Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I’ve made some statements lately that I’d like to reprise.
• There is never a shortage of resources. It’s a shortage of cheap enough energy to get the resources economically.
• Energy and money are inextricably linked.
• Making energy expensive hurts, impoverishes, and even kills the poor.
• Technology is not bulldozers. It’s getting more production using less energy.
People say, well, what about water? What if there’s a shortage of water? How does that relate to your statements above? You figure out how to manufacture water?
Figure 1. Graphene is a one-molecule-thick form of carbon, arranged in a hexagonal pattern. SOURCE
I’d like to illustrate all four of these statements with a recent news article, from Reuters:
Pentagon weapons-maker finds method for cheap, clean water
(Reuters) – A defense contractor better known for building jet fighters and lethal missiles says it has found a way to slash the amount of energy needed to remove salt from seawater, potentially making it vastly cheaper to produce clean water at a time when scarcity has become a global security issue.
The process, officials and engineers at Lockheed Martin Corp say, would enable filter manufacturers to produce thin carbon membranes with regular holes about a nanometer in size that are large enough to allow water to pass through but small enough to block the molecules of salt in seawater. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter.
As you might guess, they make it out of graphene.
“It’s 500 times thinner than the best filter on the market today and a thousand times stronger,” said John Stetson, the engineer who has been working on the idea. “The energy that’s required and the pressure that’s required to filter salt is approximately 100 times less.”
Damn … a factor of a hundred? Two orders of magnitude less energy required? Are you aware what that will do?
Well … without cheap energy, it won’t do much at all, will it? … it takes a large amount of energy to pump the seawater through the reverse osmosis filters, even new graphene filters.
But with cheap energy? It can make the deserts bloom, quite literally. Israel’s doing it now, they are currently desalinating about three hundred million (300,000,000) cubic metres of water per year. That’s seventy-nine billion gallons, (79,000,000,000). And plants are now under construction to more than double that amount.
How much water is that? Well, when the new Israeli plants are at full capacity it will be enough to cover all of Israel’s current agricultural land with about 6″ (15 cm) of water. And they’re already doing it at a reasonable cost, even before the latest development. Right now, it’s about five gallons for one cent ($0.01).
Figure 2. Cost per cubic metre (black) for desalinated water around the world. I have added the cost per 100 US gallons in blue. The four outlined plants are in Israel.
Now, with the new graphene filters, the cost of water should be dropping, perhaps even by a factor of ten, for people from Algeria and Cyprus to Trinidad and Israel. And since this is just a filter and can be made in any shape, it can be made as a pin-to-pin replacement for filters in existing desalination plants. This can only be good news for the poor of the world.
Let me look at all of that discussion of desalination in terms of my statements reprised above:
• Technology is not bulldozers. It’s getting more production using less energy.
This is at the heart of the new development of the graphene filter for the reverse osmosis desalination of seawater.
• Making energy expensive hurts, impoverishes, and even kills the poor.
If a country has to pay twice as much for its energy, it will pay twice as much for its water. This hurts everyone, particularly the poor.
• Energy and money are inextricably linked.
The cost of the water is a function of the cost of energy.
• There is never a shortage of resources. It’s a shortage of cheap enough energy to get the resources economically.
If energy is cheap, then with technology many, many things are possible … including using endless seawater to turn the deserts green. On the other hand, if energy is expensive, resources are no longer economical, water costs more, and people suffer.
That’s all,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Climate Ace:
My ‘negative comments’ were about bad usage of cost benefit analysis. I’ve seen way too much of it from alleged environmentalists. (As a former member / contributor to Greenpeace and Sierra Club I’ve watched the change). I think a well done C/B can be very valuable. Just that to do one you really do need to check your advocacy at the door, and the folks pushing the present type of environment agenda just can’t seem to do that.
And cheap energy is incredibly cheap and does much to truly save nature. Where fossil fuels are available, forests are not cut down. Land taken for farming reduces due to fertilizers and more reverts to habitat. Fish get farmed instead of having the ocean sucked empty. ( Look at how much fish in the market is now farmed.) There have been a couple of posts here already on that. I’ve done a couple from the other POV. Lamenting that artificially high electricity prices in California are going to increase pollution and waste.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/camping-at-home-is-cheaper/
It is also now cheaper to cook using charcoal or wood fires than to use my oven.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/saint-patricks-day-feast/
Done in a Dutch Oven with charcoal.
That, in a microcosm, is what is wrong with “talking dirt” about oil and gas. It condemns forests to destruction.
This happens to be one of my “hot buttons” as I desperately want to stop the wood burning in the world that is destroying the forest habitat. Madagascar is down to something like 5% due to charcoal for cooking. Make that propane, the forest will return rapidly. (It is already happening on some country who’s name escapes me at the moment that started to subsidize propane cooking fuel).
IMHO, there is little one could do that would have more ‘cost benefit payback’ than find a way to improve cooking efficiency and move away from direct wood burning, with the possible exception of improved agronomy systems.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/leucaena-leucocephala-collection-of-links/
Better stoves, like the Rocket Stove save 3rd world women from blindness and their children from lung diseases. In that Leucaena link I mention a guy in India who set out to fix areas having forest loss and desertification. He came up with a very effective system. Part of it was to pen the goats. That then let them put the ‘goat poo’ into fermentation and use piped “gobar gas” (swamp gas / methane) in simple mud stoves. Overnight, large health increases and no more need to hunt / cut fuel wood. Just from “cheap energy” from goat poo fermentation (and some farmed leucaena)
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/collection-of-stove-links/
It is a simple fact that “cheap energy” from coal, oil, natural gas means we save species, forests, lives, health. Putting bogus “externality packing” into cost /benefit “studies” that aren’t really, and then using that to push up electricity to 30 cents or even $1/2 / kW-hr just ends up with people dying, trees dying, animals with no place to live. In short, it’s stupid and hurtful.
On desert cities:
So you pick ‘way north’ temperate Europe and Russia as your poster child? The world is a lot bigger than that, and the ‘desert bands’ are fairly large. The entire “Basin and Range” area in the USA is desert. (While the ‘shorthand’ of less than 25 cm precipitation is used, the correct definition is ‘evaporation exceeds precipitation’) So pretty much all of Nevada is desert. Reno, Las Vegas. Yes, not near an ocean. But they have some salt lakes…
Now look at Africa. A tropical band on the skinny waist, but all of the north, and much of the south, is desert. Australia is largely a bit of tropical near the Pacific, then some cities hanging on around the edges near the oceans where a river ends up. ( I drove inland from Sydney for 4 days, then back out to Melbourne). Lots of desert there. So most of the Australian cities are on the edge near desert, or in a desert climate zone with a river for water.
This image gives a pretty good view:
But yes, right now most people do not live where there is little water. But there are plenty that do. (Like, for example, the Muslim World. You know, a billion people… more than the EU and Russia combined).
Also this seawater greenhouse does not require a full on desert to work. Just places with sun that need some water. So limiting their impact to the ‘technical desert’ is a bit of artifice on your part. While the entire north west coastline of Mexico would benefit (and Baja has two coasts, then the third on the mainland) it would also work in places inland with a simple water pipe (and that’s a large desert with people living in it in smaller cities) and in the ‘near desert’ areas more south as you approach the wet band.
Oh, and do realize that even Canada has a desert. Just back side of the mountains in British Columbia – cactus and everything. There are cities in it, too.
So one point to realize is that while it will initially be used close to the ocean, nothing prevents putting this more inland and running some pipes. Economics of pumping will determine that.
The globe has a lot of deserts, and if you look at large water projects, moving water several hundred miles is doable, both economically and physically. (California Aqueduct & related takes water about 400 miles+). At first, not worth it as there are other places with smaller pumping costs to fill up first. But, for example, in the middle of the Great Valley of California is Kern County. Significant soil salinity. It’s a functional desert. Pumping in sea water and using solar greenhouses is very ‘doable’ there. It’s shorter to the ocean than to Lake Shasta.
So what is “near the ocean” is several hundred miles.
Be careful about attributing ‘non desert’ to an area just because it is irrigated and green. That often means a river flows in from non-desert areas. Like Iraq between the rivers.
