Why? Because we would have to build massive battery factories and infrastructure? Musk is proving we can do that, and he is one guy. The paper is arguing that it would need to be done on a massive, global scale.
There are many reasons... building all new car production is just one of them... What people WANT to drive is another, it takes time to change people's behavior, usually generations...
If this was just a new fuel type for the same types of cars, you could do it faster. EVs require that people change how they use a car. A lot of people simply aren't interested and will make sure the politicians know it.
Will my kids want EVs? Probably. But we're talking about 10 years here, not 50...
Side note: Musk hasn't proven anything yet, he has sold a small handful of luxury cars while losing billions of dollars. Expanding that 10 fold has yet to be seen, but even if he does it, that is 500,000 cars a year, compared to 75 million. Expanding EV production to 75 million a year within 10 years is simply absurd.
Kinda like going to the moon in less than a decade.
We got absurdly lucky on that one, and we did it in such a way that continuing to do it would not have been reasonable, useful, or affordable. We spent a huge sum of money to drop 2 people onto the moon for a few hours. We also took a lot of risks along the way. Count the number of US manned launches between Alan Sheppard and Apollo 11, talk about rushing it. We did it 6 times and that was that.
So you really can't remotely compare the two.
the Dutch are looking to do it by 2025 (9 years).
The Dutch, and the world, are two different things. The same mistake is made when people point to Denmark and say "look at all that Wind power, we can all do that worldwide!"
So pretty much like EVs then.
No, not at all. Not even close.
First, R-134a could be used in most existing equipment. Sometimes a few minor changes had to be made, sometimes not. To drive an EV, you have to buy a whole new car and scrap the old one.
Second, EVs do not work like gas cars, the way you fill them up is different. That is change, and not everyone wants to change that fast.
200 range mid priced models are starting to shop at the end of this year
First, that hasn't happened yet, and it likely will be closer to the end of 2017. But regardless, a 200 mile range doesn't help me if I have a 4 hour recharge time. Yea, yea, superchargers, whatever. You completely and totally miss the point if that is your answer. People are emotional creatures and don't all want to change just because you do. It will change over time as the generations shift. I'm 40, my Dad is 68, my kids are 10 and under. I may well own an EV in my lifetime, but my Dad won't. My kids might only own EVs. But that is a 50 year change, not a 10 year one.
Second, the Model 3 that is coming is small, for $35K it is still expensive. You can buy a really nice mid-sized SUV for that price. The EV price needs to drop by half again, and that won't happen in 10 years.
in a decade they will be very attractive at the low end of the market due to low maintenance requirements
You must be smoking something... The low end of the market drives 10 year old cars because they don't have the money for new... and as for maintenance, your memory must be old, new cars need nearly nothing for 10 years in terms of maintenance.
Rather than just relying on Tesla and Nissan to push the market forwards, force all manufacturers to get on board. It's a bold move, as the paper acknowledged, and not without cost, but far from impossible.
Many things are "possible" if you can draw on everyone else's resources without asking their permission. They become quite impossible if you actually have to ask first.
Let me put this another way. Myself and a whole lot of other people will vote for politicians who would block such a move. As will a lot of special interests who spend a lot of money making sure existing capital isn't wasted.
Man, I wouldn't admit publicly on slashdot that math is hard. Just saying.
No, he is right...
The US Government pays 2.7 cents per KWh to wind producers for each KWh sold.
That is why sometimes Texas Wind Farms give away their power, and have at times, paid people to take it, because of government money.
There are other incentives and tax credits beyond that. Texas makes 9% of its power from Wind. That is largely because of government money, not because Wind is cheap.
You think you're being cute, but either you really don't understand, or you choose not to.
All the existing coal mines will require attention for some time to come, even if we stop mining, because we've opened up and uncovered coal veins that were blocked from the air for thousands/millions of years.
It was human activity that started it, we can't just walk away from the mines and leave them alone, the coal would all end up on fire and burn anyway.
By "phased out" they mean all new vehicles would be electric, with a few exceptions.
