So his answer confirms the hunch you get just from book name "fossil future". He is milquetoast on energy policy. Not future looking at all.
He says "in next 40-50 years" and "fossil fuels "together. This is not future I am interested in
I personally for full nuclear energy+ hydrogen (as more efficient carrier than batteries). In next 10 -15 years. Thats the future.
And it will happen. Because its 2023. We already have alphazero, midjourney and chatgpt, dancing robots , blockchain , starlink and traveling wave reactors. We are living in the future its only that majority of humans are still thinking in the past.
But world will move because its not them who determine it, but 1-5% who live and think in the future. And we have better tools and now AI to help make dreams the reality .
Noah is not serious about energy future, he claims productivity stagnation is due to expensive energy and thinks that solar, wind and batteries can fix this while ignoring the fact that fossil and nuclear are expensive because of regulation by governments and lately ESG rules championed by the WEF.
The obvious issue is that fossil fuel technology is CURRENTLY useful and will remain so for a long time but economic incentives to replacing fossil fuels has been virtually non-existent while the cost to changing them has only recently been punctuated. Like most of the political arguments, throw out the polemics. I’m REALLY glad the energy industry is diversifying in the face of several years of subsidies and public sentiment (for either Green, energy independence, or STEM leadership reasons). I won’t suffer idiots who want to pull the plug on renewable incentives any more than the idiots who foolishing want to cut the pipeline to our current reality.
Alas, thinking that the instantiation of any government alone is not a direct distortion of any existing market, one has not been thinking hard enough. The entire point of a government is to distort, regulate, or otherwise protect and encourage markets, starting with private property. We have a governement where the most basic duty is protection of liberty, personal property, and security. To not recognize energy independence in a globaly expanding market demonstrating repeated supply shocks is again, a symptom of not thinking hard enough. Nevermind, “market distorting”. Next time, I’ll think of something more thoughtful, creative and exacting than just “idiots”. We can all do better.
By your definition, I'm an idiot. Thanks for clarifying. Basically, you seem to be saying that there are existing distortions in the market (and because energy is really important) more distortions are so important it would be idiotic to oppose them. Sounds far more statist than I expected.
Perovskite solar seems to offer further significant price reductions, in the neighborhood of 2.5 times current $.4 per watt cost, but at some point installation of the plant costs become a larger share of the expense, the key is to see installation costs fall in addition to the panels themselves (this conundrum seems to by why the advertised expense its a far cry from the installed cost at my house, so I remain on grid ATM). Also in batteries I'm curious to see if iron oxide batteries live up to the hype, they would certainly overcome the grid objections (given their costs are estimated to be a factor ten lower than lithium ion). As is the case with most technologies, in the short run their impact is overestimated, but underestimated in the long run. Like those who wrote of graphene, despite the fact that its actually started to make its way into a number of commercial products more recently, in a decade or two I think we will all wonder how we ever lived without it! The real question is where solar is at currently give it enough of a leg up to overcome the advantages of nuclear fusion. Helion seems very impressive in this field, provided we can bypass heat turbines this will be as big of a leap as the internal combustion engine. The early results from MIT's SPARC are impressive as well, the high temperature superconductors seem to be performing as their initial research predicted which will see us push into the 10+ Q factor range. However MIT's ARC will produce juice via a heat turbine, so its really more of a proof of concept.
One could be excused to have forgotten that energy/economic independence and STEM leadership to face 21st century a global consumption crunch was ever a thing. Really, is the most narrow reading of this work that some reporters conflate cost reductions to renewable hardware with the actual cost of total system delivery that depends on reserves of hydrocarbons in absense of better battery technology?
I see a lot of liberals saying they support nuclear now, but so few people will say they support fossil fuels. We have been brainwashed into thinking of them as icky. Alex Epstein is one the rare people who will unapologetically defend fossil fuels, pointing out how crucial they are to modern civilization. This is why it is especially important that he wrote "Fossil Future" and not "Nuclear Future".
So his answer confirms the hunch you get just from book name "fossil future". He is milquetoast on energy policy. Not future looking at all.
