A new study published in Joule finds that relying on carbon capture and storage (CCS) to decarbonize the electric grid is significantly more expensive than transitioning to renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. Researchers modeled various decarbonization scenarios and discovered that even with optimistic assumptions about CCS cost reductions, renewables coupled with battery storage offer a cheaper pathway to a carbon-free grid. This cost difference stems from the inherent energy intensity of capturing, transporting, and storing carbon dioxide, adding extra operational expenses compared to simply generating clean electricity in the first place.
Starting a city-owned utility is a viable option for municipalities seeking more control over energy prices and reliability. The article uses the example of several Northern California cities exploring the creation of a public power agency, highlighting how it could provide cheaper, cleaner energy than incumbent investor-owned utilities. By leveraging existing infrastructure and focusing on bulk power purchases, cities can significantly reduce costs, potentially offering substantial savings for residents and businesses while facilitating the transition to renewable energy sources. This approach also allows for greater local control over energy policy and priorities, aligning with community goals for sustainability and affordability.
HN commenters generally support the idea of municipally-owned utilities, citing potential benefits like lower costs, greater local control, and faster deployment of renewables. Some raise concerns about the complexities and costs involved in starting a new utility, including navigating regulations and acquiring infrastructure. Several comments highlight existing successful municipal utilities as examples, while others emphasize the need for careful planning and execution to avoid mismanagement. The potential conflict of interest between a city government both regulating and operating a utility is also noted. A few commenters express skepticism about the feasibility and efficiency of such ventures compared to existing private utilities, citing potential bureaucratic inefficiencies. Some suggest that community choice aggregation (CCA) might be a better alternative to starting a completely new utility.
UK electricity bills are high due to a confluence of factors. Wholesale gas prices, heavily influencing electricity generation costs, have surged globally. The UK's reliance on gas-fired power plants exacerbates this impact. Government policies, including carbon taxes and renewable energy subsidies, add further costs, although their contribution is often overstated. Network costs, covering infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, also play a significant role. While renewable energy sources like wind and solar have lower operating costs, the upfront investment and intermittency require system balancing with gas, limiting their immediate impact on overall prices.
HN commenters generally agree that UK electricity bills are high due to a confluence of factors. Several point to the increased reliance on natural gas, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, as a primary driver. Others highlight the UK's "green levies" adding to the cost, though there's debate about their overall impact. Some argue that the privatization of the energy market has led to inefficiency and profiteering, while others criticize the government's handling of the energy crisis. The lack of sufficient investment in nuclear energy and other alternatives is also mentioned as a contributing factor to the high prices. A few commenters offer comparisons to other European countries, noting that while prices are high across Europe, the UK seems particularly affected. Finally, the inherent inefficiencies of relying on intermittent renewable energy sources are also brought up.
The "World Grid" concept proposes a globally interconnected network for resource sharing, focusing on energy, logistics, and data. This interconnectedness would foster greater cooperation and resource optimization across geopolitical boundaries, enabling nations to collaborate on solutions for climate change, resource scarcity, and economic development. By pooling resources and expertise, the World Grid aims to increase efficiency and resilience while addressing global challenges more effectively than isolated national efforts. This framework challenges traditional geopolitical divisions, suggesting a more integrated and collaborative future.
Hacker News users generally reacted to "The World Grid" proposal with skepticism. Several commenters questioned the political and logistical feasibility of such a massive undertaking, citing issues like land rights, international cooperation, and maintenance across diverse geopolitical landscapes. Others pointed to the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources and the challenges of long-distance transmission, suggesting that distributed generation and storage might be more practical. Some argued that the focus should be on reducing energy consumption rather than building massive new infrastructure. A few commenters expressed interest in the concept but acknowledged the immense hurdles involved in its realization. Several users also debated the economic incentives and potential benefits of such a grid, with some highlighting the possibility of arbitrage and others questioning the overall cost-effectiveness.
Summary of Comments ( 48 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43058997
HN commenters are generally skeptical of carbon capture, viewing it as a distraction from the necessary transition to renewable energy. Many see it as a way for fossil fuel companies to maintain the status quo, pointing out its high cost and energy requirements. Some believe the focus should be on reducing emissions rather than trying to capture them after the fact. The practicality and scalability of carbon capture are also questioned, with commenters highlighting the immense infrastructure required and the lack of proven, effective technologies. A few suggest that carbon capture could play a niche role in hard-to-decarbonize industries, but not as a primary climate solution. There's also discussion about the misleading nature of "net-zero" targets that rely heavily on unproven carbon capture technologies.
The Hacker News post titled "Carbon capture more costly than switching to renewables, researchers find" has generated several comments discussing the linked article about carbon capture technology. Many commenters express skepticism about the practicality and cost-effectiveness of carbon capture, echoing the findings of the study mentioned in the article.
Several commenters point out the inherent energy inefficiency of carbon capture, arguing that it requires significant energy input, which often comes from fossil fuels, thus negating some or all of the environmental benefits. The idea of "throwing good money after bad" is brought up, with some suggesting that investing in renewables directly would be a more efficient use of resources.
There's a discussion about the different types of carbon capture, with some commenters differentiating between capturing emissions at the source (like power plants) and direct air capture (DAC). It's generally agreed that DAC is even more energy-intensive and less feasible than source capture.
Some users express concern about the potential for carbon capture to become a "moral license" for continued fossil fuel use, delaying the necessary transition to renewables. They argue that focusing on carbon capture distracts from the more important goal of reducing emissions in the first place.
A few commenters raise the issue of the storage and utilization of captured carbon. They question the long-term safety and viability of storing large amounts of CO2 underground and express doubts about the economic viability of using captured carbon for other purposes.
One commenter highlights the importance of considering the full lifecycle emissions of any technology, including the manufacturing and disposal processes, not just the operational emissions. This perspective emphasizes a holistic approach to evaluating the environmental impact of different energy solutions.
While some acknowledge the potential role of carbon capture for hard-to-decarbonize industries like cement production, the general sentiment leans towards prioritizing investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency as more cost-effective and sustainable solutions. There's a sense of urgency expressed by some, emphasizing the need for immediate action to address climate change and questioning the wisdom of investing heavily in a technology that may not be a viable long-term solution.