Comment by nabla9 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nabla9 | Hacker News Reader

The interesting question is what effect clean energy has to the usage of hydrocarbons. Will it bring reduce global demand or just reduce the price of energy.

The good news is: CO2 emission intensity is going down globally and emissions per capita in US, China and EU28 are going down.

The bad news are: Emissions per capita are still going up globally, and hydrocarbon usage and CO2 emissions are breaking records year after year. http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCP2017/PNG/s09_FossilFuel_an... Economic downturn was the only thing causing temporary decline.

It looks like clean energy reduces the demand in developed countries, thus reducing the prices of hydrocarbons. It will not reduce the CO2 emissions globally, it just moves them from the developed world to the developing world. Maybe it slows down CO2 emission growth rate?

http://folk.uio.no/roberan/learnmore/more_warning_signs.shtm...

---

EDIT: Just to point out how complex the dynamics between clean energy, hydrocarbons and policy are, here is nice recent research paper from Acemoglu and Rafey:

Mirage on the Horizon: Geoengineering and Carbon Taxation Without Commitment https://economics.mit.edu/files/14855

>Abstract: We show that, in a model without commitment to future policies, geoengineering breakthroughs can have adverse environmental and welfare effects because they change the (equilibrium) carbon taxes. In our model, energy producers emit carbon, which creates a negative environmental externality, and may decide to switch to cleaner technology. A benevolent social planner sets carbon taxes without commitment. Higher future carbon taxes both reduce emissions given technology and encourage energy producers to switch to cleaner technology. Geoengineering advances, which reduce the negative environmental effects of the existing stock of carbon, decrease future carbon taxes and thus discourage private investments in conventional clean technology. We characterize the conditions under which these advances diminish—rather than improve—environmental quality and welfare.

This is why the only way to deal with climate change is countries with carbon reserves deciding to leave it in the ground.

If they don't, there is so much demand for the stuff (burning it is so incredibly useful) that it'll all be burned.

Or for those with wealth to buy those reserves and put mechanisms in place to inhibit the extraction of those petroleum resources.

Unfort, those in the position of power throughout the modern history has done the exact opposite.

Equador tried an interesting approach: "pays us and we won't extract oil".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasun%C3%AD-ITT_Initiative

"tried" indeed - because according to the wikipedia lemma covering the topic: However, in July 2013, Ecuador's president Rafael Correa's commission on the Yasuni-ITT Initiative's progress, the commission concluded that economic results were insufficient, leading Correa to scrap the plan on August 15, 2013. As of early 2014, campaign groups are still attempting to save Yasuní-ITT from oil activities.

Judging from all of human history.. 'those with wealth' tend to not be the conscientious type.

edit: Because, they are insulated from the bad repercussions of their harmful policies. Eg. Trafigura polluting the shit out of Ivory coast and poisoning people there. The CEO doesnt live there, he drinks bottled water and lives somewhere else in a gated compound.

Making those destructive choices makes things better for them so they keep making them over and over. If a CEO made a conscientious choice then it would most likely be at the expense of short term profit, which would diminish the extent of his power, sort of self-selecting himself out of the decision making pool.

I agree, but I find it hard to beleive that isolation alone is enough to make them so unempathetic. I can only assume it has something to do with the human capacity to lie to one self, otherwise even acknowledging the truth would just be too uncomfortable.

Makes me imagine some weird distopian future where all people with power and wealth are forced to take some anti-self-deciet drug to prevent crimes against humanity :P

> all people with power and wealth are forced to take some anti-self-deciet drug

But who would force them?

Well it's a sci-fi distopian future so there would be some twisted pseudo dictatorship of course ... except for the one guy at the top who exempts himself from the drug. Ok this is basically "equilibrium" with a different brain mod isn't it :P

Our future AI overlords, I imagine.

If clean energy manages to get cheap enough eventually it will be easier to synthesize simple hydrocarbons out of atmospheric and water than to drill them out of the group and we can end up carbon neutral as a whole. We'll see how cheap midday solar ends up when the price finishes dropping.

The cost of solar stabilizes when the cost is determined by the cost of land, energy storage, electric grid and transfer cost and installation and maintenance.

If you get the conversion efficiency to the same level as photosynthesis (30% nominally) the cost of energy could approach the cost of producing biofuels.

