[HN Gopher] Switching World to Renewable Energy Will Cost $62T, ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Switching World to Renewable Energy Will Cost $62T, Payback Would
       Take 6 Years
        
       Author : f_allwein
       Score  : 32 points
       Date   : 2022-10-08 19:22 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (cleantechnica.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (cleantechnica.com)
        
       | benj111 wrote:
       | If this is the situation why isn't any country just unilaterally
       | going for it?
        
         | ceejayoz wrote:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable...
         | 
         | 12 countries are listed as over 90% renewable currently.
         | Iceland at 100%; Norway at 97.2%.
        
           | digianarchist wrote:
           | If Norway included carbon exports then it wouldn't be
           | anywhere near 97%.
        
           | TheLoafOfBread wrote:
           | Norway has hundreds of fjords, which can be dammed. It is
           | hard to compete with that for example for Poland.
        
             | ceejayoz wrote:
             | What fjords has Norway needed to dam to reach their current
             | 97% rate?
        
           | Ekaros wrote:
           | Ah hydro... Explains most cases, not really realistic in
           | others. Though there is some interesting cases, but likely
           | even those are hard to replicate.
        
             | ceejayoz wrote:
             | Sure. You do hydro in Norway. Solar in Spain. Wind in the
             | North Sea. Geothermal in Iceland. Different places,
             | different forms of generation. Trade regionally for
             | redundancy.
             | 
             | The question was "why isn't anyone doing it"; the answer is
             | "they are".
        
               | Ekaros wrote:
               | But other than hydro and geothermal do those run
               | 24/7/365? And is the storage in place? Or do they rely on
               | some others to fullfil those? What if that isn't an
               | option lets say middle of desert?
        
         | klyrs wrote:
         | cui bono, indeed
        
         | gehsty wrote:
         | Denmark in particular is, but lots of European countries are.
         | Reality is it takes time to align markets, development permits
         | and supply chains with government policies...
        
         | mrob wrote:
         | The next election is less than 6 years away.
        
           | nayuki wrote:
           | Not in a dictatorship.
        
           | makomk wrote:
           | This isn't an explanation at all. I can tell you that, for
           | example, the UK's renewable energy push is operating on a
           | timescale rather longer than that - a good six years elapsed
           | just between the government deciding to focus on offshore
           | wind and the industry getting good enough to build it that it
           | was cheaper than onshore (something which was predicted at
           | the time) and it'll be a few more years before enough is
           | built that we get substantial benefit from those lower costs.
           | The more likely explanation is that it just isn't as easy as
           | they're claiming.
           | 
           | Admittedly, the government here seems to be getting zero
           | benefit politically or in the public opinion from that long
           | term planning.
        
         | sveme wrote:
         | All studies that I read about 100% reneweables point out that
         | you need a large, meteorologically diverse catchment area and a
         | highly interconnected grid. That will balance out local
         | fluctuations and will massively reduce the need for storage.
         | Problem is, it will require lots of countries to cooperate -
         | except if you are a very large country. The US should be able
         | with its coastlines, deserts, hydropower and so forth.
        
           | Ekaros wrote:
           | Also that is rather worrying scenario looking back at USA
           | attacks on NS pipelines. What if the target where these grid
           | interconnects? That would be catastrophic.
        
       | jaarse wrote:
       | Great... Except Steel, Concrete, Plastics, and Ammonia production
       | all require fossil fuels and we do not have any alternative. We
       | also do not have a viable alternative for air travel, or large
       | scale shipping. While I think it is a worthwhile goal to pursue
       | clean energy technologies, we are a very long way (with no known
       | alternative) from getting rid of fossil fuels.
        
