Yeah, the Dias group. I've posted about him here before. That was actual fraud. 

https://stacker.news/items/774011/r/south_korea_ln

Then there have been the LK99 superconductivity claims, by a S Korean group. Not so much fraud, but sloppy science that got too much coverage due to Twitter "experts" trying to ride the wave not realising extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

https://stacker.news/items/223541/r/south_korea_ln?commentId=223843

> Unless we get room temperature superconductivity, i don't see a future where this cost drops to zero.

Wasn't room temperature superconductivity the cause of some recent science scandals?  I seem to remember an article saying someone had achieved it, but then later finding out it was not replicable or fraudulent.


SimpleStacker

[This is reference 5](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800905001084?via%3Dihub). I'm not on my unis network now, so can't download the full text. The reference seems to aim for a balanced view, unlike what the Wikipedia quote seemed to imply. At least, from what i can gather from the abstract.

south_korea_ln

brandonsbytes

In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced.[1][2][3][4] Governments, both historical and modern, typically expect that energy efficiency gains will lower energy consumption, rather than expecting the Jevons paradox.[5]

It'd be interesting to look into [5] as to why this paradox would be unlikely to occur.

Regardless, even if energy becomes too cheap to meter from a production perspective, one should not forget that a big part of its cost comes from transportation of said energy. Unless we get room temperature superconductivity, i don't see a future where this cost drops to zero.

And finally, another part of the cost is taxation. Governments likely won't have an incentive to lower that part. They might proportionally just make more money~~

science

Will energy ever be "too cheap to meter"?

Look into the [Jevons Paradox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox).

> In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced.[1][2][3][4] Governments, both historical and modern, typically expect that energy efficiency gains will lower energy consumption, rather than expecting the Jevons paradox.[5]

It'd be interesting to look into [5] as to why this paradox would be unlikely to occur.

Regardless, even if energy becomes too cheap to meter from a production perspective, one should not forget that a big part of its cost comes from transportation of said energy. Unless we get room temperature superconductivity, i don't see a future where this cost drops to zero. 

And finally, another part of the cost is taxation. Governments likely won't have an incentive to lower that part. They might proportionally just make more money~~