Of the 75 million cars made in 2015, 540,000 were plug in EV something or others... and even most of THOSE still use gas (Prius plug in EV counts for example).
The idea that we could make all new cars and light trucks be EV only in 10 years is absurd in the extreme.
It's like CFCs were phased out - they didn't force everyone to replace hold fridges.
CFCs could be phased out because we had a ready replacement. It cost a bit more, but it largely worked in most of the same equipment doing the same job with minor changes.
If you were talking about replacing gas in cars with E85, now THAT could be done, because it still works largely the same way.
EVs do not. Price is the current problem with EVs, but even if you solve that, you have range issues, and the way they charge.
Over a few generations, you might get people ok with those changes, but you won't in 10 years. An EV requires that people change how they drive, how they "fill up" and it removes a feature their current cars have, unlimited range with 5 min fill-ups anywhere...
But it would take a collaborative, interdisciplinary, multi-scalar effort to get there, he warns.
Uhh, that isn't a minor speed bump, that is Olympus Mons on Mars sized speed bump...
To actually do it would require that we actually buy up and destroy most of the gas powered cars on the roads, since more than half of them are used longer than 10 years.
We'd have to shut down and destroy trillions of dollars worth of industry around the world, from oil refineries to coking coal plants that make steel, to natural gas powered appliances, etc. (in my home along, my water is heated, my food is cooked, and my home is heated with natural gas, it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace all that with electric).
We would somehow have to get all the nations of the world on the same page. You know, the same ones that are at war right now, declared and undeclared, the ones that fly jets 30 feet over our warships, the ones wanting to expand ISIS, and the ones building islands in the South China sea.
If you wanted to avoid nuclear, you'd also somehow have to build an international power grid and allow nations to become dependent on other counties for power. That may work for Denmark and Sweden, but do you really think South and North Korea are going to get along? How about the US and Mexico? Israel and everyone else...
---
The "think tank" either just wants money to write more pointless "reports", or they are smoking crack... Both are sad...
No it isn't... Renewables such as solar and wind fall under the category of non-dispatchable power sources, they are highly variable...
You need storage because sometimes it is night time and the wind is calm. You need storage because parts of the country/world have large snow storms that neither wind nor solar will work during. During such a storm, large amounts of heat need to be generated. Currently this is done via natural gas, fuel oil, etc. in the North East, but to move away from that to electric will require massive amounts of electric for a week or two without any useful sun or wind power.
The fact that the sun might be shining in Mexico does not help New York in January during a blizzard. Oh sure, if you magically could remove all political boarders and magically make an international power grid, maybe you technically could set that up. But that isn't going to happen, so you can't.
Just an accident officer. The other patrons will back me up.
Just a follow up... in either case, you won't be seeing the movie either way...
By the time the cops show up, either for the fight, you getting shot, or simply the management throwing the whole group out, your evening will be ruined regardless...
It wouldn't seem absurd if you used your brain and actually thought about the problem from a real world point of view.
We are simply not going to get a single world-wide power grid with storage and transmission lines moving it all over the place. That will not happen.
It won't even happen regionally in many places. Power produced in South America isn't going to North America, power produced in Europe isn't going to Asia, etc.
Winds are forecastable and, amazingly, wind farms tend to be built where the winds are fairly consistent. It's almost like that consider this when planning them.
Well, the facts do not agree with you... Texas has more wind than any other state, but it is highly variable, sometimes we don't have enough and have to run gas turbines to make up for it, other times they have too much and actually give the power away.
So you're simply wrong.
And thus we have the problem. So many people THINK they understand this stuff, we won't get any solutions while people such as yourself flail about in the wind on hopes and dreams while allowing real solutions to elude you.
1. Move the planet slowly towards non-carbon energy. It can't be done at the speed required to do anything about AGW now, but we can at least make progress and not make it worse.
2. Start preparing for our new world, because it is coming, like it or not. Plan for what to do when the coastal cities are 10 feet under water. Plan for moving crops and farming 1,000 miles north. Plan to get everyone off the islands that will end up under water.