       | oneoff786 wrote:
       | > Ford is spending $40 billion to transition to making electric
       | cars. Volkswagen, Mercedes, GM, BMW, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, and
       | Toyota are doing the same. Does anyone think that money is just
       | an expense or that the managers of those companies have not
       | calculated the expected return on their investment down to the
       | fraction of a penny?
       | 
       | This statement really annoyed me and undermined their credibility
        
       | choeger wrote:
       | Yeah. Except that just building the factories to build the solar
       | panels and wind turbines would take longer than that. And that
       | statement ignores the whole supply chain.
       | 
       | The thing is, despite what extinction rebellion et. al. tell us,
       | the global economy _is_ moving to renewables pretty much full
       | speed. It 's just that that same economy has so much inertia that
       | it will take decades to make that switch. But the second half
       | will not take nearly as long as the first.
        
         | yongjik wrote:
         | Yeah I very much doubt that. Until last year, the energy policy
         | of Germany, one of the richest countries in the world, depended
         | on cheap gas from Russia. It took Russia's invasion of Ukraine
         | to force them to reassess their policy.
         | 
         | And their short-term solution? Buy gas from other countries.
        
           | TheLoafOfBread wrote:
           | Agree Energiewende is dead end, because Germany is missing
           | energy storage to fill out intermittencies, which is now
           | substituted by gas. And that energy storage kind of does not
           | exist. (aka something what can keep lights on in whole
           | country at least over night, not few minutes like batteries)
        
           | bjourne wrote:
           | If it is one thing I've learned from Hacker News it is that
           | the gut feelings and knee-jerk reactions of anonymous posters
           | always and invariably trump whatever "researchers" publish in
           | their peer reviewed so called "journals".
        
             | TheLoafOfBread wrote:
             | Like being spammed around 2015 that self driving will be
             | common around 2020 or electric cars cheaper than ICE any
             | moment. BEVs are now more expensive than ever, expected to
             | suffer battery shortages for next decade and are
             | economically unviable thanks to expensive energy.
        
         | kitkat_new wrote:
         | > The thing is, despite what extinction rebellion et. al. tell
         | us, the global economy is moving to renewables pretty much full
         | speed.
         | 
         | bold statement - can you back this up? I find it very hard to
         | believe
        
           | orwin wrote:
           | Not GP, but here highlight the issue:
           | 
           | https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-
           | in...
           | 
           | Our bottleneck right now is processing, not mining (because
           | of the energy crisis).
        
       | teilo wrote:
       | Add this to the list of the article titles that are obvious
       | bullsh*t without bothering to RTFA.
        
       | ram4jesus wrote:
       | Does anyone actually believe this? This is not possible without
       | deindustrialization.
        
       | emit_time wrote:
       | Lol
       | 
       | We have no effective way of storing energy. If you only want
       | energy on sunny windy days during daytime, this is fine. Enjoy
       | the power going out at night and when the wind slows down.
       | 
       | Hopefully we will get much cheaper storage and production soon,
       | but it's not completely viable now.
        
         | sschueller wrote:
         | We can fill large water dams and store energy easily that way.
         | 
         | This is what Switzerland is focusing on right now to make sure
         | they have enough stored power for January and February when
         | production doesn't suffice the requirements and purchasing
         | electricity from abroad may not be possible.
        
           | Ekaros wrote:
           | Do we have locations we haven't build those yet? Is there any
           | concerns about building there? Environmental or existing
           | communities? Where to get the water to fill those? Does that
           | have effect downstream? If it is build on existing rivers, is
           | there some minimum amount of water that has to be passed? Or
           | maximum capacity after water has to be passed?
        
             | sschueller wrote:
             | All valid concerns but if you can find a location that has
             | a small impact on the environment it is hugely beneficial.
        
         | kitkat_new wrote:
         | there are effective ways of storing energy, but there isn't a
         | silver bullet that has high efficiency, low cost, long storage
         | duration and high storage capacity
        
           | Ekaros wrote:
           | Cost competition is biggest aspect in my mind. Is the storage
           | competitive compared to alternative if power is free is good
           | benchmark in my mind to start with.
           | 
           | And what are political and ecological implications of them.
           | As I doubt even the Greens prepared to build up most
           | effective pumped hydro locations anymore. Effectively
           | flooding quite large areas. And also I take there is
           | questions where to get the water from in parts of the
           | world...
        
