What does it take to succesfully transition to a green energy economy?

[blueone]

I am fatigued to endlessly hear about "the market." Our actual markets have a lot of information problems, and even deliberately created plain lies. Time scale is critical, and it is neglected. Considering time gets you past the hype cycle, finds early adopters and carries you to long term products. We need that in durable goods and climate. For the latest social media phenomenon, short time cycles don't matter.

There isn't "a market". There are thousands of separate markets.

Germany, Taiwan, China, Japan, and Singapore have long term industrial policy. They are all based on some form of high employment, exports, exports of high labor content goods, dominant market positions in segments, minimizing imports, and moving people from lower income to higher income.

Sounds like you're living in the wrong country. Being very familiar with PDX, you're living in a city/region with very skewed priorities that limits success.

The US industrial policy is to further financial markets to concentrate wealth, export low labor content agricultural products, import everything, protect the export film industry as best as possible with infinite copying, and everything military.

How does the US industrial policy concentrate wealth?

Despite that, the us has had some epic successes in directing research through ARPA, and earlier NASA. Both created early adopter markets that became mass markets, or will become mass markets. Today there are small handfuls of corporate research labs.

ARPA defined some protocols that were useful in creating the internet. What were NASA's epic successes?

That is because the American financial system is focused on quarter to quarter results. If the company is dead in 5 years, it doesn't matter in or system. We are facing competitors with less focus on quarterly profits and more focus on market share for the long run.

If what you're saying is correct, there would be almost no room for start-up companies in the US. As for big companies, we've always faced countries with cultures that supposedly take the longer view. Japan is legendary for that, and it doesn't seem to have served them well. Japan has been trumped by the US, Korea, China, and India, to name a few.

The long term matters for energy investments. The bills have to pass through congress, and in particular Joe Manchin, chair of the Energy Committee, so they are filled with compromises. We are moving toward lifecycle carbon accounting and labeling to give decision consumers more information. In the US, there is enough money in energy to choose a policy and build it. The grid and generator engineers know how to do it. It is going to roll out state by state for political and corruption reasons.

Our energy policy is a mess, mostly because we refuse to make the creation of new infrastructure efficient, and because we tell ourselves fairy tales about the utopia we would have if only we were net-zero.

I would also say the market cannot overcome a lack of leadership intelligence, and voter intelligence and understanding. Many of the countries with industrial policies, successful industrial policies, have engineers as political leaders, not attorneys, athletes, exterminators, and other sad examples. They all have a focus on K-12 excellence and STEM.

On this point we agree, the US education system should have a far greater emphasis on science and math.

 

[A Surfer]

One should never be so sure of their rightness, and of course that includes me. Very much so as I can get too entrenched in my views. It is a dangerous thing when someone feels that they hold all the truth and everybody who doesn't agree with them is simply poorly informed and I am certainly detecting a little of that. Perhaps those who do not agree simply place importance on different things and weigh other aspects of social history and social engineering than we do.

 

[SIY]

T What were NASA's epic successes?

Tang.

 

[Timcognito]

Our energy policy is a mess, mostly because we refuse to make the creation of new infrastructure efficient

Yes this is true, but the most efficient way that exists to move large amounts of power is electricity and the bonus is it can directly produced from the sun and wind abundant commodities the have no borders. The private ownership and stewardship of the big parts of the grid is the biggest impediment to the electric revolution as well as lack of large storage technology. All other developed combustible energy sources require many resources, processing steps, transportation and middlemen to make and distribute it.

 

[blueone]

The private ownership and stewardship of the big parts of the grid is the biggest impediment to the electric revolution as well as lack of large storage technology.

Not correct. The biggest impediments to upgrading the US power grid are the permitting and approval processes, and legal barriers put up by landowners, states, cities, and environmental groups to running new transmission lines. Somewhere down the list is the supply chain for power distribution has bottlenecks in it. For example:

A massive power transformer shortage is wreaking havoc in the US

A nationwide shortage of power grid transformers is causing delays across the US for everything from infrastructure for electric vehicles to new homes

www.newscientist.com

 

[Timcognito]

Here is long but interesting look at clean energy and the grid and how small distributed energy resources (DERs) would fit into the grid.

Clean energy technologies threaten to overwhelm the grid. Here’s how it can adapt.

