Consumer electricity prices in Germany climb to record high: 45-80 Cents/kwh

That seems like a terrible plan and quite expensive. Why was that the plan?

There's no way 11m additional consumers would have a medium-term effect this strong on a market the size of the EU energy market which contains about 440m people. And to add to that: that's worldwide bitcoin usage, not within EU.

Yes, bitcoin is wasteful. No, bitcoin isn't the primary driver of high energy prices in Europe. That's on terrible planning ("let's go renewable, surely we won't hit times where the sun doesn't shine") and bad forecasting ("how much gas could we possibly need this winter?"). Fortunately, the winter is pretty mild (thanks, global warming!) which makes it less of a problem.

Sure. 1000% over 50 years. Now we’re talking in some cases 1000% within a couple of months.

One of the things I say all the time is that reality isn't a simple single variable problem. It's a highly complex multivariate problem with hundreds to thousands of interconnected variables. Reducing reality to such things as "solar will save the planet" is simply ridiculous on the face of it.

Here's an example of that:

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/09/off-the-chart-co2-from-cal...

And, at a global scale:

https://www.globalfiredata.org/index.html

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/natural-disasters/global...

If we look at the first article, just in CA, 25% of the emissions were due to forest fires. We could cover every roof with solar panels and build ten nuclear plants and this isn't likely to change. And, more importantly, none of that is going to make a dent on atmospheric CO2 concentration.

We know that planting massive numbers of trees can be a theoretical solution (not fast, but trees do convert CO2 into tree matter). There have been proposals about planting a trillion trees:

https://www.livescience.com/65880-planting-trees-fights-clim...

This is where I go back to the concept of reality not being a single variable problem. You can't say "trees good; more trees; save planet". No. Can you imagine the fires that would rage if we had a trillion more trees? Just one good fire could negate decades of carbon capture or any other measure. The risk is hard to measure. If you care about CO2, massive unmanaged forests, as much as they sound great as a single variable solution, should truly scare you.

Going back to your question, when we are talking about a planetary scale problem with a baseline of somewhere around 50K years for a meaningful change we have to be careful not avoid the math that any rapid solution must solve to be valid. If humanity left the planet it would take 50K to 100K years for CO2 to drop by 100 ppm. If we want to force this change in 50 years --1000 x faster-- we are likely talking about a requirement of both energy and resources (minerals, etc.) that is exponential at a planetary level in nature. Furthermore, in trying to force a 1000x rate of change from baseline we are far more likely to kill everything on this planet than to save anyone.

I think we need to understand that we can live with these changes and simply focus on adapting to them over time. That's a far safer and healthier stance as far as I am concerned.

I have spent a lot of time studying the subject from various angles as well as creating simple models to try to get a sense of proportion. I feel this is important. By "sense of proportion" I mean the idea of having enough of an understanding of the situation to be able to discern between real and fantasy.

Simple example: Anyone who drives a car has a sense of proportion with regards to how fast you can stop. In other words, nobody thinks they can hit the brakes and stop a car from 60 mph in 10 feet. This allows you to quickly make decisions while driving.

One of the first questions I had when looking at atmospheric CO2 concentration was: Where are the limits? Do we just explode at 500 ppm? Do we die instantly at 1000 ppm? What's that sense of proportion?

So, as I would expect any inquisitive engineer would do, I went out and purchased a few CO2 meters and set out to measure CO2 in various environments. What I discovered was truly eye opening.

CO2 levels were measured in a range between 650 and 1400 ppm. Right now, as I write this, the CO2 level in my home office is 856 ppm. In the kitchen, 823 ppm. Outside (and it's raining) 623 ppm.

I have taken measurements in the car, both on neighborhood roads and on the highway. The numbers range from about 1000 ppm to 1400 ppm.

I have also taken measurement in neighbor's homes and found similar ranges. The same was the case taking measurements at the office.

What does this say?

Well, at the very least it says that we don't spontaneously die at CO2 concentrations as high as 1400 ppm. Healthy? Not likely...yet not the dire "we are all going to die in 12 years" scenario politicians like to paint.

There's a further realization here. We have billions of people around the world living their entire lives in 600 to 1400 ppm environments. Every single person in a car on the highway driving to and from work is spending hours-per-day at a range likely around 1000 to 1400 ppm, if not more. Every single person working in an office environment is likely spending hours-per-day at somewhere around 800 ppm.

I don't even want to imagine what levels must have been like decades or a century ago in older buildings without modern ventilation systems. The same is the case in less developed nations, where building standards might not provide for the healthiest of conditions.

Clearly the "we are going to die" narrative is completely false. All it takes to understand this is using a CO2 meter around where you live and work. This puts the 400 to 450 ppm values into valuable perspective and provides what I have referred to as a sense of proportion.

At a planetary scale, there isn't anything we can do on a human time scale to force a reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentration. It is nothing less than hubris to think that solar panels, wind energy and electric cars are going to even make a dent.

