Getting the Grid to Net Zero

https://spectrum.ieee.org/electric-inverter

by sohkamyung • 2 years ago

111 122 2 years ago

spectrum.ieee.org

fedeb952• 2 years ago

I keep wondering how we'll get rid of used batteries and panels in the future.

breischl• 2 years ago

There are recycling pilot projects out there, but yeah it's a problem.

Do you also wonder how we'll get rid of used coal power plants, massive piles of toxic fly ash, and tons of pollutants from natural gas plants? Because so far the answer is not good.

kvgr• 2 years ago

I know how we can get rid of nuclear fuel. Coal is very very dirty... nobody challenges that

15155• 2 years ago

Fly ash is a key ingredient in Portland cement.

jeffbee3• 2 years ago

You could take every PV panel ever made and just stack them up in the desert. It would hardly take any space and nobody would notice.

That is, if you refuse to recycle them, which would be silly.

asynchronous• 2 years ago

Surely something with a higher energy output to waste ratio like nuclear energy waste would be an even better compromise then?

sidewndr46• 2 years ago

Yeah that plan works great for things like tires. It's not like there are multiple large tire dumps in the world with fires that are always burning in them.

burkaman• 2 years ago

Batteries are recyclable and a bunch of companies are already doing it, for example: https://li-cycle.com/press-releases/li-cycle-reports-full-ye.... As demand for battery materials grows I think recycling will become more profitable and widespread.

Solar panels are also largely recyclable, especially since most of the panel is metal and glass (which we've been recycling for millennia): https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-recycling. I don't know as much about recycling the actual useful part of the panel, and I'm sure it depends on the type, but there are companies doing this as well: https://www.solarcycle.us/.

However efficient the recycling is, it can't possibly be worse than what we do with used oil, gas, and coal (set it on fire immediately and then pretend it magically disappeared).

marcosdumay5• 2 years ago

I don't know as much about recycling the actual useful part of the panel

For almost all panels out there, even the toxic ones, recycling should be a lot cheaper than purifying new silicon.

It's not viable today because we have way too little trash to even start the process.

akira25013• 2 years ago

The question you want to ask, as always in recycling, is: "How much water do these processes use?"

briantakita2• 2 years ago

Is it as efficient as recycling plastic bottles? Effectively in the landfill & ocean.

Theory & marketing science fiction are all well & good...But let's have some success with existing recycling programs before assuming that everything is going to work perfectly according to someone's vision.

If you are actually serious about reducing CO2 emissions, let's start with the biggest producer of CO2. The US Military & MIC. Cause I don't see any solar powered military vehicles, munitions, or ordinances anytime in the next 100 years.

How ironic when it's time for the US Military. With it's gas guzzling transports. To be used to enforce environmental statutes. Against the rural/suburban peasants who demand their own grid.

titzer3• 2 years ago

Better solid waste than gas.

maherbeg2• 2 years ago

Battery recycling is already spinning up and becoming profitable. It also means we won't have to rely as much on imports of rare earth materials because we can use already mined materials over time!

fedeb952• 2 years ago

many interesting responses which I'll read in depth better later. My comment wasn't against solar panels and batteries and in favour of oil etc. as some assumed. Just interested, because recycling seems a pretty big deal to become really sustainable in all economic matters. In my mind, which might be wrong about many things, until we get a rate of recycling >= that of waste there's a problem, maybe showing up later than today, but eventually it will surface again. Repeating myself, this is my mind model and of course subject to error.

triceratops• 2 years ago

Should be easier than cleaning up oil spills.

kibwen• 2 years ago

With the advent of solar and HVDC, is there a potential future where AC stops being the backbone of the grid, letting us drop the whole notion of grid-scale frequency? It sure sounds simpler not to have do the delicate phase matching dance, among other things.

Synaesthesia• 2 years ago

But transforming high voltage to low voltage or vice versa is really trivial with AC.

GaggiX• 2 years ago

I believe that with AC is easier and cheaper to change the voltage using transformers compare to DC.

nick73761822• 2 years ago

Very much so. That is why it seems we won't have DC distribution (ever? Not sure what it would take for DC to make more sense)

crmd• 2 years ago

The grid needs to run at multiple voltages - transmission, distribution, industrial/commercial/residential service - which is complex on a DC grid. Synchronizing the phases is an easier problem.

jnsaff2• 2 years ago

Synchronization is a one time event. Once the networks are coupled the physics itself keeps it in sync.

