Agree with the premise - the sheer scale of reinvention required is greatly underappreciated - it's telling that the Knowledge newsletter sent me here rather than linked to an MSM article.
The task is likely harder because the new ways we need to make stuff are often not better in any other respect than being lower emissions, and will start off much more expensive. So the motivation to invent and for inventions to diffuse is limited without a clear emissions-reduction signal i.e. carbon price, which much of the world does not have. I suppose the (expensive) alternative is to subsidise the heck out of the new stuff as per the US "inflation reduction act".
I note that you didn't point out that we have an existing energy technology that can consistently produce plenty of emissions free heat and electricity using very dense energy sources...not trying to start the fight that normally occurs when the n-word is mentioned, but it does reinforce the value of being able to make use of this resource in a way that is both safe and perceived to be safe.
Finally the conventional economic wisdom is that it takes a few decades for productivity benefits to be obvious from major new technologies as it takes a while for people to get the best out of them and for existing structures and processes to be reoriented around them. So any new inventions tomorrow will start showing up in the productivity stats around 2050 when we are supposed to be hitting net zero...
Thanks interesting points with which I tend to agree. Re nuclear, will try to do something on it here - albeit that uranium is not one of the six materials in the book. Not because it's not important; more because there's only so much space/time in a single book.
If you're prioritising decarbonising industry you can focus on a few high impact sectors. 70-75% of industrial emissions come from the production of a few materials - steel, cement, fertiliser, plastics and aluminium.
Aluminium decarbonisation isn't hard since it's already an electrochemical process. You just need to change the anode and decarbonise the electricity source.
Fertiliser isn't that hard imo. Additionally electrochemical fertiliser production will massively decentralise production unlike what it is today which would reduce transportation costs (which are a big deal for fertiliser).
Steel and cement are the biggies. Most of their demand comes from construction. Fortunately since the majority of the cost of construction in high income countries is land, labour and permitting you can push the green premium for steel and cement for construction without that big of a loss in consumer surplus. This strategy will work in high income countries obviously and not low income countries.
In the next ten years countries should focus on decarbonising electricity, road transportation, residential and commercial heating, and low to mid temperature industrial heating (less than 200 degrees Celsius which makes 45% of all industrial heat demand). Fortunately for Europe, heat is much easier and cheaper to store for months than electricity.
In addition to these manufacturing revolutions, innovation in materials recycling, and using more sustainable materials (such as lime and timber etc. where possible) and being more efficient in our use of materials (retrofit/repair rather than demolish and rebuild) will be interesting to see!
Also, it would be a great shame if all we revolutionised were pre-existing processes and technologies, all that effort just to be standing in the same place minus the emissions! I think it's really important to focus on the opportunities for dividends from these new technologies, and also focus on changing the way we do things, e.g. private car ownership to active travel and public transport, not simply combustion engines to EVs. This helps solve health issues from inactivity to air pollution to fewer traffic accidents, less wasted time stuck in traffic, liveable streets and so on.
Hello, Couple of thoughts:
Agree with the premise - the sheer scale of reinvention required is greatly underappreciated - it's telling that the Knowledge newsletter sent me here rather than linked to an MSM article.
The task is likely harder because the new ways we need to make stuff are often not better in any other respect than being lower emissions, and will start off much more expensive. So the motivation to invent and for inventions to diffuse is limited without a clear emissions-reduction signal i.e. carbon price, which much of the world does not have. I suppose the (expensive) alternative is to subsidise the heck out of the new stuff as per the US "inflation reduction act".
I note that you didn't point out that we have an existing energy technology that can consistently produce plenty of emissions free heat and electricity using very dense energy sources...not trying to start the fight that normally occurs when the n-word is mentioned, but it does reinforce the value of being able to make use of this resource in a way that is both safe and perceived to be safe.
Finally the conventional economic wisdom is that it takes a few decades for productivity benefits to be obvious from major new technologies as it takes a while for people to get the best out of them and for existing structures and processes to be reoriented around them. So any new inventions tomorrow will start showing up in the productivity stats around 2050 when we are supposed to be hitting net zero...
Thanks interesting points with which I tend to agree. Re nuclear, will try to do something on it here - albeit that uranium is not one of the six materials in the book. Not because it's not important; more because there's only so much space/time in a single book.
If you're prioritising decarbonising industry you can focus on a few high impact sectors. 70-75% of industrial emissions come from the production of a few materials - steel, cement, fertiliser, plastics and aluminium.
Aluminium decarbonisation isn't hard since it's already an electrochemical process. You just need to change the anode and decarbonise the electricity source.
Fertiliser isn't that hard imo. Additionally electrochemical fertiliser production will massively decentralise production unlike what it is today which would reduce transportation costs (which are a big deal for fertiliser).
Steel and cement are the biggies. Most of their demand comes from construction. Fortunately since the majority of the cost of construction in high income countries is land, labour and permitting you can push the green premium for steel and cement for construction without that big of a loss in consumer surplus. This strategy will work in high income countries obviously and not low income countries.
In the next ten years countries should focus on decarbonising electricity, road transportation, residential and commercial heating, and low to mid temperature industrial heating (less than 200 degrees Celsius which makes 45% of all industrial heat demand). Fortunately for Europe, heat is much easier and cheaper to store for months than electricity.
In addition to these manufacturing revolutions, innovation in materials recycling, and using more sustainable materials (such as lime and timber etc. where possible) and being more efficient in our use of materials (retrofit/repair rather than demolish and rebuild) will be interesting to see!
Also, it would be a great shame if all we revolutionised were pre-existing processes and technologies, all that effort just to be standing in the same place minus the emissions! I think it's really important to focus on the opportunities for dividends from these new technologies, and also focus on changing the way we do things, e.g. private car ownership to active travel and public transport, not simply combustion engines to EVs. This helps solve health issues from inactivity to air pollution to fewer traffic accidents, less wasted time stuck in traffic, liveable streets and so on.