​
[Solar is getting cheaper. Fast!](https://preview.redd.it/m8zvij3vkclc1.jpg?width=1023&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d42f3da222e9218b22ee7af291c8d3f50fe15f60)
So after reading the article linked in [https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/1b24vbh/unsustainable\_goose\_chases/](https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/1b24vbh/unsustainable_goose_chases/) I figured that it’s time to counter the massive ~~cess~~pool of energy-related doomerism, degrowthism, elitism and downright eugenical nihilism that is rampant on this sub.
Please read [https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/11/radical-energy-abundance/](https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/11/radical-energy-abundance/) An amazing article on the way we will why capitalism will be the thing that saves us from the energy and climate troubles that were started by that exact capitalism.
**TLDR:**
1. Solar is getting so cheap, that within this very decade it will be cheaper than energy in dino juice pumped from the ground.
2. This will make it economical to make burnable fuel from air CO2 to supply legacy ICE engines. Any hydrocarbon can be made this way via Fischer-Tropsch process.
3. This can be rapidly scaled up to replace virtually all oil and natgas(author gives 19 years timescale), while our economy slowly being electrified.
4. He touches the problem of mineral supply for making PV panels – non-open-pit ultra deep and automated mining that becomes easy with energy abundance.
5. Energy availability will drive economic growth across the globe with speeds unseen since the 60s, yet achieved everywhere, with real global poverty reduction.
I’d definitely read the whole thing, TLDR is way too short to make an impression.
Also here is a list of his best resources on the topic: [https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-energy-reading-list/](https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-energy-reading-list/)
Source: Signal_Pattern7869
13 Comments
You are using logic, that goes out the window when money and politics are concerned. You make money how you can, not necessarily the best way possible.
“He touches the problem of mineral supply for making PV panels – non-open-pit ultra deep and automated mining that becomes easy with energy abundance.”
There is a bit of a bootstrap problem in this statement.
It seems like humans will use as much energy as we can until that source is depleted.
Can you or this Casey person point to an energy source that humans use less of today than 50 or 100 years ago for reasons other than depletion?
Why wouldn’t we use all the fossils and all the renewables at the same time?
Many r/energy participants find a blog and become inspired.
If you want go deeper suggest NREL in the US and Princeton paths to zero.
In the bigger question, there are steady state economics writers. Humans are smart and adaptable so they adapt and substitute.
Entrenched economic interests deny adaption and substitution, then they issue press releases to preserve their business models for a short time.
Sore wa dou kana? Do you think prices would solar would drop so substantially that solar power would be the cheapest form of energy in Russia in 2027?
In 2030, solar is the cheapest form of energy in Greenland. I would love to massive solar deployments in Iqaluit in 2030. Ha!
You are delusional if you think capitalism will be the thing that ‘saves us’.
Already in the home of capitalism (USA) we see utilities and their political allies banning and punishing renewable energy to the point that it is uneconomical to install.
You also see a ridiculous ‘trade war’ with China, not for ethical reasons but simply for protectionism. The surge of PV renewable installations happening elsewhere in the world is stunted due to USA cutting off supply from the largest producer.
In Australia FF generators will up their prices by 10 or 100x during rare events that demand starts to outstrip supply. Are these prices justifiable? FF utilities also continue producing during the daytime glut, forcing prices negative and attempting to pressure renewable producers into switching off.
Politicians growing some balls and doing what is best for long term survivability of their electorate, i.e. encouraging/prioritising the net-zero transition, is what will save us. They don’t have a great track record though.
Not only can solar not provide energy (or much energy) for the majority of the day, it produces the least when our energy demands are particularly high. We’re not talking about putting solar panels on vacant land and roofs, we’re talking about massively overhauling our energy grid, incredible amounts of battery storage and huge losses in efficiency not accounted for when producing burnable fuel from CO2.
Oil prices are around $85 today. Saudi Arabia produces oil for less than $10 a barrel, some estimates put it at less than $5. Should solar become significantly cheaper than oil (which is by no means certain as reductions in price slow), oil demand will fall, which will drop oil prices, therefore creating more demand. There is a LOT of room for prices to fall before we use significantly less.