3. Get our population under control. Somehow, this has to happen. At current growth rates, humans will reach a population density of 1 person per square meter of dry land surface of the Earth in 720 years and equal the mass of the Earth in 2,600 years. Clearly the population has to stop growing some time much sooner than 720 years from now, it can be under our control, or it can be due to war, disease, starvation. Our choice.
4. An all out push for Fusion needs to be made. This has been ignored for too long. If it costs $10 trillion dollars over 10 years, it'll be crazy stupid cheap in the long run, vs all other power options. If we fail to develop dependable 24/7 power at the scale of nuclear, but cleanly, then we have no long term future as a species.
To the best of my knowledge trade agreement allow for universal taxes.
In theory that works... but the world doesn't work on theory...:)
The EU is currently exploring the possibility of applying carbon costs to imports, the are calling them BCAs.
They can call them anything they like, they risk starting a trade war, and the US can take it to the WTO, as can other nations...
I'm not from the US so I have a different perspective on the "tough on China" talk and rhetoric that comes out of the US.
Some of it is election year pandering... some of it is genuine feeling that open and free trade has simply cost too many jobs in the US. To some extent they are right, to others, it was going to happen regardless.
A 30% tax on China imports won't suddenly make US labor competitive, and it would just push production to Vietnam and other places. A universal tax on all imports would start a massive trade war and hurt the global economy, which ultimately would defeat the point of it.
I suspect Donald Trump knows better, he is telling people what they want to hear.
Over all I find the degree of anti-China sentiment a little odd, given so much of the US's standard of living has come from being able to use China for cheap production.
Actually, a lot of people here feel the reverse, that the basic standard of living has been falling, and in terms of real income, it has... Most Americans were able to survive on one income in the 50s and 60s, the Mother stayed home with the kids, people stayed married, and life was fine.
Sure, we lived in smaller houses and had less stuff, but so what? Stuff isn't the end all, be all to life. Today most families need multiple incomes and divorce is a real problem. Is all the cheap stuff from China and all the Walmarts really making our lives better? I'm not so sure, and a lot of other people feel the same way.
Keep in mind also that there is the idea that we are not really working on equal terms. There is a lot of nearly slave labor in China (not really, they are free to leave, but without options are they really?). The government isn't open and free, they are not democratic, etc. They also play with their currency and need a massive overhaul of their economic system.
That being said, I get that China has massive internal issues and they can't turn on a dime. They are, in some ways, still recovering from the "Great Leap Forward" from decades ago and they are trying to open up in ways. They clearly are scared to do so...
Carbon tax or carbon credits would be the only way to do it. Which raises all kinds of international competitiveness issues.
I tend to agree... but it also brings into issue international treaties...
As for international competitiveness, given the US is the largest consumer economy they could require a carbon output value for every product crossing the border, or apply a flat % to items without that come without a value. This way the US could use its dominant position to force carbon pricing through its global suppliers.
Yes, but you can't really... the world no longer works that way, you'd have to renegotiate every treaty in the world, or at least all the trade ones.
I like Donald Trump's "tough on China" talk as much as the next person, but I am enough of a realist to know that he can't just outright do what he says he wants to do, which is tax China's imports by 30%. He would be breaking treaties, agreements, and would start a trade war.
So it would have to be done via negotiation, which considering all the various national interests... well, it wouldn't happen in the time frame that would matter, sad to say.
For instance, ITER sounds really expensive, until you realize that it only costs about the same as a handful of bombers. I'm not against bombers or military expenditure, but a energy source like fusion would be a big strategic advantage, easily worth spending the money on.
I live in Texas, I'm still bummed the Superconducting Super Collider was canceled!:)
I think carbon production is almost impossible to cut by those levels. There is simply too much legacy infrastructure in place and the cost to shift away is too high.
Yep, too many companies, too many existing buildings, too many houses, will simply not get upgraded...
My own home, which isn't the worst or best, is likely to still be standing, as it is, in 2100, still needing tons of power just to exist...