The problem is that physics also dictates that the interconnection links need to be big enough to handle the power imbalance between the different parts of the networks. So grid management is mostly about balancing production and demand as a whole and in sub-grids.

vegetablepotpie2• 2 years ago

This is unlikely. While transmission lines may go DC, all of the distribution, the lines that goes from a substation to peoples houses, in the US is AC. Although it’s possible to wire a house for DC, and people have done that, many of the appliances we use, use AC power.

Although AC phase matching is a delicate technical problem, it’s one we’ve solved for over a hundred years. DC presents other engineering challenges that are non-trivial. For example, circuit breakers for AC power are designed to “break” when the AC curve hits zero volts. This eliminates the chance of arcing and makes breakers smaller and cheaper to manufacture. A DC breaker has a chance of arcing and it may be necessary to make them larger, or use exotic gasses with high dielectric values to prevent this from occurring. Either of these increase costs for homeowners.

stavros5• 2 years ago

You're assuming that, in the future, we'll still have huge, centralized plants. With solar, it's very possible that we'll have small stations in each town or area, and only need to balance between them infrequently, greatly reducing the amount of energy we need to carry across large distances.

nostrademons3• 2 years ago

Transmission has a bunch of problems with DC as well. Transformers are fundamentally AC devices; if you want to use them in a DC circuit, you need an inverter anyway to convert the DC to AC and back again. There are ways to step up DC voltage, but none are as cheap or reliable at utility scale as a transformer is. If you don't step up the voltage, you'll lose basically all your power to transmission losses, since delivering high power at low voltage requires high current, and power loss increases with the square of the current.

High-voltage DC is also extremely dangerous, as it's prone to arcing and electrocution.

falcrist• 2 years ago

There may be a potential for more localized grids that are interconnected by HVDC transmission lines. I'm not sure what the impetus for that would be, however. I agree that it would be unlikely.

Interestingly, HVDC actually becomes a more efficient method of transmission over longer distances. Perhaps it's feasible to generate electricity half a continent away. Maybe tile the Sahara with solar panels and power all of Africa with it.

PaulHoule• 2 years ago

The arcing is no joke. In my building they have a new assembly of three coupled water pumps and an electrical box that is waiting to be installed that has a scary warning about how the electrical box could create a dangerous arc.

RetroTechie• 2 years ago

A DC breaker has a chance of arcing and it may be necessary to make them larger, or use exotic gasses with high dielectric values to prevent this from occurring.

That's a problem for mechanical switches (were conductors move to make contact or disconnect).

If you use semiconductors to do the switching, it becomes a problem of how fast they switch, how much energy is dissipated during the switch, and how much energy those semiconductors can absorb momentarily (thermal mass).

For small equipment, this is a solved problem. Fast switching FETs are cheap & robust.

For utility-scale, semiconductors are an entirely different ballgame. Big advances have been made over the last decades.

So a HVDC grid might in theory be possible. But in practice, it'll be an engineering tradeoff between HVDC+semiconductors almost everywhere vs. HVAC+more traditional gear like transformers.

And even if a HVDC grid were practical with modern tech, in most places there's existing AC-based grid & power plants. I suspect the "sync AC phases" is an easier problem to solve than "re-do the grid to use HVDC".

But for 'simple' point-to-point connections like an offshore windpark or long international lines, HVDC is sometimes practical (and used, if so).

londons_explore4• 2 years ago

I think a DC grid is likely. But it's still 100 years away.

Over time, more and more components will be built DC (DC long distance cables are already popular, due to being slightly cheaper. DC for electronics is popular due to AC being poorly suited to microprocessors/logic. DC sees wide use in cars. USB-C brings computer peripherals into the DC world).

Eventually, whenever two DC bits of power infrastructure are touching oneanother, someone will notice that removing the DC->AC->DC conversion steps saves money and increases efficiency.

Eventually enough bits of the grid will be DC that AC 'islanding' can occur - whenever every link from A to B is DC, there is nothing to keep the phase locked between place A and place B. Initially that will be solved with software locking means.

But finally maintaining that anti-islanding tech will be too costly, and all remaining bits of the AC grid will be removed.

But it's gonna take 100 years because grid tech changes slowly, and infrastructure like buried cables can be 70+ years years old.

avianlyric2• 2 years ago

Probably not. Spinning inertia and grid frequency are a core component of running a stable grid. Gives you a large store of energy that can absorb sudden spikes in demand or drops in supply, so systems have time to react before really bad things happen.

The grid frequency is an incredibly useful communication tool that allows any piece of equipment to easily and accurately measure the current health the overall grid, and automatically make adjustments to help balance and improve the health the of the grid (either by increasing or decreasing load/supply). Because the frequency is set by physically large spinning turbines it means it’s also a direct and inseparable measure of total grid health, not something that’s dependent on another system to monitor and communicate grid health.

It’s hard to overstate how much of our electricity grids depend on grid frequency, and one having thousands of systems monitoring and adapting to grid frequency, to remain as robust and stable as they are. In a DC world you don’t get that anymore, and keeping a grid balanced becomes substantially more complex requiring potentially unreliable side-channel communication to allow equipment on the grid to coordinate themselves. Its really hard to beat a system where one of it core fundamental attributes (frequency) needed for power transmission, is also the perfect attribute for distributed coordination of load and supply.

marcosdumay5• 2 years ago

Gives you a large store of energy that can absorb sudden spikes in demand or drops in supply, so systems have time to react before really bad things happen.

Capacitors do the same for DC. They are also more efficient and reliable.

The thing about a communication channel is true. But it will become true for AC after almost all of the generation becomes free of rotational inertia too (PV, modern wind, and batteries). And you need side-channel communication to decide what generator will take over what load right now.

reverendjames• 2 years ago

No.

rapjr9• 2 years ago

Vermont is considering installing Tesla Powerwalls for every home in the state to create distributed storage of power which they can then control to optimize the grid. Theoretically those Powerwalls could be fed with DC instead of AC and use their inverters to power each home with no need for grid synchronization. Each home would have its own AC frequency. One issue might be devices which use the grid frequency to run clocks. If the frequency in each home is different or drifts then clocks across the state might not tell the same time or get out of sync. I'm not sure how common grid synced clocks are any more, most clocks these days use a quartz crystal as a time reference instead of the grid. Industry will have to remain on the AC grid and they probably do use grid frequency for a variety of things, but there aren't inverters and batteries big enough to power the largest industries anyway. So perhaps a hybrid grid will develop, legacy AC for industry and DC for homes to remove one stage of conversion inefficiencies (both to the home and in feeding power back to the grid from the batteries). Seems like it would be easy to test this on a small scale to start with on a small group of homes.

lenerdenator2• 2 years ago

This will take expenditure that utility shareholders won't tolerate. Most of the electrical grid in the US gets used until it just can't work safely anymore, and the determinant of whether it can work safely is whether it has already caused a very hazardous condition that simply can't be ignored by the public-at-large.

They're not going to suddenly say, "Oh, sure, we can make a decent gain in efficiency by updating the grid, let's build those projects out."

doctorhandshake2• 2 years ago

My understanding is that utilities keep a percentage of the cost of capital improvements they make. This is because the utilities’ original arrangement from way back when was designed to incentivize the rollout of electricity as fast as possible. To that extent their incentive is actually to undertake the largest and most expensive development projects possible. The issue with distribution infrastructure as I understand it is not a lack of will or incentives on the utilities side but simply the difficulty in acquiring right of way and permitting.

lenerdenator2• 2 years ago

Most of the stuff that could be replaced exists in an easement. I don't have to agree to let my local utility upgrade my infrastructure.

Also, any time something "just works" and a business can charge someone to use it, they'll do that instead of actively working to improve the product, particularly if that product is a commodity and they have a monopoly on it. They've also leveraged regulatory capture to make sure that the public utility boards don't put a lot of pressure on them to make needed changes.

itishappy• 2 years ago

The article is about exactly that:

Normally, such a sudden loss would spell disaster for a small, islanded grid. But the Kauai grid has a feature that many larger grids lack: a technology called grid-forming inverters. An inverter converts direct-current electricity to grid-compatible alternating current. The island’s grid-forming inverters are connected to those battery systems, and they are a special type—in fact, they had been installed with just such a contingency in mind.
At the time of this writing, at least eight major grid-forming projects are either under construction or in operation in Australia, along with others in Asia, Europe, North America, and the Middle East.

