So many people have pointed me at that article that I am thinking about doing a copypasta.
tl;dr Overall, they are talking about solving a small part of the problem, in places that are unusually well favoured, using unrealistic assumptions.
Problem #1 is that it is almost entirely focused on electricity which is only roughly 25% of the problem.
Problem #2 is that it fails to take into account in its calculations the total system cost of delivering energy across the whole economy. It is not just a matter of solar cells. You need all the infrastructure, transmission lines (including for all that redundancy you need now), storage, etc.
Problem #3 is that it makes unrealistic assumptions. For example the use of pumped hydro for seasonal storage is just ludicrous. Do the math.
Problem #4 is that it only considers the problem for regions that are especially favoured: “regions with high solar and/or high wind resources”.
I have done a ppt but I am revising it over the next weeks in response to comments. I will post it here when done.
The issue is that the process emits lots of CO2. For a renewable solution you need to expend large amounts of energy removing the CO2 from the air and finding a way to store it. There are ideas of how to store it but none that are proven at this scale (billions of tons)
> assume the rest of the world catches up to first world living standards
I briefly outlined two scenarios above. The first being to match existing energy use. The second taking into account growth in population and economic growth, which is happening, in LDCs. The first is very difficult at best, the second seems not at all possible barring a miracle. I do not see how you are going to stop the locked in population growth. and economic growth in LDCs is proceeding apace.
Multiplying the factors of population, reduced disparities, and modest growth in more developed countries results in an increase of 10-209 fold in energy consumption. Some people try to argue that we can have high economic growth without more energy but cross sectionally and temporally this would be very novel. Living standards and energy use are highly correlated. The one apparent exception, first world countries recently is just a result of outsourcing manufacturing to LDCs. When you take into account the energy embedded in imports, the richer countries are continuing to grow energy use rapidly (and effective CO2 emissions as well).
So many people have pointed me at that article that I am thinking about doing a copypasta.
tl;dr Overall, they are talking about solving a small part of the problem, in places that are unusually well favoured, using unrealistic assumptions.
Problem #1 is that it is almost entirely focused on electricity which is only roughly 25% of the problem.
Problem #2 is that it fails to take into account in its calculations the total system cost of delivering energy across the whole economy. It is not just a matter of solar cells. You need all the infrastructure, transmission lines (including for all that redundancy you need now), storage, etc.
Problem #3 is that it makes unrealistic assumptions. For example the use of pumped hydro for seasonal storage is just ludicrous. Do the math.
Problem #4 is that it only considers the problem for regions that are especially favoured: “regions with high solar and/or high wind resources”.
I have done a ppt but I am revising it over the next weeks in response to comments. I will post it here when done.
> Musk seems to think
Argument from authority. In my ppt I only go with proven technologies, This rules out this kind of thing.
> the cement manufacturing process
The issue is that the process emits lots of CO2. For a renewable solution you need to expend large amounts of energy removing the CO2 from the air and finding a way to store it. There are ideas of how to store it but none that are proven at this scale (billions of tons)
> assume the rest of the world catches up to first world living standards
I briefly outlined two scenarios above. The first being to match existing energy use. The second taking into account growth in population and economic growth, which is happening, in LDCs. The first is very difficult at best, the second seems not at all possible barring a miracle. I do not see how you are going to stop the locked in population growth. and economic growth in LDCs is proceeding apace.
Multiplying the factors of population, reduced disparities, and modest growth in more developed countries results in an increase of 10-209 fold in energy consumption. Some people try to argue that we can have high economic growth without more energy but cross sectionally and temporally this would be very novel. Living standards and energy use are highly correlated. The one apparent exception, first world countries recently is just a result of outsourcing manufacturing to LDCs. When you take into account the energy embedded in imports, the richer countries are continuing to grow energy use rapidly (and effective CO2 emissions as well).
What is the other 75% of the problem which can’t be solved with electricity?
Can see this raising the cost substantially, but given that only 8-9% of GDP is spent on energy, we can maybe eat that and survive?
That does sound like a bad assumption, and lowers my opinion of any paper which makes it.
Looking forward to it.
If the point of renewables is to stop climate change, yes. If the point is to keep civilisation running at all, no, you can just eat the CO2.
Population growth, agreed. But, if energy costs start seriously rising, economic growth will naturally slow or reverse, no?