Renewable energy lends themselves to this because they fluctuate highly. So at times where grids are otherwise having to shed supply the extraction plants would use it instead.
I'd be open to that idea... the question is, who pays for it in enough scale to dent the problem? Carbon tax?
I don't know what rock you've been living under, but batteries have been a thing for decades now.
Again, you fail to understand the size and scope of the problem.
Take Tesla's new Gigafactory, which is designed to more than double world-wide battery production...
It will produce 35 billion watt hours worth of batteries a year. To provide battery backup of 14 days to the whole planet would require 22 years worth of production from that factory.
And that also would require replacing and redesigning much of the world's power grids. I'll let you figure out what the bill for that would be.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Because we would have to build massive battery factories and infrastructure? Musk is proving we can do that, and he is one guy. The paper is arguing that it would need to be done on a massive, global scale.
There are many reasons... building all new car production is just one of them... What people WANT to drive is another, it takes time to change people's behavior, usually generations...
If this was just a new fuel type for the same types of cars, you could do it faster. EVs require that people change how they use a car. A lot of people simply aren't interested and will make sure the politicians know it.
Will my kids want EVs? Probably. But we're talking about 10 years here, not 50...
Side note: Musk hasn't proven anything yet, he has sold a small handful of luxury cars while losing billions of dollars. Expanding that 10 fold has yet to be seen, but even if he does it, that is 500,000 cars a year, compared to 75 million. Expanding EV production to 75 million a year within 10 years is simply absurd.
Kinda like going to the moon in less than a decade.
We got absurdly lucky on that one, and we did it in such a way that continuing to do it would not have been reasonable, useful, or affordable. We spent a huge sum of money to drop 2 people onto the moon for a few hours. We also took a lot of risks along the way. Count the number of US manned launches between Alan Sheppard and Apollo 11, talk about rushing it. We did it 6 times and that was that.
So you really can't remotely compare the two.
the Dutch are looking to do it by 2025 (9 years).
The Dutch, and the world, are two different things. The same mistake is made when people point to Denmark and say "look at all that Wind power, we can all do that worldwide!"
So pretty much like EVs then.
No, not at all. Not even close.
First, R-134a could be used in most existing equipment. Sometimes a few minor changes had to be made, sometimes not. To drive an EV, you have to buy a whole new car and scrap the old one.
Second, EVs do not work like gas cars, the way you fill them up is different. That is change, and not everyone wants to change that fast.
200 range mid priced models are starting to shop at the end of this year
First, that hasn't happened yet, and it likely will be closer to the end of 2017. But regardless, a 200 mile range doesn't help me if I have a 4 hour recharge time. Yea, yea, superchargers, whatever. You completely and totally miss the point if that is your answer. People are emotional creatures and don't all want to change just because you do. It will change over time as the generations shift. I'm 40, my Dad is 68, my kids are 10 and under. I may well own an EV in my lifetime, but my Dad won't. My kids might only own EVs. But that is a 50 year change, not a 10 year one.
Second, the Model 3 that is coming is small, for $35K it is still expensive. You can buy a really nice mid-sized SUV for that price. The EV price needs to drop by half again, and that won't happen in 10 years.
in a decade they will be very attractive at the low end of the market due to low maintenance requirements
You must be smoking something... The low end of the market drives 10 year old cars because they don't have the money for new... and as for maintenance, your memory must be old, new cars need nearly nothing for 10 years in terms of maintenance.
Rather than just relying on Tesla and Nissan to push the market forwards, force all manufacturers to get on board. It's a bold move, as the paper acknowledged, and not without cost, but far from impossible.
Many things are "possible" if you can draw on everyone else's resources without asking their permission. They become quite impossible if you actually have to ask first.
Let me put this another way. Myself and a whole lot of other people will vote for politicians who would block such a move. As will a lot of special interests who spend a lot of money making sure existing capital isn't wasted.
Man, I wouldn't admit publicly on slashdot that math is hard. Just saying.
No, he is right...
The US Government pays 2.7 cents per KWh to wind producers for each KWh sold.
That is why sometimes Texas Wind Farms give away their power, and have at times, paid people to take it, because of government money.