Then there are places where there is water, but the rights are already taken. Turkey has water that drains into Syria then on to Iraq IIRC. Endless fighting over it. It is what makes that desert green. (Plenty of cities there too). Conversion of some of that land to seawater (piped, pumped, or just the near the coast bits) ends all that. Since all you need is access to seawater and sunshine, even ‘crap land’ works.
Heck, I’d even be willing to bet that in some parts of Italy and islands of Greece and maybe even Spain there’s plenty of land that doesn’t produce year round due to water limitations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accona_Desert
for instance. Or:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabernas_Desert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almer%C3%ADa_%28province%29
I’m sure the folks of Grenada will be pleased to know they don’t live in a desert any more…
/sarc;
So yes, loads of people live where there is ample water. My assertion is just that loads of people live where there is not really enough, too. A few billion of us. (a couple of tens of millions in California alone, most of whom do not live in the wet mountains or wet north).
All of us will benefit from seawater uses. In solar greenhouses or in desalinizing (which we do here too).
And lots of those people live in cities that are in deserts. Some of them even green and irrigated cities on rivers, in places that have more evaporation than precipitation.
ralfellis says:
March 18, 2013 at 12:15 pm
Burrow under the bolded part and you will see what was really behind the rejection.
DaveE.
Willis,
Re. the earlier discussion, many thanks to Henry Clark for digging out the relevant figures.
Current desalination energy requirement: 4-8 kWh/m3
Reduce it by factor 100 using graphene : 0.04-0.08 kWh/m3
Take our freshwater made using graphene and remix with seawater. We will get back 0.81 KWh/m3 for our 0.08 kWh/m3 input.
Hence a perpetual motion machine, and a pretty good one at that.
In fact the energy we get back could be greater because we could mix the freshwater with the concentrated reject brine from the RO process. The higher the salnity difference the more energy (though volume effects might balance it).
I’m not concerned with the digression into $ values for the process, the issue was simply with that ‘100 times less energy’ headline claim.
In any case, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so the onus to provide detailed figures should really be those making the original claim
Good discussion.
One of the themes that comes out, from the driest continent (Australia) to a fairly damp group of islands (the UK), to all of the above (the US) is that greenie ideology has been a godsend to water suppliers and governments. As many posters have pointed out, without water there is nothing. Yet irrespective of rainfall, utilities and governments have backed out of their responsibilities to provide proper water infrastructure – principally, dams – for at least 30 years because of a melange of environmental hogwash.
The dams can’t be built because of the allegedly threatened lesser-spotted earless bandywallop, last seen in 1964 by a hippie who was researching mushrooms.
What’s more, deprivation is good for our souls – wasteful, disgustingly rich sybarites that we are. So we all have to reduce consumption, which we obligingly do. Next thing is, we get slugged with higher prices because we are not generating enough revenue.
Perfect! Governments have bowed down to greenies, water suppliers just did nothing and their income was guaranteed. The party being screwed was, surprise, surprise, consumers.
If the project Willis mentioned, or any other, actually made water cheaper and more accessible, it would be bitterly opposed by the vested interests mentioned above. Just as fracking is being opposed by greenies and competitors, the prospect of upsetting mutually cosy and profitable arrangements fills the beneficiaries with dread.
For all the folks fretting over how much more / less efficiency can be had from this tech vs existing membranes:
Just remember that these folks are talking about 1 molecule thick. At that scale, all sorts of unexpected things can happen. You are approaching the Quantum Mechanical scale and projections from plastic membranes are not going to be very useful there.
No, I’m not making any positive statement about what to expect. Only cautioning that at this scale, you need to expect the unexpected.
Heck, we might have QM tunneling of water from one side to the other at zero energy cost or who knows what all. Not saying it will. Just saying “we don’t know”. (I do expect thermodynamic laws to be observed, but it is possible at this scale for energy to arrive from unexpected places; even be transferred and recycled at the quantum level.)
Sidebar on Linguistics:
While I generally agree with the notion that “English is as we use it”, it is also true that “When ambiguity or potential misunderstanding (or even phrasing that gives pause to some folks) exists, it ought to be removed.” So while I “get it” that “500 times thinner” is not -499 it is also the case that “1/500th the thickness” is a lot easier for the language centers of my brain to parse without hitting the “correct for strained structures” exception processing routines. 😉
Willis,
… I’m of the opinion that the English language should obey the rules it actually obeys, rather than the rules people are always shoving at me. We use “twice as light” just as easily as we use “twice as heavy”, for example, and I suppose you would object to that as well. But neither one of those is ambiguous. Nor do the constructions make any sense logically … that’s English, get used to it.