The centralized, top-down power grid is outdated. Time for a bottom-up redesign.

www.vox.com

"Right now, thanks to outdated regulatory models, utilities are often hostile toward DERs, which are increasingly able to substitute for grid infrastructure. Anything that reduces utilities’ need to invest in more infrastructure threatens their financial returns. Consequently, they often show exactly as much support for DERs as is mandated by legislators, and no more."

 

[Doodski]

Here is long but interesting look at clean energy and the grid and how small distributed energy resources (DERs) would fit into the grid.

Clean energy technologies threaten to overwhelm the grid. Here’s how it can adapt.

The centralized, top-down power grid is outdated. Time for a bottom-up redesign.

www.vox.com

"Right now, thanks to outdated regulatory models, utilities are often hostile toward DERs, which are increasingly able to substitute for grid infrastructure. Anything that reduces utilities’ need to invest in more infrastructure threatens their financial returns. Consequently, they often show exactly as much support for DERs as is mandated by legislators, and no more."

If there are many small service providers there better be laws that make them network and be prepared for weather disasters requiring power for heat and mobility.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Here is long but interesting look at clean energy and the grid and how small distributed energy resources (DERs) would fit into the grid.

Clean energy technologies threaten to overwhelm the grid. Here’s how it can adapt.

The centralized, top-down power grid is outdated. Time for a bottom-up redesign.

www.vox.com

"Right now, thanks to outdated regulatory models, utilities are often hostile toward DERs, which are increasingly able to substitute for grid infrastructure. Anything that reduces utilities’ need to invest in more infrastructure threatens their financial returns. Consequently, they often show exactly as much support for DERs as is mandated by legislators, and no more."

Or they own the legislators and are hostile toward DER.

 

[Marc v E]

Here is long but interesting look at clean energy and the grid and how small distributed energy resources (DERs) would fit into the grid.

Clean energy technologies threaten to overwhelm the grid. Here’s how it can adapt.

The centralized, top-down power grid is outdated. Time for a bottom-up redesign.

www.vox.com

"Right now, thanks to outdated regulatory models, utilities are often hostile toward DERs, which are increasingly able to substitute for grid infrastructure. Anything that reduces utilities’ need to invest in more infrastructure threatens their financial returns. Consequently, they often show exactly as much support for DERs as is mandated by legislators, and no more."

Sweden implements distributed networks as we speak. Found that and posted it when I was searching how many heat pumps they use. It's in the link I posted in one of the first pages.

If there will be at least one, more will follow.

 

[Tangband]

Its a mistake to think that we can combine marketing business with green energy economy, and at the same time change the Co2 pollution.

The result will probably be the complete opposite , solar cells are not environmental friendly to manufacture, and because theres little understanding for the need of stable energy platforms .
We gonna be left with many unstable energy producers, thats no good when its cold . The energy prices gonna skyrock from time to time, hurting the producing chains.

We need intelligent people who knows physics and economy to deal with this , not politicians or crazy climate scientists.

 

[Marc v E]

Its a mistake to think that we can combine marketing business with green energy economy, and at the same time change the Co2 pollution.

The result will probably be the complete opposite , solar cells are not environmental friendly to manufacture, and because theres little understanding for the need of stable energy platforms .
We gonna be left with many unstable energy producers, thats no good when its cold .

We need intelligent people who knows physics and economy to deal with this , not politicians or crazy climate scientists.

Really? How can the result be the complete opposite economically and how environmentally? Please support your claims with numbers.

 

[JktHifi]

Regarding the EV, I think the combustion engine will not be going anywhere. There will be advance development in combustion engine to reduce fuel consumption and emission. So, both the EV and combustion engine will exist in the future.

 

[Tangband]

Really? How can the result be the complete opposite economically and how environmentally? Please support your claims with numbers.

Because cheap, stable energy is what it takes to keep our high living standard. If I put it shortly.

 

[Ornette]

Regarding the EV, I think the combustion engine will not be going anywhere. There will be advance development in combustion engine to reduce fuel consumption and emission. So, both the EV and combustion engine will exist in the future.