There are other incentives and tax credits beyond that. Texas makes 9% of its power from Wind. That is largely because of government money, not because Wind is cheap.
You think you're being cute, but either you really don't understand, or you choose not to.
All the existing coal mines will require attention for some time to come, even if we stop mining, because we've opened up and uncovered coal veins that were blocked from the air for thousands/millions of years.
It was human activity that started it, we can't just walk away from the mines and leave them alone, the coal would all end up on fire and burn anyway.
By "phased out" they mean all new vehicles would be electric, with a few exceptions.
Of the 75 million cars made in 2015, 540,000 were plug in EV something or others... and even most of THOSE still use gas (Prius plug in EV counts for example).
The idea that we could make all new cars and light trucks be EV only in 10 years is absurd in the extreme.
It's like CFCs were phased out - they didn't force everyone to replace hold fridges.
CFCs could be phased out because we had a ready replacement. It cost a bit more, but it largely worked in most of the same equipment doing the same job with minor changes.
If you were talking about replacing gas in cars with E85, now THAT could be done, because it still works largely the same way.
EVs do not. Price is the current problem with EVs, but even if you solve that, you have range issues, and the way they charge.
Over a few generations, you might get people ok with those changes, but you won't in 10 years. An EV requires that people change how they drive, how they "fill up" and it removes a feature their current cars have, unlimited range with 5 min fill-ups anywhere...
But it would take a collaborative, interdisciplinary, multi-scalar effort to get there, he warns.
Uhh, that isn't a minor speed bump, that is Olympus Mons on Mars sized speed bump...
To actually do it would require that we actually buy up and destroy most of the gas powered cars on the roads, since more than half of them are used longer than 10 years.
We'd have to shut down and destroy trillions of dollars worth of industry around the world, from oil refineries to coking coal plants that make steel, to natural gas powered appliances, etc. (in my home along, my water is heated, my food is cooked, and my home is heated with natural gas, it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace all that with electric).
We would somehow have to get all the nations of the world on the same page. You know, the same ones that are at war right now, declared and undeclared, the ones that fly jets 30 feet over our warships, the ones wanting to expand ISIS, and the ones building islands in the South China sea.
If you wanted to avoid nuclear, you'd also somehow have to build an international power grid and allow nations to become dependent on other counties for power. That may work for Denmark and Sweden, but do you really think South and North Korea are going to get along? How about the US and Mexico? Israel and everyone else...
---
The "think tank" either just wants money to write more pointless "reports", or they are smoking crack... Both are sad...
In 50 years there won't be any gasoline powered cars anymore.
Please pass what you're smoking... Seriously... it must be good stuff...
Just saying that doesn't make it true, and frankly you are just hoping and guessing, the facts really don't back you up.
Renewables don't need storage, that is a /. myth.
No it isn't... Renewables such as solar and wind fall under the category of non-dispatchable power sources, they are highly variable...
You need storage because sometimes it is night time and the wind is calm. You need storage because parts of the country/world have large snow storms that neither wind nor solar will work during. During such a storm, large amounts of heat need to be generated. Currently this is done via natural gas, fuel oil, etc. in the North East, but to move away from that to electric will require massive amounts of electric for a week or two without any useful sun or wind power.
The fact that the sun might be shining in Mexico does not help New York in January during a blizzard. Oh sure, if you magically could remove all political boarders and magically make an international power grid, maybe you technically could set that up. But that isn't going to happen, so you can't.
You can store electricity.
Not at the size and scale required for all solar/wind and not for a price that people will actually pay.
So no, you really can't, not in this case.
Just an accident officer. The other patrons will back me up.
Just a follow up... in either case, you won't be seeing the movie either way...
By the time the cops show up, either for the fight, you getting shot, or simply the management throwing the whole group out, your evening will be ruined regardless...
Just an accident officer. The other patrons will back me up.
Maybe... maybe not... depends on how many friends are with the kid you dumped the soda on...
Another option is that you get your ass kicked because he came with 10 friends...