The weather changing makes me grumpy too. Always has.
I don’t disagree at all, which It think was fairly clear, really. It really is not about “correct grammar” as opposed to incorrect grammar. In fact though, I don’t use “twice as light” when I mean “half the weight.” I am just lazy enough to object to doing the mental work to convert something into language, marketing speak to make stuff sound bigger and better, so that I can make the difference sound “much bigger” when I mean “a lot smaller.” Too much work and too easy to confuse someone. The issue isn’t being correct grammatically, simply clarity, efficiency and laziness. “Five hundred times as thin” is extra mental work. There’s no ambigous way to say “500 as heavy.” “500 times the weight” still says the same thing. Half the weight and “twice as light” are different – divide finish by start – ah “two – so, twice as light. Way too much work. 😉
E.M. Smith
“(It is already happening on some country who’s name escapes me at the moment that started to subsidize propane cooking fuel).”
It’s the Dominican Republic. You can see the contrast between it and it’s neighbor Haiti, just by looking at satellite imagery.
Duster says:
March 19, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Ask me if I care if you are “just lazy enough”. The usage “twice as light” is totally established in English, nearly a million hits on google. So your careful reasoning and parsing is totally meaningless—it’s here, get used to it. This is just more grammar nazi nonsense, polite to be sure, but I don’t care in the slightest.
Truly I don’t. Your reasons mean nothing to me, it’s just further grousing about an established situation. Go object to someone else. I’m not buying it.
No, they’re not different at all. If an ad says “The new iPhone is twice as light as the old one!”, you might not understand that, but no one else thinks that the meaning is that the new iPhone is heavier than the old. Everyone but you knows that “twice as light” means the new iPhone is half the weight of the old iPhone.
Stop with the tortured reasoning, Duster. Your reasons are as useful to me as a trailer hitch on a bowling ball. “Five hundred times thinner”, or “twice as light”, it’s all established English. You’re swimming upstream in a raging river, the train has left the station, that ship has sailed, you pick the metaphor, but at this point you’re just complaining about what is already so.
I have little time for people who want to bitch about established reality. You may not like reality. I don’t care.
One of my rules of thumb is that I always and ever have only two choices about ugly reality—dig it, or bitch about it.
I try to stick with the former, and avoid people who want to do the latter.
Best regards,
w.
E.M.Smith says:
March 19, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Not buying that at all. You’re a smart man. When you hear “500 times thinner” you think “one five hundredth” before the sentence is even finished. Not only that, but you never even go to “the thickness is minus 499” at all. You hear the phrase, you understand it, you pass on by.
w.
@Willis:
Sorry to say, I’m not that bright. When I hear “500 times thinner” my first response is:
500 * Thinness
(That is what it, literally, says)
So a 1 cm object would be: 1 cm * 500 or 1/2 meter
But there is a ‘dangling -er’…
At that point the “Error Alert! Insanity Check Fault!” routine kicks in. Another brain center is ‘awakened’ to “deal with it”. It says “A half meter? You crazy or what? Let me look at that…” Which then goes off somewhere and “has a bit of a think” and returns “It’s just 1/500th you A*hole”..) and the more primitive layers say “Thank you, your
LardshipLordship”…and processing continues at “1/500th * thin / thick ness”…
Honestly, that’s what happens., Takes maybe 1/4 second? But it happens. Every Single Time.
Yes, I’m bright. Yes, I ‘work it out’. But also, yes, it is a workload that goes to an exception routine step that could be avoided with “It is 1/500th the thickness” that directly parses and works handled by the drone language centers without interrupting “higher function” areas that are busy trying to decide if “One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor!” is accurate, or if really, experience says it’s 6… and really, don’t we need more data to get the error band into acceptable range? Perhaps a test now would be appropriate, and … what? 500 times what again? Damn…”
😉
I hate it. I spend far more of my personal “processing time” making sure sentences pass the “Idiot interpretation test” than I like. I get accused of being “overly precise” and then “prolix” when I keep it unambiguous; while at the same time accuse of being “not clear enough” when I drop back to “common usage”. There is no good answer. (I could do a riff here on semantic processing, but won’t… but there really isn’t a good answer as each of us has a unique semantics processor with different settings…) So what I’m saying is “mine can ‘deal with it’ in 1/4 second or so, but it is still ‘dealing with it’ as it’s bit of a stupid layer of the brain; and some folks are trapped there.” Not a “complaint” so much as an observation on the nature of human language processing and our differences.