             | kitkat_new wrote:
             | Cost must include environmental costs such as direct
             | destruction of the environment and greenhouse gas
             | emissions.
             | 
             | Competition on the basis of today's market prices which
             | don't include this, is nonsense.
        
           | nuancebydefault wrote:
           | Energy storage is a part of the problem. The good thing is,
           | if we combine multiple energy production methods and connect
           | it to a smarter grid with a smarter consumption profile, we
           | can do with storing much less. The solutions are already
           | known and are feasible. The ultimate problem is, the
           | transition takes a lot of time, certainly given it needs to
           | be smooth, we don't want too many outages. And we seem be be
           | running out of time.
        
         | natch wrote:
         | We can store plenty of energy in car batteries as EVs become
         | more common.
         | 
         | And that is energy that whether it's available for putting back
         | in the grid or not, (usually not, which is fine) replaces a gas
         | pump.
        
           | SideQuark wrote:
           | Take number of cars, multiply by storage capacity of an EV
           | battery, compare to daily energy requirements, fall
           | incredibly short.
           | 
           | This is not a solution.
        
             | natch wrote:
             | So are you claiming it's not part of the solution? If not,
             | then what is your point?
        
             | kitkat_new wrote:
             | not to mention given today's technology and growing
             | opposition to car centric cities, there won't ever be as
             | many BEVs as there are cars today.
        
               | natch wrote:
               | Fewer cars, less need for energy. It works out, so no
               | problem even if your theory is correct.
        
       | stevenfoster wrote:
       | Comrade! I have figured out renewable energy. Let me tell you of
       | my top down plan to solve it! Wait in this line. No that's the
       | bread line, wait in the other line for your energy then get back
       | in the bread line.
       | 
       | With that out of the way, the glaring miss here is that gasoline
       | or coal burned at utility scale is quite efficient and while far
       | from perfect, that is a different calculation than, wow somehow
       | like there are hundreds of millions of gas cars everywhere.
       | That's pretty inefficient.
       | 
       | Also with all this renewable energy, how are you going to light
       | up the forges that need massive amounts of energy to make the
       | materials for wind capture? Will lithium, iron, and phosphate
       | mining really do less harm at scale than fracking and mining for
       | coal? If shipping and logistics use more energy than individual
       | consumers, and consumers buy their home energy from their utility
       | companies, why are you trying to hard sell individuals if you
       | actually have a solid value proposition for utilities and
       | shipping/logistic companies? They have the assets to leverage for
       | loans and investments to deploy new means of energy at scale. Why
       | do you need to preach to individuals that their gas car is evil,
       | when your economies of scale at the corporate level should make a
       | consumer option more affordable and accessible?
        
       | pedalpete wrote:
       | Understandably so much negativity to this article, and I stopped
       | reading after a few paragraphs, it's mostly garbage.
       | 
       | However, let's take a look at it another way.
       | 
       | If it would take $62T to convert to 100% renewable, how much
       | would it cost to get to 80% renewable?
       | 
       | I'm trying to get a read on how much of the current energy is
       | from renewables, and I'm seeing figures in the 8-30%. It's a big
       | spread, but it is showing how far we may have come.
        
       | edwnj wrote:
       | This is so dumb it takes superhuman levels of restraint for me to
       | not swear.
       | 
       | We literally don't have the tech nor capacity for make this
       | transition: - we dont have the rare earth minerals - we don't
       | have the metals - with exception of nuclear all these
       | alternatives are extremely inefficient.
       | 
       | It takes years of sustained exponential demand to even let
       | capacity catch up and thats if we can even feasible find new
       | reserves (for rare earth).
       | 
       | Let alone the game theoretic situation where u can only achieve
       | this with a tyranny. It will cost significantly less to adapt and
       | change..
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-08 23:02 UTC)