If you look at the data it isn't difficult to understand a simple reality: Even if the entire North American continent (Canada, US and Mexico) evaporated from the planet tomorrow. Poof. Gone. Captain Kirk beams everything into space. Not only would atmospheric CO2 not decrease, it would continue to rise as if nothing happened. That's the nature of planetary-scale problems. People think they are saving the planet by buying an electric car when, in reality, they are doing absolutely nothing at all. In fact, they could be causing a larger problem (remains to be seen).

> France went 80% Nuclear in the space of 10 years.

What data have you used to determine that going nuclear will materially modify atmospheric CO2 within a human time scale?

See, here's the problem, most people make assumptions or repeat what they are reading/hearing and never bother to quantify or verify claims in any way.

We already have data on this. We've had it for nearly a decade as far as I know. What does the data say?

Even if we moved the entire world to the most optimal forms of renewable energy --meaning, highly optimized forms that do not yet exist-- not only will atmospheric CO2 levels not go down, they will continue to rise.

You can read that conclusion here [0].

Back in 2014-ish, when I read it, this is the document that launched me into a year-long deep dive into this subject. I always give credit to the authors. They were full-on believers on saving the planet with renewables and set out to, once and for all, prove it. They say so in the paper. What they discovered was precisely the opposite, and, as good scientists do, accepted the failure of their hypothesis and published the result. In this charged political environment this took huge balls.

Then we have studies about reversing ocean acidification with aggressive CO2 removal [1], the estimate being at least 700 years. I would not be surprised if reality is closer to 7000 years.

As I have said elsewhere, and I repeat here with data [2]: If you look at the data it isn't difficult to understand a simple reality: Even if the entire North American continent (Canada, US and Mexico) evaporated from the planet tomorrow. Poof. Gone. Captain Kirk beams everything into space. Not only would atmospheric CO2 not decrease, it would continue to rise as if nothing happened. That's the nature of planetary-scale problems. People think they are saving the planet by buying an electric car when, in reality, they are doing absolutely nothing at all. In fact, they could be causing a larger problem (remains to be seen).

The US contributes about 15% (2008 data). If you erase the US, what remains of the world still contributes 85%. CO2 will not decrease at all, it will continue to rise. Erase the US and China, that gets you down to 57%. It won't even slow down.

Do you get a sense of what I am talking about? A few hundred paltry nuclear power plants don't even compare to erasing the US and China from this planet. That can't possibly be thought of a solution in any objective reality. No way.

I went even further than this in my research and modeling. I wanted to get down to a baseline by answering a simple question:

How quickly would atmospheric CO2 concentration decline by 100 ppm if humanity evaporated from this planet?

The answer, believe it or not, is so easy to calculate even a high school math student with basic skills can do it: 50K to 100K years.

Think about that for a moment: If we all left the planet it would take (taking the low side) 50K years. That's the baseline. When anyone suggests a magical solution the first question has to be: How is that better than humanity leaving the planet? If someone claims to be able to fix it in 50 years (1000 x faster), they need to provide impressive proof of their claims.

[3], [4] and [5] show ice core sampling data going back 800K years. This is how we arrive at the baseline. We know --with a great deal of accuracy-- what the atmosphere did when humanity was not around (or when we were just a few hundred thousand with sticks and stones as our technology). We know this through this highly reliable form of historical atmospheric sampling. If you fit a few lines to these graphs you can get a sense of how long it took for CO2 to go up and down. That's how we arrive at a baseline of about 50K years for the case of no humanity on this planet.

Like I said, any solution that claims to be able to solve the problem a THOUSAND TIMES FASTER than the no-humanity baseline needs to off...

You'd think someone would take the time to search what someone has written in the past on HN before making such a comment. I have written about this in detail in the past. As an EE with 40 years of experience in domains ranging from consumer to robotics and designing shit that has gone to space, I think I know what I am talking about.

In fact, I created simple simulation models to better understand the transition to electrics a few years ago.

The end result was an estimate of a 900 GW to 1400 GW requirement in additional production if the US wanted to go all-electric.

Here's what's interesting. You don't have to believe me at all!

Just a few months ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESIjxVudERY&t=3680s

So, yeah, I think I know what I am talking about. Next time take the time to educate yourself and do some math before insulting people who have taken the time to truly understand the matter being discussed.

Most people discussing electric vehicles or climate change are, as we colorfully say in the US, talking out of their ass. Which means they regurgitate what they read or were told, never question any of it and definitely never take the time to research, study and do some math. And that's how we get here. With people truly thinking they know reality despite their abject ignorance.

On HN in particular, any post that goes against the climate change and electric transportation narrative is brutally downvoted and often ridiculed by people who --as is obvious through their comments-- have never taken the time to even fire-up Excel and run through some numbers. Ironic, considering HN purports to be a scientifically minded community.

I find that, when it comes to these subjects, most people tend to behave as part of a cult rather than taking a stance that is the foundation of all valuable science: Healthy skepticism, inquisitive, demanding proof and verifying claims before adopting conclusions. It is far easier to belong to a cult, stop thinking and allow others to tell you what to believe. Life is easier that way.

On the contrary, the truly poor people can't afford to eat on the go, but rather cook at home. If you can afford to pay someone else to cook for you on a regular basis, you're not doing that bad.