Like I said, I spend far more time that I like anticipating how “others will get it wrong” and adjusting the output semantic engine product…
At one time I made a sport of warping what people said into “reasonable but wrong” interpretations just as a diversion from the annoyance of it and to fill in the “error trap” tables. It can be funny… but sometimes not so much… “Would you like me to knock you up in the morning?” greeted me at check in to a hotel in New Zealand… (Do I want a wake up call?) for an example. Now play that forward in California…. It gets old after a while…
Please, do not get me wrong: I understood almost immediately and without much effort what you were saying. You are right on that. But at the same time, more work on your part would mean less work on mine, even if “trivially less”… Some folks are not so swift and have empty / small translation tables …
Now, back to more important things…
One Tequila, Two Tequila, Nine Tequila Numb! or…
Last I heard, you can’t measure thinness, so yes, it’s not only imprecise but incorrect to say 500 times as thin.
It’s an awful term and should be banned from anything remotely scientific!
DaveE.
Willis, if you want to get into a war about language, that’s a whole other thread :). But I must agree with commenters who defend precision over sloppy or regional usage. “I could care less” is just baffling to anyone outside the US when it apparently means the opposite. And, one of the most annoying things about the rubbish that passes for science reporting in the MSM is the way that fractions, percentages, ratios and orders of magnitude are mangled.
I hold no brief for pedantry for its own sake. Where the rules of language matter is in making things clearer.
Just as I cringe when I read the ‘results’ of a ‘study’ that claims that eating blueberries ‘reduces the risk of cancer by 30%’, the use of phrases like ‘500 times’ less, or smaller, or lower, alert the BS meter. It is the language of charlatans and snake-oil salesmen. It is, as others have pointed out, essentially ambiguous, or if you are a mathematician, meaningless.
I don’t agree that describing numbers is in the same category as using colloquial language when it comes to clear communication.
Googling “99% fat free” gives 1,940,000 hits while “1% fat” generates 29,000,000 hits. There’s hope for us “grammar nazis” yet! 😉
David A. Evans said @ur momisugly March 19, 2013 at 2:41 pm
Oh yes you can:
From Microsope Image Processing by Qiang Wu, Fatima Merchant, Kenneth Castleman – 2010.
EM Smith,
“Just remember that these folks are talking about 1 molecule thick. At that scale, all sorts of unexpected things can happen. You are approaching the Quantum Mechanical scale and projections from plastic membranes are not going to be very useful there.”
There are no such unexpected things. Behavior at the scale of single molecules (the statistical behavior of ensembles) is compeltely consistent with macroscopic thermodynamics. Indeed, macroscopic thermodynamics can be directly derived from statisctical mechanics. Neither Maxwell’s demons nor perpetual motion machines exist, and never will. Neither will reverse osmosis membranes that require less pressure than the osmotic pressure across the membrane.
Climate Ace:
March 18, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Seems to me that you did not even attempt to address the arguments I made about the economic prudence of current expenditures to address uncertain (even speculative) climate problems projected for the distant future. This puzzles me. If you want to have a substantive discussion about cost benefit analysis, then by all means, let’s have one. Let’s not leave it in the land of politically motivated arm waves and exhortations. I laid out the problem: assuming any reasonable discount rate, it is clear to me that current expenditures to address very uncertain problems far in the future are an unwise (even crazy) use of resources. I hope you are willing to offer a substantive reply to that observation.
Willis Eschenbach, it is up to you, but you might consider adding the following graph to the article, for in a single concise plot it implicitly sums up very much about desalination, what the future was already trending towards even before graphene filter innovation may accelerate the trend, and what it means for water supply:
http://s18.postimage.org/oqfj2d53d/desalination_summary.jpg
(The above is from http://www.worldwaterweek.org/documents/WWW_PDF/2009/tuesday/K11/Koussai_Quteishat_Stockholm_Water_Week.pdf ).
