I am not sure what is so revolutionary about this except painting the situation in bright colours. This tech already exists, but it is not widely used, because we don't have enough clean energy and we still have relatively cheap fossil hydrocarbons.
I get the carbon neutrality hype, but it all includes a lot of machinery and upfront costs…
I am not sure what is so revolutionary about this except painting the situation in bright colours. This tech already exists, but it is not widely used, because we don't have enough clean energy and we still have relatively cheap fossil hydrocarbons.
I get the carbon neutrality hype, but it all includes a lot of machinery and upfront costs. What happens when you need to create enough e-fuel for everybody on the whole planet? Give me numbers!
There is nothing inherently special about this process as carbon just circulates in nature. And this basically only becomes available after we manage to solve green growth and green transformation, which is still a huge question mark, especially regarding materials, not energy. And even after that, a lot of energy is lost in the process, so you actually need abundance of clean energy to sacrifice it when clearing hydrogen, then methane of whatever. Always better to just use electricity, which then does not capture any carbon.
This is a bit like saying in early March 2020 that the entire world will be in a pandemic in a few weeks. It doesn't feel like much has changed, and indeed nothing in daily life has. But things are evolving exponentially, and soon we'll be in a completely different world. Good to see it coming and preempt it.
The only difference is that this will run in a matter of years, not days or weeks.
The entire point is that all this tech doesn't quite exist already, because it needs to continue being optimized *for cost*. But as it does, it soon becomes *more economically advantageous than alternatives*, and that's when the world truly changes exponentially, because the majority of investments turn around and pour into this.
Electricity is great for many things, but as we saw, not for everything
Yeah, I know electricity cannot really be used for everything. And also many materials depend on fossil hydrocarbons, so in this way you can basically make plastics and fuel from gas and what not, which is somehow cool.
I read the post one more time, more properly, and you do warn about potential issues and bottlenecks. And this is something I am not very sure about. So far we have been hyped a lot, we are pouring money here and there, every day there is a different way how to save the planet. I am not sure who is actually doing the real math. Recently it was on news that EU is allocating less than 1/10 for the transmission than what is actually needed. So far the real changes in renewables are on the scale of percents, more like covering what we need extra every year. So I guess the question for me is not about the tech you present, but whether the exponential goodness is really that obviously going to happen so easily. Not sure about the alternatives except downscaling, but the transition is not exactly a win if we manage it and destroy so many habitats in the process. Is there even any definitive resource answering this question, or are we all just trying to put the pieces together?
But perhaps I am approaching this too broadly. When you have too much energy momentarily and there is no demand, it is obviously better to store it in hydrogen or methane, so it does not really hold you need to first replace all electricity sources with renewables for this to make sense...
I am not sure what is so revolutionary about this except painting the situation in bright colours. This tech already exists, but it is not widely used, because we don't have enough clean energy and we still have relatively cheap fossil hydrocarbons.
I get the carbon neutrality hype, but it all includes a lot of machinery and upfront costs. What happens when you need to create enough e-fuel for everybody on the whole planet? Give me numbers!
There is nothing inherently special about this process as carbon just circulates in nature. And this basically only becomes available after we manage to solve green growth and green transformation, which is still a huge question mark, especially regarding materials, not energy. And even after that, a lot of energy is lost in the process, so you actually need abundance of clean energy to sacrifice it when clearing hydrogen, then methane of whatever. Always better to just use electricity, which then does not capture any carbon.
See e.g. https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/19-simon-michaux
Thanks for your thoughts!
This is a bit like saying in early March 2020 that the entire world will be in a pandemic in a few weeks. It doesn't feel like much has changed, and indeed nothing in daily life has. But things are evolving exponentially, and soon we'll be in a completely different world. Good to see it coming and preempt it.
The only difference is that this will run in a matter of years, not days or weeks.
The entire point is that all this tech doesn't quite exist already, because it needs to continue being optimized *for cost*. But as it does, it soon becomes *more economically advantageous than alternatives*, and that's when the world truly changes exponentially, because the majority of investments turn around and pour into this.
Electricity is great for many things, but as we saw, not for everything
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutions
For example, electricity is not great for things like air transport and long-term energy storage. For things like these, we will still need fuels.
I'm not sure I understand your other thoughts.
Yeah, I know electricity cannot really be used for everything. And also many materials depend on fossil hydrocarbons, so in this way you can basically make plastics and fuel from gas and what not, which is somehow cool.
I read the post one more time, more properly, and you do warn about potential issues and bottlenecks. And this is something I am not very sure about. So far we have been hyped a lot, we are pouring money here and there, every day there is a different way how to save the planet. I am not sure who is actually doing the real math. Recently it was on news that EU is allocating less than 1/10 for the transmission than what is actually needed. So far the real changes in renewables are on the scale of percents, more like covering what we need extra every year. So I guess the question for me is not about the tech you present, but whether the exponential goodness is really that obviously going to happen so easily. Not sure about the alternatives except downscaling, but the transition is not exactly a win if we manage it and destroy so many habitats in the process. Is there even any definitive resource answering this question, or are we all just trying to put the pieces together?
But perhaps I am approaching this too broadly. When you have too much energy momentarily and there is no demand, it is obviously better to store it in hydrogen or methane, so it does not really hold you need to first replace all electricity sources with renewables for this to make sense...