The ICE is quite an advanced technology at this stage. Any further developments will require a lot of investment for very marginal improvements. The real efficiency gains for gas cars are in more aerodynamic and lighter vehicles anyway, as well as hybridization to recoup energy when braking and to kill/restart the engine when not accelerating. As such, it's not rational for companies to pursue squeezing the last few percent from the ICE. As the cost of batteries comes down and the charging infrastructure continues to expand, ICE-powered cars will become less and less attractive to consumers due to their higher operating and maintenance costs.

 

[JktHifi]

The ICE is quite an advanced technology at this stage. Any further developments will require a lot of investment for very marginal improvements. The real efficiency gains for gas cars are in more aerodynamic and lighter vehicles anyway, as well as hybridization to recoup energy when braking and to kill/restart the engine when not accelerating. As such, it's not rational for companies to pursue squeezing the last few percent from the ICE. As the cost of batteries comes down and the charging infrastructure continues to expand, ICE-powered cars will become less and less attractive to consumers due to their higher operating and maintenance costs.

I don’t think so because battery materials is more rare than oil/gas. And combustion engine is already being used for hundreds of year. Later the market will decide and the industry will give people to choose.

I still prefer the combustion engine than battery because the cost to use it beside the purchase (initial cost). Battery have to be replaced every 2 years. The cost of the battery is 98% of total vehicle cost. Combustion engine can last 20 years, even 30 years.

 

[Marc v E]

I don’t think so because battery materials is more rare than oil/gas. And combustion engine is already being used for hundreds of year. Later the market will decide and the industry will give people to choose.

I still prefer the combustion engine than battery because the cost to use it beside the purchase (initial cost).

Battery have to be replaced every 2 years. The cost of the battery is 98% of total vehicle cost. Combustion engine can last 20 years, even 30 years.

Battery materials are in fact not rare at all. Neither lithium, nickel or sodium. They can be reused after lifetime for about 90%, a battery pack is a high quality ore, so to speak.

Battery packs don't have to replaced every 2 years (where did you get that info?). It's more like 8 years until 80% of full capacity. Lasting longer after that, but this is a good point of reference. Many last many 100,000s of miles.

Battery packs are indeed the most expensive part in an ev. However their prices follow Wrights Law: every doubling of battery production, reduces the cost per kw by 28%. I'll post a picture. The reduction in price is quite remarkable.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don’t think so because battery materials is more rare than oil/gas. And combustion engine is already being used for hundreds of year. Later the market will decide and the industry will give people to choose.

I still prefer the combustion engine than battery because the cost to use it beside the purchase (initial cost). Battery have to be replaced every 2 years. The cost of the battery is 98% of total vehicle cost. Combustion engine can last 20 years, even 30 years.

I don't know where you get the idea batteries in EV's have to be replaced every 2 years, but it is incorrect. From some companies they are warranteed for 120,000 miles (190k km).

 

[JktHifi]

I don't know where you get the idea batteries in EV's have to be replaced every 2 years, but it is incorrect. From some companies they are warranteed for 120,000 miles (190k km).

2 years estimation, can be 200k km

 

[JktHifi]

Battery materials are in fact not rare at all. Neither lithium, nickel or sodium. They can be reused after lifetime for about 90%, a battery pack is a high quality ore, so to speak.

Battery packs don't have to replaced every 2 years (where did you get that info?). It's more like 8 years until 80% of full capacity. Lasting longer after that, but this is a good point of reference. Many last many 100,000s of miles.

Battery packs are indeed the most expensive part in an ev. However their price follow Wrights Law: every doubling of battery production, reduces the cost per kw by 28%. I'll post a picture. The reduction in price is quite remarkable.

View attachment 280196

View attachment 280197

The initial cost right now (with your chart) is still very expensive compared to conventional vehicle. I don’t think in this economic recession situation right now it will be lower.

 

[Blumlein 88]

2 years estimation, can be 200k km

Ridiculous. 274 km per day with no breaks at all. Yeah, only with a taxi. And then probably less. BTW, Tesla's with that kind of use are running around 320,000 km before any significant battery depletion. All on the worst kind of use with constant supercharging. Face it dude, you made a ridiculous laughable claim. Don't double down just admit it. You certainly can in no way claim this would be use by the average owner of an EV.

Data from the EU indicates average km per year average for automobiles is 18k km per year. So your 2 years turns into more like 11 for most owners. Based upon Tesla results you have no worries for about 18 years for most owners as far as the battery is concerned. Hahahahahahaha!