Or worse, you get shot...
You think it is funny, it won't be funny then...
Doesn't matter if the theater allows texting or not, the kids will get the soda poured over their heads if they keep texting during the movie.
That is assault, do you really want to go to jail, or worse?
Obviously you'd roll out in stages. Something like this couldn't happen overnight - it would probably take decades.
Sure, but that misses the point...
1. Who is going to pay for it...
2. We don't HAVE decades to wait for it...
The point is that your statement that you "can't store it" is complete and total bullshit.
You can't store it using current technology and current economies of scale.
Really, did I have to say that part? It should have been obvious.
You're the one that needs to think: TWO WEEKS. No sunshine for two weeks!
Yep, there are plenty of places the sun doesn't shine for a month. Major snow storms, overcast skies, etc.
People have no interest in going from 24/7 dependable power to "almost maybe kinda" dependable power.
There are times when the sun and wind are not dependable enough, we are simply not going to use them for 100% of our power needs.
Ask yourself why do CO2 emissions keep rising, even though everyone "agrees" that CO2 causes AGW?
It keeps rising because we keep putting billions of metric tons of it into the air every year.
We keep doing that because we like air conditioning, and cars, and airplanes, and stuff. More than we care about the long term climate.
you're wrong about that because they are running out of options and when they are out of options they will do the right thing.
People are not going to accept their power bills being doubled without seeing a clear and obvious reason why. Even then they might complain...
What'll happen is that they end up needing another 10 trillion, but they're almost there!
With that attitude, we might as well just all up and die...
The Atomic Bomb was developed at great cost during WWII and they succeeded. It IS possible for government to do something right you know.
What the fuckity fuck kind of absurdity is this?
It wouldn't seem absurd if you used your brain and actually thought about the problem from a real world point of view.
We are simply not going to get a single world-wide power grid with storage and transmission lines moving it all over the place. That will not happen.
It won't even happen regionally in many places. Power produced in South America isn't going to North America, power produced in Europe isn't going to Asia, etc.
Winds are forecastable and, amazingly, wind farms tend to be built where the winds are fairly consistent. It's almost like that consider this when planning them.
Well, the facts do not agree with you... Texas has more wind than any other state, but it is highly variable, sometimes we don't have enough and have to run gas turbines to make up for it, other times they have too much and actually give the power away.
So you're simply wrong.
And thus we have the problem. So many people THINK they understand this stuff, we won't get any solutions while people such as yourself flail about in the wind on hopes and dreams while allowing real solutions to elude you.
Of course, we wouldn't use lithium batteries for large scale storage. Instead, we'd use cheap molten salt batteries.
And they will hold power for a month? For 10 million people?
And they will cost how much? Who will pay for that?
So what's your suggestion?
Fair question...
1. Move the planet slowly towards non-carbon energy. It can't be done at the speed required to do anything about AGW now, but we can at least make progress and not make it worse.
2. Start preparing for our new world, because it is coming, like it or not. Plan for what to do when the coastal cities are 10 feet under water. Plan for moving crops and farming 1,000 miles north. Plan to get everyone off the islands that will end up under water.
3. Get our population under control. Somehow, this has to happen. At current growth rates, humans will reach a population density of 1 person per square meter of dry land surface of the Earth in 720 years and equal the mass of the Earth in 2,600 years. Clearly the population has to stop growing some time much sooner than 720 years from now, it can be under our control, or it can be due to war, disease, starvation. Our choice.
4. An all out push for Fusion needs to be made. This has been ignored for too long. If it costs $10 trillion dollars over 10 years, it'll be crazy stupid cheap in the long run, vs all other power options. If we fail to develop dependable 24/7 power at the scale of nuclear, but cleanly, then we have no long term future as a species.
To the best of my knowledge trade agreement allow for universal taxes.
In theory that works... but the world doesn't work on theory... :)
The EU is currently exploring the possibility of applying carbon costs to imports, the are calling them BCAs.
They can call them anything they like, they risk starting a trade war, and the US can take it to the WTO, as can other nations...