Utilities are low margin businesses. Why wouldn't they jump at any opportunity to improve efficiencies?

spywaregorilla3• 2 years ago

It depends on the expected ROI of the investment

Utilities don't face competition so the efficiency gains have to speak for themselves. They can't gain marketshare.

vegetablepotpie2• 2 years ago

The article says we can build grid forming inverters, which can solve the reliability issues of highly renewable grids, and used Hawaii as an example of how to do this. These inverters are expensive. As a utility I can finance grid upgrades through corporate bonds or, or as you said, with investor money. Bonds need to be paid back in a defined time period, investors expect a ~10%/yr ROE, or else they do flee. As a utility, investments I make are financed through ratepayer funds. The problem has shifted from engineering, to financial, to political. I need to ask my states utility commission for a raise in rates. This hits on affordability issues, poverty etc. Who pays for it? Who benefits? This is determined by state elections.

akamaka• 2 years ago

They're not going to suddenly say, "Oh, sure, we can make a decent gain in efficiency by updating the grid, let's build those projects out."

That’s actually happening, though. One quarter of new capacity this year is battery systems:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/...

superboum2• 2 years ago

It seems the correlation between the article title ("Getting the Grid to Net Zero") and the subject that is actually discussed (maintaining a power grid stability in presence of inverters) is very weak.

Don't get me wrong: the article is very interesting. I really learnt something: I discovered "system inertia", I was not aware of stability issues linked to inverters, and did not know about grid-forming & grid-following inverters, and the research about finding the minimal amount of grid-forming to keep a power-grid stable in case of an issue in a given power plant. All of these topics are very interesting.

But making a connection between inverters and ecology through the "net zero" terms seems either off topic, misleading or irrelevant. First because this "net zero" term is heavily criticized as it means carbon are still emitted but companies are paying for carbon credits (that are not compensating at all the carbon emitted for many reasons [1]). Here building solar panels, wind turbines & batteries emits CO2, and their lifespan is relatively short (at most 10 years for batteries, ~25 years for wind turbines & solar panels, compared to hundreds of years for a dam[7]). Second because climate change is not the only concern about ecology, there are concerning questions about mineral resource extraction, like lithium[2] that is heavily used in batteries, but more generally, we are already extracting the whole Mendeleev periodic table[3]: we don't have alternative mineral resources for batteries or other technologies, the only solution is to extract, produce & consume less. Third, if your only goal is to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent (eqCO2), you should advertise nuclear power plant as the solution. Depending on studies, they produce the same amount or less eqCO2 compared to a wind turbine without batteries[4]. Of course, often eqCO2 is not the only important subject here (being renewable/sustainable is also important, and uranium is a limited resource). And finally, the fact we use renewable energy more and more did not lead to a worlwide energy transition, but an addition. Having a transition will require way more than technologies[5], something that is also not discussed here.

Speaking about solutions to pack a higher percentage of Intermittent renewable energy sources (IRES)[6] in a power-grid through the help of batteries and inverters would have been more accurate in my opinion. Maybe "Why we were not able to achieve 100% renewable energy before?" if you want to be catchy, and it's not perfect, as you are still hiding that you rely on lot of batteries, that are far from being renewable.

As a conclusion, I would say it would be great to be careful when engineers (here IEEE) discuss specific technologies (here power-grid inverters) to not draw conclusion too quickly (having a positive environmental impact), as it's far from being obvious. I know they want to be read, I know that the title must be catchy to attract readers, but it's not an excuse as illustrated above.

[1] https://demandclimatejustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/29/a-worldwide-lithium-shortage...

[3] https://www.euchems.eu/euchems-periodic-table/

[4] https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/news-releases/over-it...

[5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22146...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_renewable_energy

[7] https://www.power-technology.com/data-insights/power-plant-p...

LUmBULtERA2• 2 years ago

Where is your source that, e.g. LFP grid scale batteries only last at most 10 years?

superboum2• 2 years ago

First, there is no proof that "LFP grid scale batteries" last longer than regular batteries today as your question may imply.

It seems the first "grid scale batteries" were derived from EV batteries, and are planned for 1 or 2 decades[1].

Basically, we are discussing battery ageing here, which is a complex problem[2].

According to the different studies on the topic I found, mentioning specifically "large-scale" installation like the ones discussed here, the answer is definitely and deceptively the same: between 10 and 20 years[3][5]. More precisely.

From [3]:

To address the global effort to decrease carbon emissions, many consumers, corporations, and energy providers are adopting the use of electric vehicles and stationary energy storage systems paired with renewable electricity generation. These systems often utilize large-format lithium-ion batteries [...]. Real-world battery lifetime is evaluated by simulating residential energy storage and commercial frequency containment reserve systems in several U.S. climate regions. Predicted lifetime across cell types varies from 7 years to 20+ years, though all cells are predicted to have at least 10 year life in certain conditions.

