Why is it so difficult to build new electric lines in the US? because you must ask permission to all sorts of agencies in every state. And if you want to build an oil pipiline? Just ask the The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC- So during Obama’s presidency only two of the seven lines (no HVDC) were built, meanwhile in 10 years over 100,000 miles of gas pipelines were laid
oh, it shows in the energy mix, renewables are growing but natural gas is the superstar
I am pretty sure we get the same situation in Europe, eruope-wide gas pipes network is probably better developed and more robust than electricity, I have to check, in the meanwhile here’s the gas pipelines. (form reasearchgate somewhere)
one is brought to believe that the oilman is a natural born cosmopolitam while the electricity man is a localist, jealously guarding its home turf. But hopefully this is going to change
China’s HVDC father dreamed of global electric grid, at some point HDVC links were parte of the China Road and Belt initiative ( I always tend to write Bridge and Tunnel, funny)
between now and 2050, almost half the necessary investment will not meet standard investment criteria
need to mobilise €4.9 trillion in subsidies over 30 years. That is the amount of profit taxpayers would need to offer investors to get them interested in the energy transition—€365 for every man, woman and child in the EU27, every year for 30 years.
Total GDP of the EU27 in 2019 was shy of €14 trillion. Overall investment runs to about 22 per cent of GDP. McKinsey suggests that, to achieve net zero by 2050, the EU needs to invest every year about 5.8 per cent of GDP in the energy transition
a carbon price of €100 per ton 80 per cent of the necessary investment could be justified on commercial grounds.
EU’s regular budget is capped at 1 per cent of GDP
NextGenerationEU programme is a step in the right direction, but the €32 billion per annum it allocates to climate spending over the next seven years is far too small
Both modelling exercises predict that a carbon-neutral economy by 2050 will offer more jobs than the fossil-fuel-addicted status quo
As McKinsey remarks en passant, reaching net-zero may require 18 million workers to be reskilled by 2050 but this is small beer by comparison with the 100 million it expects to need retraining already by 2030, on account of what it euphemistically refers to as ‘automation’.
wk 1 at some point in the future, given current trends, maybe 50 or 100 years out, seaice mmight disappear from the Arctic while the ice cover would stay in Groenland, it’s up to 2 kms thick. Proportions of ice.
Retreating ice poses a problem to animals like the walrus, it may no longer insist over the continental shelf, 200 mt deep sea rich of marine life. Instead it may insist over the deep ocean where the walrus can’t fish, the walrsu loses the chance to be on ice
Melting permafrost creates holes, sort of craters called thermokarsts. Also methane explosions
melted permafrost might green, but might not green for example becasue warming brings witer rain which creates ice covers
there’s actually no physical continent in the arctic but definitely a human one defined by its vast expanse of ice, season the come sand go like day and night, an hunters civilization that has learned to survive making most of it.
I was lucky to stumble upon Barry Lopez “Arctic” the 1986 book which recounts this frozen non-continents with lively description of landscapes, people, animals and clash with the western civilization. I read on the internet that he is a novel Thoureau, can’t say I do not know thoureau, Barry’s approach to the arctic is romatic, lyric, with a pictorial eye that manages to comprehend the vast compleity of the place and all the human landscapes built on it, modern and still actual today. But I love also the chapters on the polar bear and the muskoxen
Also the book brought me to consult maps which are not Marcatore projections, this way I can comprehend the place of the arctic as a a bridge between 3 continents
The geopolitical place is reflected on Coursera, I was looking for a MOOC to see how the arctic has changed from the times of Lopez and I found 3:
la vista dalla mia finestra in una bella giornata di inverno, il 31 dicembre 2020, un anno che se ne va, quanti anni dovranno andare e venire finchè non si vedrà più alcun pennacchio di riscaldamento contro il cielo di Milano?
Immaginiamo che tra 10 anni si successo, la domanda di energia dell’inverno boreale è l’ostacolo più arduo per il passaggio completo alle rinnovabili. Se lo effettuiamo, come sarà diversa la città? Solare uvunque, cambiano i tetti, ma anche tutte le facciate cambieranno, incappottate e ricoperte di pannelli. Nelle strade ci saranno solo auto elettriche, magari meno e in sharing, più marciapiedi e più locali, più vita all’aperto se l’energia ritorna abbondante come ai primi tempi del petrolio e si possono sperimentare nuovi modelli. io mi immagino sempre i nuovi giostrai cone maga camion di realtà virtuale, più potenza di calcolo di una datacenter di google oggi. un grande bocchettono per l’energia
un amico si immagina nel sottosuolo, sotto ogni palazzo, la serra aeroponica condominiale per molti piani all’ingiù, che sfama i condomini.
Per ora però in città sui tetti non so vedono pannelli solari se non sui palazzi più nuovi, sapete che è dovuto tutto a una legge? Se installi i pannelli su un condminio possono alimentare solo le parti condominiali, nei vecchi palazzi solo androne e scale, nei nuovi anche le caldaie elettriche per cui lì ci sono. Per vederli ovunque c’è da aspettare che la legge permetta le reti private ance per i clienti di consumo.
But a planet on renewables would require a lot of solar and wind, for example this report on reaching 90% renewables in the US calls for doubling new installation every year in the 20s and trebling in the thirties
“What Covid-19 teaches is that it is not just the big picture that matters. So tightly knit is our global system that small failures of governance in a few crucial nodes can affect everyone on the planet.”
“On the one hand are the huge medical risks; on the other is a disastrous economic crisis. How can we make the trade-off? It is tempting to reject the choice as impossible or false. Not only is that not true, it also denies the fact that, under normal circumstances, we routinely engage in life and death trade-offs. Even in the most affluent societies, financially motivated decisions are made every day that decide the chances of death due to workplace accidents, pollution, car crashes, hospital funding, drug procurement and health insurance.”
Chris Sacca the legendary early investor of Uber, Twitter, Instagram, Stripe, Kickstarter claims he no lo ger investing in tech, he will invest only in envirnment, democracy and justice
Ramez Namm is a former Microsoft whio gained fame as a science fiction writer. He is a staunch bliever that clean technology has legs to run on its own. He tours the world, lecturing fund managers on how they should invest for money not for morals