Compared to the rest, which are much more static in terms of cost, energy storage will continue to drop in cost almost as much as solar panels will over the next 10-15 years.

The efficiency of photosynthesis is nowhere near 30%. It’s 3% if so.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency

You’re both right - there’s lots of room for practical improvement.

Even if that number is correct for photosynthesis, there are lots of inefficiencies when it comes to converting the products of photosynthesis (biomass) into usable energy (electricity). Wood pellets burn well, but people forget that wood pellets use energy in their creation (drying) and transport (trucks). There are also a host of evils in terms of habitat destruction and emission of pollutants other than CO2. Solar panels can live quietly and locally, producing electricity directly rather than trying to convert it too and from biomass.

Except - lots of current biofuels are thought to be "fossil fuel subsidized" and not that energy positive.

Solar panels also don't wear out soil nutrients, don't need crop rotation, and are probably much less likely to be completely destroyed by weather patterns than the average corn crop grown for biofuels.

>> CO2 emission intensity

Avoid this phrase at all costs. It is a buzzword used by the likes of the clean coal lobby. Global warming isn't tied to emission intensity, but net emissions. The fact that CO2 emissions are down relative to economic growth, but are still climbing, is not useful. It is PR turd-shining.

> it just moves them from the developed world to the developing world

This is a really good point, clean energy seems to be a luxury at the moment.

No one can blame poorer countries, they aren't all in a position to invest in renewables, for many of them it would be crippling, the argument that renewables is sometimes cheaper only works long term, and long term takes significan't up front investment, burning coal etc takes significantly less.

I am hopeful the cost of entry will be greatly reduced in the near term with so many developed nations turning to renewables.

By helping ourselves, we are lowering the barrier for less developed nations.

Most of the developing world doesn't have a grid today. Building microgrids powered by small clean energy resources is much cheaper than building a grid. Now this is only true at modest per-capita electricity consumption amounts, but that matches the wealth available in a lot of places.

On a very small scale, that's why you see solar-powered flashlights being so popular in rural areas of the developing world. And my favorite charity (kickstart.org) is currently designing a solar-powered water pump, as a step up from their current human-powered water pumps.

Emissions continue to go up because relatively speaking renewables are still a small portion of the global energy use and the need for more energy is still rising fast (renewables or not).

I assume just the fact that companies (and consumers to a smaller degree) can install solar power and then generate "free" electricity plays a non-insignificant role in getting them to use even more electricity.

However, I don't think that's what causes most of the rise. It's all the planned obsolescence electronics we use and throw into the garbage every 2-3 years and other stuff like that. We simply need more energy to build more stuff. At least if we go 100% renewable power and electric vehicles, that will minimize the impact on the planet, even if we double our energy use over the next 50 years.

There will also be new energy efficiency technologies that will at least slow down our increase in energy use.

Are there known fundamental obstructions to developing a leap frog effect in energy tech?

I don't think it's the question of technology, it's the question of economy, incentives and investment costs.

Even if the clean energy becomes cheaper hydrocarbons can have comparative advantages and when their price goes down it's creating new uses and new demand.

Even if EROI (energy return of investment) of hydrocarbons turns negative, it may be cheaper to use clean energy to extract hydrocarbons from existing sources than transfer CO2 to back to hydrocarbons.

No. Searching "solar in developing countries" suggests it is an ongoing process.

As a new farmer, this is good news. My target range for CO2 is 1200ppm. This means our future will be greener! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDgYLxp8Sg

Wait, you think that we should triple the CO2 levels? Humanity's well-being on this earth is not exactly bottle-necked by our current ability to produce plant matter, and at 1200ppm I'm pretty sure we'll discover lots of new and exciting (not-good exciting) ways that our survival is bottle-necked.

Plants are often limited by resources other than CO2. Also, high temperatures reduce crop yields in most places.

You posted a link to a rabbithole of fascist-cheering, bone-stupid argumentation, and conspiracy theory. Setting aside their fairly obvious attempts at political astroturfing, the depths to which those people are lying with regards to AGW to people who lack the scientific literacy to evaluate the arguments being made is appalling. So are their race-baiting shithead politics, but this more bluntly--I mean, this is math.

I make this post assuming you're not in on it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com