From [5]:

In the 2020 report, calendar life for both LFP and NMC Li-ion systems was stated as 10 years. The 2022 report takes additional information from long-term laboratory work (Saft, 2021) and product data into account (Baxter, 2021b) to establish new calendar lives of 16 years for LFP and 13 years for NMC. The calendar life is unchanged for 2030.

I also claim that battery are not renewable. One might argue that, if we can recycle batteries like we recycle regular glass, it could be considered as renewable. However, today there are 2 industrialized processes that are not satisfying (pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical processing) which "require high energy, and/or complex wet-chemistry steps"[4]. Some explored processes called "direct recycling"[4], which also has severe drawbacks but at least is more promising.

Which makes me think: we are, at least, making huge bets on the future here, as we risk 1) having huge amount of aged batteries in 1 or 2 decades, 2) no more mineral resources to extract.

[1] https://www.quora.com/How-long-do-grid-storage-batteries-las...

[2] https://cea.hal.science/cea-01791260/document

[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S23521...

[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X2...

[5] https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/ESGC%20C...

cal5k3• 2 years ago

Reaching net-zero-carbon emissions by 2050, as many international organizations now insist is necessary to stave off dire climate consequences, will require a rapid and massive shift in electricity-generating infrastructures.

Vaclav Smil's excellent analysis on this is worth reading: https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/glob...

The tl;dr is that net zero by 2050 would require all major economies to spend 15-20% of GDP for the next 26 years uninterrupted. For reference, the entire US federal budget was around 23.7% of GDP in 2023.

It simply is not going to happen, and pretending it will greatly undermines the pragmatic conversations we should be having about adaptation.

I think there's a strong optimistic case that the private sector can get us there by 2100 or so - lots of fundamental advancements can happen in that timeframe - but hamfisted government policy in the EU and America that blunts economic growth will mean there's less money to spend on solving these problems in the future.

titzer3• 2 years ago

I think there's a strong optimistic case that the private sector can get us there by 2100 or so

So, never. The private sector has been dragged kicking and screaming to where we are now; Oil CEOs today are still resisting calls to decarbonize (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/ceraweek-big-oil-exe...) like it's the 1990s. Trillions in corporate sharedholder value are diametrically opposed to transitioning. They have vested interests, and a massive sunk cost with the current fossil fuel economy. We are so utterly screwed.

that blunts economic growth

While economies have somewhat decoupled carbon from economic growth, putting economic growth as a master priority above all others is exactly what got us here and looking increasingly like a bad move.

bluGill• 2 years ago

There is more than oilin the private sector. No surprise oil is resisting, but others are not.

idiotsecant• 2 years ago

Yes, private industry is famously very good at solving existential threats to the species when solving those problems also results in a loss in the quarterly earnings.

stetrain4• 2 years ago

Yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

olau• 2 years ago

Here are some things Smil gets wrong:

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/11/13/what-does-bill-gates-fa...

IEA has historically been bad at forecasting renewables.

The GDP numbers you mention are very far from the studies I've seen over the years.

I've been following debates about renewables for probably 15 years. Most common objections are: It's too expensive, it's impossible, it's not worth doing anything about, we should wait until later to do anything about it.

The truth is that the transition is happening, we have most of the things in place we need, and the rest we'll develop as we go along - they are mostly not developed much because their big market opportunity hasn't happened yet.

specialist2• 2 years ago

The truth is that the transition is happening

Emphatic agreement. Now it's a choice between faster (more Bidenomics) or slower (rear-guard obstruction by the loyal opposition).

the rest we'll develop as we go along

Yes and:

Per Saul Griffith and others, we have the tools today to achieve net zero. The primary hurdles are legal, capacity, and financing. Not technology.

For example, there's a huge backlog of renewable energy just waiting to join the power grid. But the utilities remain loyal to natural gas, refuse to upgrade or expand.

IIRC, the 4 major categories of (human) CO2 pollution are transportation, manufacturing, buildings, and agriculture.

We now have the tech to achieve net zero for all but agricultural.

Successor legislation (BBB/IRA 2, 3, 4, etc) must address agricultural. And the stubbornly carbon-based industry segments, like "fast fashion", which alone accounts for > 2% of CO2 pollution (and growing).

cal5k3• 2 years ago

From that article:

Primary energy demand is going to shrink, not grow.

What? Absolutely nobody is predicting a shrinking primary energy demand. You can hand-wave and say "yeah but electrification", but nobody is predicting a decline in global demand before 2050, if at all this century. I'd argue that demand will more than make up for the efficiency gains as we've seen in the past - look at the growth in deployment of electricity-hungry GPUs as one example of robust demand growth.

It also doesn't matter if US demand shrinks if China and India more than make up the difference. The planet doesn't care what country CO2 emissions come from.

The truth is that the transition is happening

Who said otherwise? Nobody is arguing that renewables aren't growing.

Vaclav Smil's argument is that historical evidence strongly suggests that primary energy transitions take a lot longer than people want to think, and even as the renewable share of energy is growing the absolute demand for fossil fuels is still increasing. Again, the planet doesn't care about relative share.

People who believe the future will somehow be different from the past (like you) need to provide extraordinary evidence for why they believe this will be the case, and there is none. Installing solar panels, or wind turbines, or upgrading distribution lines, or selling electric vehicles all do not follow any kind of Moores law-like curve, so what factors would drive future results to be different?

Maybe robots will install solar panels faster than humans? Like what's the thesis here?

You can live in a fantasy world and cling to wishful thinking, but it will be a great recipe for mass disillusionment when activists are selling a vision of the future that is at odds with reality.

silverquiet• 2 years ago

I'm beginning to believe that the continued existence of humanity (let alone human civilization) requires net zero by way sooner than 2050. Kurt Vonnegut may be proved right after all that we'll go extinct because of economics.

thelastgallon• 2 years ago

Vaclav Smil's excellent analysis on this is worth reading: https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/glob...

While a good read, I'm not sure how anyone can take this seriously. He says " Efficiency gains from the electrification of industrial processes would vary widely, and not all of them could be electrified. And there will be negligible gains for space heating , with 100% efficiency for electric resistance heating compared to as much as 93-99% for modern gas furnaces (Lennox 2023)."

Heat pumps have a COP of 1.5 - 4, which are eventually going to replace all heating/cooling. He does not consider efficiency from heat pumps at all.

Two thirds of fossil fuel energy is wasted: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2023-10/U...

Electrification is efficient and the transition won't need as much: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electrification-en...

Denvercoder9• 2 years ago

hamfisted government policy in the EU and America that blunts economic growth will mean there's less money to spend on solving these problems in the future.

Disasters brought on by climate change that blunt economic growth will also mean there's less money to spend on solving these problems in the future.

stetrain4• 2 years ago

What would motivate the private sector to solve the problem?

What economic incentive does a specific company have to make decisions that may negatively impact its short term earnings to address a global issue that will manifest slowly over the course of a century?

What if the "economically sustainable" path to net zero by 2100 results in existential issues for large parts of the human population, food supply, etc? There is an economic cost to allowing the climate to continue on its current path and actually net zero doesn't necessarily reverse that change, it just prevents its continued acceleration. If the "economically sustainable" path results in the destruction of the economy, then it's no longer sustainable.

prewett2• 2 years ago

What would motivate the private sector to solve the problem?

Money.

Cost of grid-solar is somewhere between 50% - 70% of coal and the trend is decreasing renewable cost. [1] If you are a utility, what is the next plant you are going to install? If you can get solar for a fraction of the cost of a coal plant, it's a pretty easy decision. Plus, you can probably keep the rates the same and pass on that savings to your shareholders.

Every time I visit family in Oklahoma I see more and more wind farms. Texas is has one of the highest level of renewable energy. These are states that have a knee-jerk opposition to "the liberal agenda", and yet Texas the largest producer of renewable energy (solar + wind handily beats California), and the most "anti-liberal" red states are generating the most renewable energy: Oklahoma (42%), Kansas (47%), Iowa (60%), S. Dakota (57%).

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz...

[2] https://www.fool.com/research/renewable-energy-by-state/ (switch to the second tab for percentages)

zackmorris• 2 years ago

Nonsense. And also I find it rather amusing that technologists so passionately predict exponential innovation in all areas of science except for sustainability. If you want to find the truth, it's best to discount propaganda from banks like JPMorgan Chase. Blaming the government for slowing economic growth instead of corporations, in this age of unrestrained late stage crony capitalism and neoliberalism, is not a great look either.

What I see coming is that the powers that be will crash the global economy and ignite more proxy wars in the next 6 months before the US presidential election to throw it and cement minority rule for as many more years as possible. That looks like sewing suspicion around such basic American values as democracy. Because we're all struggling so hard just to survive that we turn on each other instead of the owner class which funds most tech companies and even HN itself.

I can't really blame them, as they have the power. This is all just a big game to them, as they dip into our money supply to ratchet up their fortunes at perhaps 1% per day whenever they need money, through stock market algorithmic trading which we don't have access to.

So it makes little sense to talk about societal investment when over 50% of Americans no longer have any disposable income to speak of. Regulatory capture has sunk what was once our retirement and social safety net into a $30+ trillion national debt paid as treasury yield to the same wealthy financiers who are buying up over 40% of US homes through private equity groups to convert us to a renter society.

It would cost next to nothing to convert to a solar grid-tie infrastructure amortized over a decade, with positive dividends paid back to all of us after that. But they won't even give us nothing to spend, they just keep us perpetually in debt so we can't improve our situation at even the most basic level.

https://www.tiktok.com/@r4ultra/video/7350811129926536478

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-singl...

hackerlight3• 2 years ago

I'll save you all a click. Vaclav Smil doesn't do any analysis around costings. He pulls the figure from a Mckinsey report[1] (now 2 years old) and multiplies it by 2. To have a meaningful discussion about this, you would have to read the Mckinsey report and understand the input assumptions. In particular, what are the assumptions around cost curves?

[1] https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functio...

0xbadcafebee2• 2 years ago

FWIW "Net Zero" is using carbon offsets to have "net output" of zero carbon emissions, but you can still emit as much carbon as you can buy credits for. Credits have been widely regarded as ineffectual and even worsening carbon emissions, deforestation etc.

Some utilities now have programs where you can pay them extra money "to get a portion of your power from a clean energy source". This money is used effectively to buy carbon credits. So they're asking customers to subsidize them in not needing to eliminate carbon emissions.

Actually not emitting carbon is what some utilities now call "real zero". But their commitments to "real zero" are a long ways away, and they're just corporate goals & in no way binding.

berkes• 2 years ago

This is made worse by the sheer, but actual, complexity that surrounds all this. Especially the "scopes¹".

So someone buying and selling, say, diesel in solar-powered-fuel stations, can still have "net zero" because they themselves don't emit, but both the people buying it, and the companies producing it, still emit immense amounts of carbon.

Which is then a very easy way to "greenwash" your business. To have marketing, that's not even a lie, but still being very misleading.

(I used to build accounting software for carbon emission accounting, it's way, way more complex that this diesel-example)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_accounting#Frameworks_a...

jgraham• 2 years ago

Technically the difference between "net zero" and "carbon neutral" is supposed to be that "net zero" first eliminates all but "residual" emissions, and only then depends on offsets, whereas "carbon neutral" is more like what you describe (no required emissions cuts; possible to just buy — often dubious — offsets).

Science Based Targets Initiative for example requires companies signing up to their scheme to have credible plans to cut emissions by ~50% by 2030 and 90% by 2050 to claim that they're aiming for "net zero" [1] (SBTI itself was recently in the news because employees felt that recent policy changes leaned too heavily on offsetting; I don't really know what the current situation there is).

In practice usage of these terms my not be well regulated, so it's always worth checking out exactly whose definitions are being used.

[1] sciencebasedtargets.org/blog/net-zero-jargon-buster-a-guide-to-common-terms

Loughla• 2 years ago

When we tried to install solar panels, one of the MANY roadblocks our coop put in the way was that we had to opt out of additional charges for carbon credits before they would begin processing the solar installation.

So because we applied for a solar inspection to have solar installed, we were automatically enrolled in a program that costs us more money, for their carbon offsets. And they were selling it to us as if that's just the same as us installing solar panels.

Garbage. And that was just one of about a dozen different blocks they have as part of their process.

If I lived somewhere with other utility providers, I would tell them to fuck right off.

hedora• 2 years ago

Net zero would make sense if there were some sort of legal backing to it.

I’ll happily pay $100 for a ton of carbon if it comes with a video of it being captured from the atmosphere (or reasonable chain of custody documentation) and it’s delivered to me in the form of biologically inert bricks.

In fact, we have some trees we haven’t cut down this year in the back yard. I’d happily sell you some bullshit carbon capture credits in exchange for not cutting them down next year if I could then convert that money into atmospheric carbon capture bricks. (It’d be more tax efficient for you to buy the brick directly though…)

MisterDizzy3• 2 years ago

These discussions are starting to worry me. There isn't much point to talking about the climate until we can start looking at this issue as a matter of "how do we increase human flourishing," which should be a universal goal for all of us.

But instead, we focus on the far less feasible "how can we stop people from using so much post-industrial technology?" People aren't going to use less energy, especially since radical consumption cutbacks of the sort that Europe sometimes attempts do seem to reduce the quality of human life, sometimes pretty radically. It seems like most people think the priority that matters is "doing what's good for the planet" while essentially disregarding the effect it has on human beings and their ability to survive and thrive.

Unless you want people to die every winter and summer, the goal when talking about climate and energy should not be ""save the planet, humans are a plague, the planet would be better without us!"", it should be to maximize human flourishing. If we can't agree that human flourishing is a worthy goal, we have to step back, waaay back, and reevaluate why we're even having this discussion to begin with.

If we really do think "humans are a plague and the planet would be better without us," things might get pretty terrifying pretty quickly. Who does that benefit? What is the end goal of that mindset?

We can't abide by anti-humanist ways of "solving" problems. If we focus on human flourishing, everyone will get closer to what they want.

Unless, of course, what they want is to decrease human flourishing.

Also, any alternative energy discussion that doesn't include nuclear isn't serious about solving the problem, just kneecapping current trends in energy production. The case against nuclear is mostly ill-informed in my experience. Nuclear, the latest version of which is far safer and more feasible, will be the future, it's just a matter of who in the world will get to it first.

mistermann• 2 years ago

Sir: surely you aren't suggesting that The Humans are going about this whole thing wrong, are you? Because that would be crazy.

hackerlight3• 2 years ago

  > But instead, we focus on the far less feasible "how can we stop people from using so much post-industrial technology?"

That's a strawman. I assume you're taking about degrowth loons on social media. Why would you do that?

In the real world, policymakers and center-left political parties (and center-right parties outside of the US) do not want people to stop using technology.

What policymakers are trying to do is shift from one technology (oil and gas) to another technology (firmed renewables or nuclear).

The reason for this is to maximize human flourishing by preventing wet bulb temperatures near the equator from becoming too large relative to the 31-35 degree survivability limit, among other consequences which you can read about elsewhere.

MisterDizzy3• 2 years ago

There are a lot of assumptions taken for granted in there. But sure, less technology is not the real goal, that's not a good way to phrase it, good point.

I suppose the better way to say it would be that the goal is less energy use and lower quality of life. But the important part is that nobody who is pushing that sort of cutback from a position of power actually buys what they're selling. They just want the lesser people below them to buy it. As for why they want that, I'm not sure.

briantakita2• 2 years ago

These discussions are starting to worry me. There isn't much point to talking about the climate until we can start looking at this issue as a matter of "how do we increase human flourishing," which should be a universal goal for all of us.

Whatever you do, do not mention that the US Military & MIC is the #1 producer of CO2. And do not suggest that we reduce the CO2 emissions of the US military & MIC. It will make the people here angry. We can tolerate a little bit of talk about private jets flying into Davos. With each per capita attendee using the CO2 of >1000 people * years. So they can talk about "saving the planet". But not too much.

Rules for thee but not for me. Own nothing & be happy. Do not forget that.

MisterDizzy3• 2 years ago

Precisely. The people who tell you that you must radically cut back "for the planet" do not believe what they are selling, but they do think it would be very good for them if you believed it (and it would be).

ZeroGravitas• 2 years ago

Not vital to the larger point but:

to have any hope of achieving this goal would require the addition, every year, of 630 gigawatts of solar photovoltaics and 390 GW of wind starting no later than 2030—figures that are around four times as great as than any annual tally so far.

But according to Bloomberg:

developers deployed 444 GW of new PV capacity throughout the world in 2023.

So rather than 25% towards the 2030 goal we are 66% there on PV.

Bloomberg continues:

It says new installations could reach 574 GW this year, 627 GW in 2025, and 880 GW in 2030.

So hitting the target 5 years ahead of schedule by this estimate.

Krssst• 2 years ago

Bloomberg seems to be talking about capacity (does not take into account capacity factor, only max output when it's sunny), maybe the article is talking of average actual production? (which is between three and four times lower as far as I know)

sega_sai• 2 years ago

It's a really interesting article. It does not really talk about Net zero much, but it talks more about reliability of grids that are fed by renewables and do not have classical generators.

Getting the Grid to Net Zero

Related Stories