I do wonder where this ends. I don’t think it will be dirt cheap energy.
Jevon’s paradox will presumably generate (or scale up) massive energy-consuming use cases. Solar (and other renewables) would retain whatever cost advantage they have, but huge demand might keep non-renewable sources around for longer than we’d otherwise think.
Meanwhile ultra-cheap energy might reduce the cost of current activities, but debottlenecking always just reveals the next bottleneck.
I'm totally willing to be wrong, but on the household level, usage has been going down as appliances and lighting get way more efficient.
If (electric) energy were near free, we'd probably get dishwashers that dry properly again, and more HVAC. IIUC, electric cars tend to be much heavier than ICE cars as storing energy in batteries is heavier than storing it in liquid fuel. That means you need more energy to move that weight; I think economics point towards moving heavy cars with electricity more than synthesizing liquid fuels if electricity is near free, but I could be wrong. Near free electricity could enable on-road charging as inductive losses would be palletable; and this could enable viable cars with smaller batteries, but this is pipe dream planning.
I think and hope that middle-to-long term vehicle design adapts away from the constraints of ICE engines and towards sweet spots for electric.
Eg, when batteries are heavier than petrol, carrying enough fuel for a 200 mile journey every time you go to the shops doesn't make any sense. We need smaller, lighter vehicles for the vast majority of journeys. Scooters, electric bikes and trikes but also much smaller trucks for deliveries and tiny cars for people who can't use transit or bike-type vehicles (older people, infants, disabled people). Self-driving makes some of this more doable.
As vehicles get lighter, there is a virtuous circle where they need less fuel just to transport their engine and their fuel around. EV motors and drive trains should usually be lighter than ICE vehicle ones so this all helps.
A vehicle which can transport a whole family plus suitcases, camping equipment or Christmas presents several hundred miles in a few hours is a great thing to have, but we just shouldn't be using them routinely for urban and suburban journeys of a few miles, transporting 1-2 people and/or a few bags of shopping. Same with a truck that can fit half an apartment's worth of furniture.
A stroller is literally an urban vehicle for transporting an infant. "Walking a dog" is the name for a type of ambulatory exercise which most dogs require daily. Car seats exist to make cars workable; cars do not exist in order to transport car seats.
Moving away from cars means moving away from framing our transport needs in terms of problems that only cars can solve.
Well not the least because you need these alternative sources when the wind doesn't blow or at night. For all the noise about including externalities in the cost of oil, the quoted cost of solar and wind almost never includes the infrastructure you would have to build and maintain to deal with the intermittent nature of the source.
Worse than that, grid scale storage capacity isn't even being built in the countries deploying wind at scale. It looks like a strategy for a country like the UK if the intention is to keep relying on carbon (LNG) in the long term. But if the intention is to switch off carbon, there is a massive cost in the pipeline to deal with intermittency.
There will be more and longer periods of cheap or nearly free energy. It's almost a certainty given the current economics of power production.
I find it weird that there's not more emphasis on the startup opportunities on HN created by this. Someone out there is going to profit from innovative demand shifting tech. Im pretty sure there is a vast and mostly untapped potential in this space beyond just the obvious stuff - e.g. storage heating, wall batteries and intelligent car charging.
Instead it seems we're all still somehow assuming the power consumption economy will continue as if the grid were still fed by a slightly greener form of coal.
Generally speaking, stasis is boringly predictable, moderate disruption is exciting and generates creativity, and excessive disruption is boringly chaotic. I tend to agree that energy prices reducing will be pretty interesting in a good way.
Don’t forget that energy infrastructure is a recurring cost. The panels only last ~30 years, and other equipment will need refreshing on a similar lifecycle. This alone is a reason that solar energy will never be “dirt” cheap.
(But it might still be a lot cheaper than current fossil and nuclear sources).
Also:
> massive energy-consuming use cases
One such use case is the synthesis of hydrocarbons for plastic/chemical production. We’re going to need a lot of solar to power that.
I've just learned, the term of art for energy cost factoring in labor, infrastructure, replacement, etc is "levelized cost" or LCOE and by that metric utility solar is indeed already cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear power:
It looks like utility solar is currently ~33% the LCOE price per kwh of nuclear or 85% of the price of gas (CCGT).
This is an increase relative to 2021 (20% of nuclear / 60% of gas)
(As I understand it, the cost increase between 2021 and 2023 is from cost of capital and shipping)
Naively projecting out the LCOE trajectory, it indeed does not look like it's going to get to be 'dirt cheap' soon - eyeballing, the LCOE curve over time appears to be flattening towards a 5% or smaller cost reduction year over year.
> One such use case is the synthesis of hydrocarbons for plastic/chemical production
Why? There are plenty of hydrocarbons left. All climate science and renewable energy policy indicates that we have to stop burning it before we exhaust supplies.
imho this is the only way out of this climate crisis.
Use absurd amount of energy to capture the carbon out of the atmosphere. Obviously this cannot be powered by fossil fuels. If this becomes a global priority, energy for everything else would just be taxed enough to ensure enough of the seemingly abundant cheap energy is left for this project to keep earth habitable.
Well said. Every technological revolution in past made humans scale up consumption. This will be no different I guess. Humans should focus on good, stable and enjoyable life, instead of trying to upscale all their activities to reach yet another barrier. It seems humans are nothing more that well dressed monkeys after all.
Jevon’s paradox will presumably generate (or scale up) massive energy-consuming use cases. Solar (and other renewables) would retain whatever cost advantage they have, but huge demand might keep non-renewable sources around for longer than we’d otherwise think.
Meanwhile ultra-cheap energy might reduce the cost of current activities, but debottlenecking always just reveals the next bottleneck.