I'm not from the US so I have a different perspective on the "tough on China" talk and rhetoric that comes out of the US.
Some of it is election year pandering... some of it is genuine feeling that open and free trade has simply cost too many jobs in the US. To some extent they are right, to others, it was going to happen regardless.
A 30% tax on China imports won't suddenly make US labor competitive, and it would just push production to Vietnam and other places. A universal tax on all imports would start a massive trade war and hurt the global economy, which ultimately would defeat the point of it.
I suspect Donald Trump knows better, he is telling people what they want to hear.
Over all I find the degree of anti-China sentiment a little odd, given so much of the US's standard of living has come from being able to use China for cheap production.
Actually, a lot of people here feel the reverse, that the basic standard of living has been falling, and in terms of real income, it has... Most Americans were able to survive on one income in the 50s and 60s, the Mother stayed home with the kids, people stayed married, and life was fine.
Sure, we lived in smaller houses and had less stuff, but so what? Stuff isn't the end all, be all to life. Today most families need multiple incomes and divorce is a real problem. Is all the cheap stuff from China and all the Walmarts really making our lives better? I'm not so sure, and a lot of other people feel the same way.
Keep in mind also that there is the idea that we are not really working on equal terms. There is a lot of nearly slave labor in China (not really, they are free to leave, but without options are they really?). The government isn't open and free, they are not democratic, etc. They also play with their currency and need a massive overhaul of their economic system.
That being said, I get that China has massive internal issues and they can't turn on a dime. They are, in some ways, still recovering from the "Great Leap Forward" from decades ago and they are trying to open up in ways. They clearly are scared to do so...
Do you mean MWh (MegaWatt hours)?
Yes...
Carbon tax or carbon credits would be the only way to do it. Which raises all kinds of international competitiveness issues.
I tend to agree... but it also brings into issue international treaties...
As for international competitiveness, given the US is the largest consumer economy they could require a carbon output value for every product crossing the border, or apply a flat % to items without that come without a value. This way the US could use its dominant position to force carbon pricing through its global suppliers.
Yes, but you can't really... the world no longer works that way, you'd have to renegotiate every treaty in the world, or at least all the trade ones.
I like Donald Trump's "tough on China" talk as much as the next person, but I am enough of a realist to know that he can't just outright do what he says he wants to do, which is tax China's imports by 30%. He would be breaking treaties, agreements, and would start a trade war.
So it would have to be done via negotiation, which considering all the various national interests... well, it wouldn't happen in the time frame that would matter, sad to say.
For instance, ITER sounds really expensive, until you realize that it only costs about the same as a handful of bombers. I'm not against bombers or military expenditure, but a energy source like fusion would be a big strategic advantage, easily worth spending the money on.
I live in Texas, I'm still bummed the Superconducting Super Collider was canceled! :)
That was going to be built back in the 90s!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you told me tomorrow, "no worries, we can make Fusion work, it'll only cost $10 trillion dollars over 10 years...
I'd say "sold, when do we start?"
It would be, in the long run, "cheap", compared to all the other options.
I think carbon production is almost impossible to cut by those levels. There is simply too much legacy infrastructure in place and the cost to shift away is too high.
Yep, too many companies, too many existing buildings, too many houses, will simply not get upgraded...
My own home, which isn't the worst or best, is likely to still be standing, as it is, in 2100, still needing tons of power just to exist...
Renewable energy lends themselves to this because they fluctuate highly. So at times where grids are otherwise having to shed supply the extraction plants would use it instead.
I'd be open to that idea... the question is, who pays for it in enough scale to dent the problem? Carbon tax?
I don't know what rock you've been living under, but batteries have been a thing for decades now.
Again, you fail to understand the size and scope of the problem.
Take Tesla's new Gigafactory, which is designed to more than double world-wide battery production...
It will produce 35 billion watt hours worth of batteries a year. To provide battery backup of 14 days to the whole planet would require 22 years worth of production from that factory.
And that also would require replacing and redesigning much of the world's power grids. I'll let you figure out what the bill for that would be.