed and if we do we should buy the fruits of their efforts since we seem to not be going that direction. I have seen nothing but environmentalists who understand economics being vilified. I hope this attitude changes. Economics does not require "eternal exponential growth is mandatory", although some popular schools of economics do. Economics is just a very good way to actually judge cost.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    There are two different aspects of economics here; on one hand, it's blindingly obvious that growth-based economy is unsustainable. On the other hand, it's what is driving the world right now, so effective ways to fix the system will likely need to use it for their advantage, and not ignore it.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
One easy way round that is to just nationalize the oil companies.
- danielweber 12y ago
  No, even after buying them up, they now become part of the sovereign wealth, and the sovereign still cares about its bottom line. Or look at the middle east, where a lot of oil companies are already nationalized, and see how much they are worrying about CO2 emissions.
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    An interesting corollary of that logic is that if suddenly this sovereign interest was spanning the whole Earth (instead of being fragmented into over a hundred countries), then there would be bigger incentives to strong-arm a solution to this problem more quickly.
andreasvc 12y ago
If there is an impending catastrophe, the profit motive is irrelevant. The issue is one of short term (profit) vs. long term (environment) thinking. Saving the planet while still appealing to the profit motive would be great, but if that's not feasible, do we just let the planet go to hell...?
- ianlevesque 12y ago
  Depressingly, the answer appears to be yes.

vixen99 12y ago

Could be cheap as chips but without storage, forget it as a solution for most of the world. Nuclear is an exception of course.