@Steve Fitzpatrick:
So the Josephson Junction is an obvious extension of macro scale physics? …
And quantum tunneling in the tunnel diode is a clear extension of the typical diode doping macro physics?
I’m not saying I know what will happen. I’m just saying that we’ve seen ‘different things’ once down at that scale. Heck, even catalysis in surface chemistry and folded protein enzymes cause chemical process to move with different energy costs. (Though I would not expect things like ion pumps without complex structures as in cell walls).
I am specifically saying I expect the laws of thermo to be observed whatever happens.
E.M.Smith says:
> Heck, even catalysis in surace chemistry and folded protien enzymes cause chemical process to move with different energy costs.
All the enzyme does is reduce the height of the energy barrier compared to spontaneous reaction. It does not change the energy cost (which is calculated as the difference between the total energy of the products and the substrates). Same for non-enzymatic catalysts. A catalyst increases the probability of a certain reaction occurring, which is translated to a higher reaction rate. The energy change in each reaction instance is the same.
@Gene Selkov:
OK, so looks like I stepped on a “term of art” using “energy cost”. I was thinking about things like the lower temperature needed to make a reaction “go” (the lower ‘hump’ to get over) as applied in things like FT reactions with improved catalysts lowering the temperatures (and financial costs due to less energy leakage at lower temperatures). So “confounded” two things. The lower energy barrier to the reaction and the lower heat loss from reaction equipment.
My point was not a long discussion of reactors, but just that surfaces and catalysts and things at the molecular level change how reactions proceed and what conditions are needed to do that. Even in carbon based things like enzymes, it changes the energy “profile” from what happens away from that surface.
A mono layer of carbon atoms is not gong to act like a 1 mil sheet of plastic.
EM Smith,
“I am specifically saying I expect the laws of thermo to be observed whatever happens.”
You are right about that much at least.
Odd. We were told during a visit to Curacao in the ’80s, where the local Amstel is brewed with condensate from the power plant – source desalinated water – that initially it was awful. They had to put contaminants back in to get the taste. My memory is that they had done a very good job of choosing how much.
Gary Hladik says: March 18, 2013 at 9:37 pm
“…Willis Eschenbach says (March 18, 2013 at 2:43 pm): ‘It’s like busting folks for saying “I could care less…” ‘
Aaaaargh! If I hear that stupid phrase one more time, I swear I’m gonna invade Poland! There’s simply no excuse for using it, irregardless of–
Oh, crap. 🙂
Damn, it’s pretty hard to get a chuckle out of me, but that gave me a belly laugh!
(My wife (now ex) once said of my sense of humour, “You know, you never laugh … you may find things funny, but it is as if you just note them and put them in your “Ha” basket”.)
Steve Fitzpatrick, Could you tell me if electrons move with proteins along the electron clouds of the peptidyl backbone (or along cofactor electron clouds) or do electrons tunnel, jumping from branch to branch like a monkey in a tree?
I only ask as so far the evidence supports both views, So go on, make either Harry Gray or Les Dutton happy.
@E.M.Smith: You’re right — the idea of “energy cost” is context-dependent. In the context of individual reactions, it is usually understood as the difference between their initial and final states. For example, in a chemical reaction that occurs at a constant pressure, “energy cost” can be a shorthand for “Gibbs free energy change”. It is, of course, an idealisation: when we talk about the cost of an enzymatc reaction, we don’t normally include the costs of making the enzyme or maintaining its requirements — temperature, pH, cofactors, and such — which can add substantially to the overall cost. But it is a useful idealisation nonetheless, as it allows us to infer whether a certain reaction or a pathway is possible, and approximately what gains or losses are associated with it. Knowing the limits can be very helpful when you’re dredging through a lot of things and want to rule out the impossible ones.
For a chemical technologist, of course there are all sorts of costs that get added to the theoretical energy change. But it still is a good BS filter, because if somebody tells you that a certain process will have a unit cost of X, and you know that X is less than that unit’s ΔG, you can clearly see what’s wrong with that statement.
Energy, resources, money and technology…
Big Brother hates competition.