This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think that's entirely fair, both the paper and I are aware of the immense scale such a project would have. Are the numbers optimistic? Perhaps. Maybe even by a factor of 2 for less ideal countries (like Germany). But not by orders of magnitude.
Fair. But look at population density maps next to solar potential maps. The vast majority of people live where it's sunny. The US is better suited in this regard than other countries (ironically, especially China has a big mismatch, the coastal cities don't have much solar potential - but the Chinese will just plop down another 10 HVDC lines across the country), but there's lots of potential globally.
Come on, not really. The country is huge. There's lots of space left in the deserts. There's lots of roofs in decently sunny areas without panels yet. There's even lots of shitty grazing land east of the desert where another solar farm wouldn't impact the rancher in any meaningful way (except make him money).
I'm an optimist here. There was a big lithium scare a few years ago. Today, lithium is about as cheap as it ever was. Capitalism is good at fixing supply problems. What minerals worry you specifically? Personally, I hope lithium battery development makes cobalt cathodes obsolete, but that's more for humanitarian reasons than actual supply problems. Other than that? If the Chinese go to war with the west, we might have to pay for rare-earth-free electric motors. But those exist for basically all applications, they're just more expensive (or bigger, which would require a redesign, which is the same thing as expensive).
The real problem with geopolitics is that we really need the Chinese factories making solar panels and batteries. Losing access to that already existing capacity would throw the west back a decade. But that's par for the course when we fight China, we actually need so much more stuff from their factories, panels and batteries aren't special in any way here.
I mean, the report suggests building 30 TW of new generation capacity. (Not running away from the scale issue...) Transmission losses are a rounding error here. So what if you lose 10% of power when you move some Spanish solar power to Germany? Just build 10% more panels in Spain.
I actually liked the fatalism of that part, the real politic of it all. Building new transmission lines is incredibly unpopular with NIMBYs and bogs you down in court for years. So don't do that. Put new transformers in your substations, and reconductor existing pylons with carbon fiber composite core high voltage cables. Those exist, at scale. You might even get some copper to recycle out of the deal.
More options
Context Copy link