He says "in next 40-50 years" and "fossil fuels "together. This is not future I am interested in
I personally for full nuclear energy+ hydrogen (as more efficient carrier than batteries). In next 10 -15 years. Thats the future.
And it will happen. Because its 2023. We already have alphazero, midjourney and chatgpt, dancing robots , blockchain , starlink and traveling wave reactors. We are living in the future its only that majority of humans are still thinking in the past.
But world will move because its not them who determine it, but 1-5% who live and think in the future. And we have better tools and now AI to help make dreams the reality .
This is why neither.
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/repost-why-im-so-excited-about-solar?utm_medium=email
Noah is not serious about energy future, he claims productivity stagnation is due to expensive energy and thinks that solar, wind and batteries can fix this while ignoring the fact that fossil and nuclear are expensive because of regulation by governments and lately ESG rules championed by the WEF.
The obvious issue is that fossil fuel technology is CURRENTLY useful and will remain so for a long time but economic incentives to replacing fossil fuels has been virtually non-existent while the cost to changing them has only recently been punctuated. Like most of the political arguments, throw out the polemics. I’m REALLY glad the energy industry is diversifying in the face of several years of subsidies and public sentiment (for either Green, energy independence, or STEM leadership reasons). I won’t suffer idiots who want to pull the plug on renewable incentives any more than the idiots who foolishing want to cut the pipeline to our current reality.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying that people who oppose market-distorting subsidies are idiots?
Alas, thinking that the instantiation of any government alone is not a direct distortion of any existing market, one has not been thinking hard enough. The entire point of a government is to distort, regulate, or otherwise protect and encourage markets, starting with private property. We have a governement where the most basic duty is protection of liberty, personal property, and security. To not recognize energy independence in a globaly expanding market demonstrating repeated supply shocks is again, a symptom of not thinking hard enough. Nevermind, “market distorting”. Next time, I’ll think of something more thoughtful, creative and exacting than just “idiots”. We can all do better.
By your definition, I'm an idiot. Thanks for clarifying. Basically, you seem to be saying that there are existing distortions in the market (and because energy is really important) more distortions are so important it would be idiotic to oppose them. Sounds far more statist than I expected.
Perovskite solar seems to offer further significant price reductions, in the neighborhood of 2.5 times current $.4 per watt cost, but at some point installation of the plant costs become a larger share of the expense, the key is to see installation costs fall in addition to the panels themselves (this conundrum seems to by why the advertised expense its a far cry from the installed cost at my house, so I remain on grid ATM). Also in batteries I'm curious to see if iron oxide batteries live up to the hype, they would certainly overcome the grid objections (given their costs are estimated to be a factor ten lower than lithium ion). As is the case with most technologies, in the short run their impact is overestimated, but underestimated in the long run. Like those who wrote of graphene, despite the fact that its actually started to make its way into a number of commercial products more recently, in a decade or two I think we will all wonder how we ever lived without it! The real question is where solar is at currently give it enough of a leg up to overcome the advantages of nuclear fusion. Helion seems very impressive in this field, provided we can bypass heat turbines this will be as big of a leap as the internal combustion engine. The early results from MIT's SPARC are impressive as well, the high temperature superconductors seem to be performing as their initial research predicted which will see us push into the 10+ Q factor range. However MIT's ARC will produce juice via a heat turbine, so its really more of a proof of concept.
One could be excused to have forgotten that energy/economic independence and STEM leadership to face 21st century a global consumption crunch was ever a thing. Really, is the most narrow reading of this work that some reporters conflate cost reductions to renewable hardware with the actual cost of total system delivery that depends on reserves of hydrocarbons in absense of better battery technology?
I see a lot of liberals saying they support nuclear now, but so few people will say they support fossil fuels. We have been brainwashed into thinking of them as icky. Alex Epstein is one the rare people who will unapologetically defend fossil fuels, pointing out how crucial they are to modern civilization. This is why it is especially important that he wrote "Fossil Future" and not "Nuclear Future".