While the climate doomers are often delusional, it’s also delusional to believe that we will achieve energy abundance by 2042.
Radical energy isn’t the best headline, I was worried we were all about to get Irradiated
If this were a workable idea, why aren’t we already doing it on a smaller scale? There’s an active resistance to a carbon market
Energy abundance by 2042? Yes.
Abundant synthetic materials via renewable energy including some synthetic hydrocarbons? Yes.
I’m not so sure there will be much concern with legacy ICE engines outside of aerospace/military/hobbist~curator stuff though.
> This will make it economical to make burnable fuel from air CO2 to supply legacy ICE engines
Author is in this business. Doing this is has only short term usefulness, and involves extra expense/energy for CO2 capture, and chemistry reactions with H2. H2, and carbon free H2 molecules are going to have a cost edge over synfuels.
Redesigning vehicles, especially planes, around H2 is going to use cheaper fuel. Fuel cells providing electric power also means hybrids with batteries working better.
I live in The Netherlands, we have very cloudy winters with little to no sunshine.
My solar panels produce nothing at night an nearly nothing in the winter.
How much will solar energy cost in our winter and in our nights? If it is “cheap” – HOW?
Do we get solar panels that work at night? Thank you!
>Solar is getting so cheap, that within this very decade it will be cheaper than energy in dino juice pumped from the ground.
Irrelevant as long as public charging prices make driving a diesel car far cheaper than an BEV.
>This will make it economical to make burnable fuel from air CO2 to supply legacy ICE engines. Any hydrocarbon can be made this way via Fischer-Tropsch process.
What does it matter past the year 2065? Irrelevant to our year 2024.
>This can be rapidly scaled up to
It can NOT. Look up the timelines and changed targets for some 0.01% of FT fuels addition mandates by 2035 or something like that.
>He touches the problem of mineral supply for making PV panels – non-open-pit ultra deep
That has nothing, literally nothing to do with solar panels. Sand and bauxite are a major mineral resource input for a solar panel.
>Energy availability will drive economic growth across the globe with speeds unseen since the 60s, yet achieved everywhere, with real global poverty reduction
It won’t. Too late for that. We have a housing crisis we won’t get out of, and there is **demographic crisis** we won’t get out of.
The grossest part of this whole thing is the way the author tries to leverage the poverty of the global south to shroud this VC funded non-sense in a high-minded gown of humanitarianism.
>But cheap fuel is equivalent to reduced poverty. The default climate discourse in recent years has been congruent to an acceptance that curtailing CO2 emissions would require the regrettable but ultimately impersonal de-industrialization and re-impoverishment of most of the world, which is both morally repugnant and politically impossible to achieve without first use of nuclear weapons. My controversial position is: We shouldn’t do this.
We only need to look to our most recent global crisis to see what would happen, COVID-19 vaccines.
Humanity has a crisis on its hands, millions are dying, the global economy is in shambles, we need a miracle moon-shot (or earth-shot, so clever) vaccine. It is critical to get a vaccine fast enough to build herd immunity through something other than infections.
Scientists around the world do the impossible and have a vaccine ready in under 12 months (first in history), using cutting edge methods. Factories start pumping them out and the rich part of the world is saturated with vaccines in 12 months, anyone who wants one can have one.
The parallels to capitalist abundant energy ideas are striking
* Vaccines are cheap to produce (marginal vaccine is less than a $3)
* Primary benefit to recipients is huge
* Secondary benefits to the global north are huge (COVID not becoming endemic & slowing mutation rate)
It is obvious we should make them available to the entire world even at low or no cost. Obviously, it would be better if vaccines were distributed around the world equally to reduce mutation rates, but I am not an ideological extremist, I can bend to accommodate some of the nationalist and capitalist’s desires. Sure, let the people who paid for the development go first. Sure, the companies should make their money back after all that expensive work of co-opting publicly funded research.
What do we see for the global poor, less than 50% with a single dose as of 2024. The UN program for distributing vaccines to poor people is ended Dec 2023 around the time rich countries stopped paying attention. Better luck next time global poor, I’m sure capitalism will work out for you eventually; unless chasing returns is inherent to capitalism in which case poor people will always be a bad investment.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations