'The Clean Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think' (nytimes.com) 342
An anonymous reader shared this report from The New York Times:
More than $1.7 trillion worldwide is expected to be invested in technologies such as wind, solar power, electric vehicles and batteries globally this year, according to the International Energy Agency, compared with just over $1 trillion in fossil fuels. That is by far the most ever spent on clean energy in a year. Those investments are driving explosive growth. China, which already leads the world in the sheer amount of electricity produced by wind and solar power, is expected to double its capacity by 2025, five years ahead of schedule. In Britain, roughly one-third of electricity is generated by wind, solar and hydropower. And in the United States, 23 percent of electricity is expected to come from renewable sources this year, up 10 percentage points from a decade ago... [F]rom Beijing to London, Tokyo to Washington, Oslo to Dubai, the energy transition is undeniably racing ahead...
[C]lean energy became cheap far faster than anyone expected. Since 2009, the cost of solar power has plunged by 83 percent, while the cost of producing wind power has fallen by more than half. The price of lithium-ion battery cells fell 97 percent over the past three decades. Today, solar and wind power are the least expensive new sources of electricity in many markets, generating 12 percent of global electricity and rising... The rapid drop in costs for solar energy, wind power and batteries can be traced to early government investment and steady improvements over time by hundreds of researchers, engineers and entrepreneurs around the world. "The world has produced nearly three billion solar panels at this point, and every one of those has been an opportunity for people to try to improve the process," said Gregory Nemet, a solar power expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "And all of those incremental improvements add up to something very dramatic." An equally potent force, along with the technological advances, has been an influx of money — in particular, a gusher since 2020 of government subsidies...
In the United States, President Biden signed a trio of laws during his first two years in office that allocated unprecedented funds for clean energy: A $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law provided money to enhance the power grid, buy electric buses for schools and build a national network of electric vehicle chargers... Combined, the three laws have prompted companies to announce at least $230 billion in manufacturing investments so far... The U.S. solar industry installed a record 6.1 gigawatts of capacity in the first quarter of 2023, a 47 percent increase over the same period last year. And those low costs have led many of the United States' biggest corporations, such as Alphabet, Amazon and General Motors, to purchase large amounts of wind and solar power...
[C]lean energy became cheap far faster than anyone expected. Since 2009, the cost of solar power has plunged by 83 percent, while the cost of producing wind power has fallen by more than half. The price of lithium-ion battery cells fell 97 percent over the past three decades. Today, solar and wind power are the least expensive new sources of electricity in many markets, generating 12 percent of global electricity and rising... The rapid drop in costs for solar energy, wind power and batteries can be traced to early government investment and steady improvements over time by hundreds of researchers, engineers and entrepreneurs around the world. "The world has produced nearly three billion solar panels at this point, and every one of those has been an opportunity for people to try to improve the process," said Gregory Nemet, a solar power expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "And all of those incremental improvements add up to something very dramatic." An equally potent force, along with the technological advances, has been an influx of money — in particular, a gusher since 2020 of government subsidies...
In the United States, President Biden signed a trio of laws during his first two years in office that allocated unprecedented funds for clean energy: A $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law provided money to enhance the power grid, buy electric buses for schools and build a national network of electric vehicle chargers... Combined, the three laws have prompted companies to announce at least $230 billion in manufacturing investments so far... The U.S. solar industry installed a record 6.1 gigawatts of capacity in the first quarter of 2023, a 47 percent increase over the same period last year. And those low costs have led many of the United States' biggest corporations, such as Alphabet, Amazon and General Motors, to purchase large amounts of wind and solar power...
And yet no progress (Score:5, Informative)
Global energy demand rose 1% last year and record renewables growth did nothing to shift the dominance of fossil fuels, which still accounted for 82% of supply, the industry's Statistical Review of World Energy report said on Monday.
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re:And yet no progress (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"new goons at the IRS to collect taxes from everybody". They are enforcing the tax laws already on the books, the IRS does not write the tax laws, Congress does and they wrote in the loopholes. You know the ones, these are the loopholes the rich people have accountants to tell them how to scurry through.
Re:My clean energy is degrading fast... (Score:5, Interesting)
He was being sarcastic but he does have a point about the EV batteries.
I can keep my ICE running basically forever with some occasional work, replace a belt, oil change, that sort of thing.
My model 3 battery is good for 10 years according to Tesla then the replacement is what? $10-15k, maybe? A lot all at once, whatever the exact number will be then. And over the course of each of my car's life span, the ICE will always go the same distance on a tank. The model 3, not so much. It's already down from 320 miles to about 275 miles at 100% charge. That's quite a lot.
So far my cost on the ICE is a bit higher because the tires are fucking outrageously expensive but the big things have been covered by warranty just like the model 3 and soon I'll have to shell out a few $k to get the extended model 3 warranty which is only _two years_ then no option to extend, while my ICE warranty extension was 7 years for about the same cost.
I do wonder what the long term real world cost will be for all the EV owners who didn't set aside money to replace that battery because then they're either careless or have to sell at a huge loss or I dunno. Nothing good. But the ICE can keep going forever as long as you keep putting in smaller amount of cash regularly.
Re: (Score:2)
My model 3 battery is good for 10 years according to Tesla then the replacement is what? $10-15k, maybe? A lot all at once, whatever the exact number will be then. And over the course of each of my car's life span, the ICE will always go the same distance on a tank. The model 3, not so much. It's already down from 320 miles to about 275 miles at 100% charge. That's quite a lot.
Where are you pulling that 10 years from? I'm pretty sure they'd never say that. The degradation you're seeing is around in line with long term statistics:
https://insideevs.com/news/664... [insideevs.com]
So a loss of 10-15% of range during the lifetime of the car is noticeable but not at all fatal. You don't have to immediately replace the battery.
Also ICE doesn't keep going forever, they'll eventually require more and more serious maintenance and repairs. Burning oil, slipping transmissions, exploded bearings, etc., not t
Re: (Score:3)
I got the number from the Tesla warranty. If they won't cover it then I consider it a liability waiting to happen, be it for my battery or anything else I buy from anyone after the warranty period expires.
Breville just replaced my toaster oven entirely at their expense. If it had been 2 months from now I'd be out a $200+ toaster oven.
Same thing with my car battery, I _expect_ things to break 48 hours after the warranty expires. It's just life.
Now that I think about it, maybe the battery was only 8 years
Re:My clean energy is degrading fast... (Score:5, Insightful)
I got the number from the Tesla warranty. If they won't cover it then I consider it a liability waiting to happen, be it for my battery or anything else I buy from anyone after the warranty period expires.
The warranty on ICE cars is like 4-5 years. Do you count on your engine and transmission to blow up immediately after that expires? (Kia has 10 years but also only 100k mile so... https://www.thedrive.com/car-w... [thedrive.com]).
The warranty on batteries is about as generous as ICE drivetrains and are imo much less likely to fail catastrophically on you as they age.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but with a bit of knowledge, YOU can do it.
And you're not dropping a $26K part.
Re:My clean energy is degrading fast... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can keep my ICE running basically forever with some occasional work, replace a belt, oil change, that sort of thing.
Even with a cracked engine block? Impressive.
But the ICE can keep going forever as long as you keep putting in smaller amount of cash regularly.
I will admit that one of the potential issues with EVs is that they are less suited for DIY work. Of course, that's not really an EV thing so much as a new car thing. Car manufacturers are increasingly attempting to take more and more control over the vehicle that you "own". Still, it's entirely possible that, with sufficient saturation, an aftermarket will develop for things like car batteries. Among other things, that could include segmented versions of what are currently monolithic car batteries, potentially enabling you to replace your battery in stages. You would never get back to full, brand-new condition without replacing all segments, but you could keep an acceptable range over time by replacing the battery pack a bit at a time. Plus, I'm pretty sure we can expect prices to come down some more over time and batteries to last even longer in future, making that replacement much less financially demanding.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically your argument boils down to the ship of Theseus philosophical conundrum. It goes something like this: in a museum sits the ship of Theseus, thousands of years old. Over time age and rot have caused bits of the ship to crumble to dust and the ship has been repaired, replacing a plank here, a plank there. Once you have replaced all of the original parts, is it still the ship of Theseus.
You want to argue that an ICE will last "forever" with maintenance, but that's true of an EV as well. If you simply
Re: (Score:2)
Currently? $20-26K.
Re: (Score:2)
That has not been my experience, though the ICE's mileage degradation seems to slow a bit after the first years.
Re: (Score:2)
My model 3 battery is good for 10 years according to Tesla
You don't have a Model 3. The battery warranty is only 8 years!
Re:My clean energy is degrading fast... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most ICE engines wear out and need to be replaced or junked before 200,000 miles. (The average mileage of a junked car in the US is 150,000 miles.)
You can keep your ICE running forever if you keep replacing the engine, transmission, etc. Fuel efficiency goes down as the engine ages and compression leaks increase.
ICE car maintenance is a killer.
EVs don't need regular maintenance... not even brakes.
EV batteries have gone several hundred thousand miles and still have only minor degradation.
Re:My clean energy is degrading fast... (Score:5, Interesting)
EVs don't need regular maintenance... not even brakes.
As an EV owner myself I'd like to call this out because it's not true and, in my experience, I've spent far more on brake maintenance than I did for my ICE vehicle. Brake maintenance on an ICE is largely related to the pads and rotors as they wear down, which happens fairly consistently with regular driving patterns and can be budgeted / planned for. Due to an EV's ability to use one pedal regenerative braking, maintenance is more related to brake fluid breakdown along with rust buildup on the calipers and rotors due to lack of "regular" use.
It was absolutely terrifying applying the brake to avoid an accident only to not have them engage the first time because the rust buildup due lack of regular "heavy" use limited their range of travel. I did manage to get them to work but the repair costs were significant, needing new calipers, pads, and rotors. Now, a couple times a month, I go to an empty parking lot and do several hard brakes in a row to break up any rust buildup and keep the brake fluid moving to ensure proper lubrication. Twice a year, during routine seasonal tire swaps, I get the calipers lubricated and the fluid flushed.
Now that I'm doing regular brake maintenance, along with controlled hard stops to break up any rust buildup, my mechanic is telling me that the combination of regular maintenance and typical light brake use means I'll likely never need to replace the pads and rotors for the life of the car.
TLDR: Regret is expensive, don't skip regular brake maintenance on an EV.
Re: (Score:3)
You make several excellent points and comments.
My experience with electricity vs gas: by my calculations the electricity is cheaper by about 4x vs. my ICE per mile and now effectively zero because I almost always charge off my solar but that's another story and anecdotal. When gas prices peaked I was putting over $100 in my ICE to fill a tank and it was about $18 to bring my Tesla from 20 to 80% which felt a hell of a lot better than a triple digit tank. I took a picture of my first $106 tank to send to f
Re: (Score:3)
The minute you start specifying which panels, inverters, tel them to i
Re: (Score:3)
While there is wear and tear on gasoline/diesel engines, the profile is very different...
Relatively cheap preventative maintenance can keep a gasoline engine running for a long time, there have been many cases of gasoline cars clocking over a million miles on the same engine.
With electric, the motor itself might keep going for millions of miles but the battery will degrade in just a few years (a quick search shows the typical lifespan to be 2-3 years), and require a full replacement. The battery is generall
Re: (Score:2)
For 12 years my commute was 350 miles. Per week.
Then, magic, 2 years of hybrid work and a 250 miles per week.
The forced response to the pandemic was a virtually zero commute. And virtually zero anything else.
Your complaint lacks specificity.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it's very common to drive further than that for vacations during the year, or to visit relatives/friends throughout the year.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people have to drive an awful lot more than that.
In my case, during basketball season, we have to drive like 1000 miles a week, between my wife and myself, of which about 5% is commuting, 15% other miscellaneous crap, and about 80% getting kids to and from basketball practices and games located all over the northern half of Ohio.
And, yes, that's well over a thousand bucks a month in gas alone.
And, yes, we are all really lucky to still be alive, since most of it is in winter on icy and snowy roads.
Bu
Re:And yet no progress (Score:4, Insightful)
The bottom line measure is how much carbon is being dumped into the atmosphere every year. And the data shows that every year more carbon is being dumped into the atmosphere than the previous year [with an exception for the Covid recession]. If the world was making progress then the number would be going down.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless a truly miracle technology is invented for carbon extraction (where you put billions of tons captured gas is another question) then I don't expect the Keelin
Russia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well hopefully with any luck we won't have to worry about russia for much longer.
Actually developed countries have been actually pretty successful reducing carbon emissions in absolute, per capita and per-gdp terms, e.g. France halved it from the peak in the 70s despite the economy and population steadily growing:
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
The first big decline was during the Messmer nuclearization plan (so that's a good preview) then no progress until climate change started to be taken seriously. Tra
Re: (Score:2)
People have been saying this for a couple decades now.
If we don't have total buy-in across the planet, we're just pissing in the wind.
Because the non-compliant entities are like a fat kid in a diet camp.
You can diet as hard as you want.
If the fat kid eats his meal, plus all the stuff you didn't? Is there a real difference?
Re: And yet no progress (Score:2)
Not when we continually outsource the "dirty jobs" to third world countries. The rolling global economy ensures that production will be sent to whoever can do it cheapest.
Re:And yet no progress (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember that the majority of the world is still developing. You have 1.4 billion Chinese, 1.4 billion Indians, over 400 million in South America...
Europe, the US, and Japan only account for about a billion.
Most of the world's population is expecting to have the same quality of life as us in the future, and racing as fast as they can towards it. So emissions are going to keep increasing for a while, and that is factored into all the modelling.
The good news is that China agreed some aggressive targets at Paris, and is actually about 5 years ahead of where it said it would be. Emissions are still rising, but due to peak early and then start falling like they are in the West. India is not doing so well, so we need to keep up both the pressure and the assistance.
Re: And yet no progress (Score:2)
It's the rate of change that matters, and right now the change is coming too slowly to save our societies.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Please, PLEASE convince me "our societies" are worth saving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well no correction of the trend, but very much progress. Imagine what that 1% energy demand increase would mean if we weren't already investing in green energy. The fact that we are increasing our energy consumption while not generating the same historical increase in emissions is very much progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable capacity is growing exponentially. Your data suggests it reached the point where it is at least equalling the growth of fossil fuel generation last year, so this year it should exceed it, and the percentage of fossil fuels should start to fall increasingly quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
When I see "sustainable" production freed from the current massive levels of subsidies, and hence genuinely sustainable, then I will be very interested in watching its long-term growth.
I will be very happy if/when it replaces most of the need for fossil fuels, not just for the super-rich and super-subsidized, but for the other 99.99% of the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
"More expensive" isn't necessarily a Bad Thing.
Not saying "BOOM! 10,000% increase in your bill" is a desirable outcome.
The main problem is that "more expensive energy" is basically at odds with the "Nuclear is bad, it's too expensive" arguments.
And we can't do ANYTHING that makes nuclear power look more viable as an option...
Re: (Score:3)
There were times that it was normal for a woman to expect a third to a half of her children before they reached age 5. Scientific progress has shown that most of those are preventable. It's a lot more expensive than just putting them in the corner to die at birth, or to just let them succumb to pneumonia at age 3, but we still work to save them.
Just because something used to be the case is not an excuse for it to be now.
82% of world energy is from fossil fuels. (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear energy is the lynchpin of any climate change plan. We will fail without it. Build plenty of solar panels and wind turbines, but also build a nuclear baseload.
Lot of places are doing just that. Sweden just announced plans to build 10 reactors. Canada announced plans to build 6000 MW's of new nuclear. China announced plans for 150 reactors. The list goes on and on. There are a dozens of companies building SMR's including NuScale, X-Energy, Terrapower, GE-Hitachi, Rolls-Royce, etc.
By the way we learned this week that the antinuclear movement has an annual budget of at least 2.3 billion in just the United States. Who benefits from that? Well the fossil fuel industry of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:82% of world energy is from fossil fuels. (Score:5, Insightful)
Without nuclear when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing we will be burning fossil fuels. And those fossil fuels will charge peaking prices offsetting any savings from cheap intermittent sources. See Germany.
Apple and Alphabet building out renewable
They are greenwashing. Make no mistakes both of those companies run with fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If having energy available locally was some kind of limitation we wouldn't be dependent on fossil fuels. Lots of places don't have oil, or gas, or coal. We move vast quantities of them around.
The wind is always blowing somewhere. It's never stopped in all of recorded history, or during pre-history as far as we can tell. Same with the sun. It's always shining somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe you should include the construction cost and time for building a HVDC supergrid into every statement about renewables being cheap.
What's easier - placing new nuclear reactors at old coal sites, or building a HVDC supergrid?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need the grid to start enjoying cheap energy, what we have is already able to do that. The grid upgrades are to push the percentage of renewable energy well above 90%, and to reduce periods of extremely low, even negative, prices.
Re: (Score:3)
So in other words energy is only locally available currently. Electrical transmission on a scale required for high renewables does not exist. That means we need new nuclear in order to decarbonize the world.
What's easier - placing new nuclear reactors at old coal sites, or building a HVDC supergrid?
Re: (Score:2)
You for sure can supply us with a link to the market data which somehow supports your claim.
Re: (Score:2)
An increasingly likely future is that humanity installs two or three times its current generation capacity worth of solar and wind to cope with intermittency, and enjoys electricity costs near or below zero most of the time.
This is Utopian nonsense. A wish-dream that cannot come true. Star Trek replicator-stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree in principle and one of the biggest fanboys here. But I do wonder if we haven't fucked up the industry to the point where it's not really capable of building anything properly.
Why would Sweden be building 10 reactors though? Their grid is almost entirely carbon free already (hydro/nuclear/win).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that much more though, I think the Engineering Explained guy did the math for the US and it would be about a 20% increase in total electricity required. I did some rough math and it would be about 75GWh/day as an absolute top-end estimate (every person including babies driving 50km/day). That's just 3GW continuously, realistically more like 1.5 or less extra or even less since you could charge them during off-peak hours with existing generation capacity.
Maybe it's more about electrifying heating or indu
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmmm... I looked up the 2.3 billion antinuclear movement budget you were mentioned, and it looks like you're talking about this [capitalresearch.org].
The article lists the specific groups it includes for the $2.3 billion estimate, which is great. Still, the whole premise sounds a bit misleading. In the beginning he's saying, "Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear energy is the lynchpin of any climate change plan. We will fail without it.
No. Nuclear energy is the lynchpin of a stable grid. It can do nothing at all to help achieve our climate change plans because we won't be able to get a single nuclear power plant built in any meaningful timeframe relevant to our climate change plans, and in fact nuclear power remains carbon negative compared to fossil fuels for the first several years of operation due to construction related emissions, so even if we could build one in e.g. 8 years it still will provide zero impact on any country's 2035 goa
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear power remains carbon negative compared to fossil fuels for the first several years of operation
Yeah that's not true.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, boneheaded Americans just walled off the largest and easiest to access uranium deposits in the country ostensibly to satisfy indigenous people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does a political movement get a $2.3 billion dollar yearly budget?
Who is paying that?
Re: (Score:2)
How does a political movement get a $2.3 billion dollar yearly budget?
Who is paying that?
Clearly the fossil fuel industry
Re: (Score:2)
I had no idea they had access to that much money. I'll see if I can track down who is really coming up with that but I expect a maze of different orgs and routes that aren't publicly tracked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is a non-starter in much of the world. They don't have the infrastructure to regulate it, to procure fuel, to dispose of fuel, to build it, or to operate it. You won't get very far telling everyone that they have to buy your reactors and allow in your inspectors to make sure they are used properly.
Then there is the incredible cost. Energy for developing nations needs to be cheap. Heck, even for us in the West, it needs to be cheap.
And finally you have proliferation. Telling North Korea to solve thei
Re: (Score:2)
Just a bit of clarification to those that might assume otherwise, the superconductor statement holds even if/when LK-99 turns out to be nothing. Lot of folks assume any optimism around superconductors stems from that, without being aware that we now already have pretty good superconductors with liquid nitrogen, which is pretty workable.
Re:82% of world energy is from fossil fuels. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a total of zero fusion reactors in the world. Zero.
While I do support fusion R&D, fusion is just a way to distract from fission in order to continue burning fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:3)
You know exactly what he means.
Why are you like this?
Re:82% of world energy is from fossil fuels. (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain to us why fission is so "horrible".
Generation of power, safely, through fission has been a known quantity FOR DECADES.
Recycling of byproducts has been a known quantity FOR DECADES.
The only obstacles are things that have NOTHING to do with nuclear power or safety.
It's entirely fear-based.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two kinds of idiots on the internet.
People who are to stupid to google "fusion reactor", but completely know "there are none" (how can one know that?)
And then there is you.
Being labelled as an idiot by angelosphere is really the best thing that could happen to anyone.
Indeed, there are no fusion reactors capable of producing electricity, or even just able to sustain a fusion reaction for more than a few minutes (longest seems to be the Chinese Tokamak [independent.co.uk] with 17 minutes.
Fusion R&D is important, but it is so far away from any practical use that thinking you can rely on that to fight climate change in the near future is pure dementia.
Re: (Score:2)
Pedantic.
It doesn't matter one bit if there are zillions of fusion reactors if they take 1000x more energy input than output. By that measure we actually save energy by never turning them on. Are you in favor of never turning on these experimental reactors or just want to be a word splicing pedant like some college freshman "winning" a dorm debate in the tv lounge over a cheap beer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If an energy reactor of any type has negative energy production, it is not "working" or fit to purpose, which is positive energy production.
Pedantic. Boring.
Re: (Score:3)
And this is the kind of dishonest bullshit you assholes pull.
We need reactors! (Power production is implied.)
"We have reactors!"
"They don't produce power."
"You didn't implicitly say that!"
Re: (Score:3)
The context was, approximately, "things that produce usable and commercially viable energy."
In that context there are no working nuclear fusion reactors, nor any guarantee that there ever will be.
He was correct, and you are not, because of that context.
We're all aware that there have been fusion reactors that more than broke even in terms of energy output > energy input, but (a) not for very long, and (b) not with anything remotely close to commercial viability.
Re: (Score:2)
An actual carrier grade fusion reactor.
Not an experimental one. Or one that has to be completely rebuilt every time it's fired.
Find me ONE.
They
Do
Not
Exist
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion is also "just 10 years away" pipe dream at this stage.
Everything is still in "experimental" phase and there's not even agreement on what would constitute such a facility in a long term sense.
Safe fission is a known quantity.
And even waste recycling has been figured out.
But people have allowed eco-nutjobs to scare the shit out of everyone with "Nookyoulur = BOMZ!" thinking and lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the whole "Superconductors will revolutionize everything".
It's crap.
Always has been crap.
RTS have always been snake oil.
We have RTS RIGHT NOW. And have for decades.
They all have the physical properties of a brick.
A brittle object who you can't turn into wiring.
And, even if we could, it serves zero actual purpose.
So much dishonesty (Score:4, Insightful)
If solar etc was really so cheap there would be no need for a trillion dollars in tax money to get people to use it.
The reality of this stuff is if not the energy itself the infrastructure needed to use it is a FANTASTICALLY expensive. It very much takes away from other priorities.
Which is not an argument against doing it is just a reality - someone is paying, as usual its mostly the middle class, because that is who pays when government does anything. As usual the 1%ers accrue the most gains from it - because lets face when you own the means of production you are going to be top tier energy user.
You must be (Score:2)
new to the thinking around here.
Re: A trillion? (Score:2)
A trillion? Get real. Nuclear is no stranger to handouts. https://www.energy.gov/article... [energy.gov]
Re:So much dishonesty (Score:4, Interesting)
It's more complicated.
For big projects, capital outlay was also similarly very very expensive for other energy tech. An energy company largely serving an area with a 10 year old natural gas plant wouldn't want to spend money on *any* new generation, "green" or otherwise. They have to recoup the investment in that plant, which they may have planned to be 20 or 30 years. Part of the cost would be trying to accelerate replacement timelines. The natural gas plants are only affordable to operate due to the massive infrastructure of fuel distribution, which was also a massive expense.
Another issue is externalized costs. For coal power plants, there's some cost penalty associated with the ash, but not nearly enough when they lose containment and toxic ash gets into the freshwater supplies in an area. For emissions, same for air quality, co2, and methane pollution. Either you tax those and people will cry foul, or you incentivize clean alternatives, and people cry foul.
At the residential scale, it's not as efficient as grid scale, but even then, without subsidies, a solar array will more than pay for itself, eventually. The problem is the average household doesn't tend to think in terms of 'eventually', particularly since it might be 10 years before it pays for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
If solar etc was really so cheap there would be no need for a trillion dollars in tax money to get people to use it.
When I go to the next shop here, to get a solar panel: then there is most certainly no "tax money" behind it. Neither in Germany, nor in Thailand, not sure about France - but I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So much dishonesty (Score:5, Insightful)
"If solar etc was really so cheap there would be no need for a trillion dollars in tax money to get people to use it."
You don't need to spend a single dollar to get people to USE solar "etc", they mostly neither know nor care about generation. All they know is that the lights either do or don't come on when they flip the switch.
You also don't have to pay a single cent to get generation companies to INSTALL renewables. All you have to do is END FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES.
The power companies have turned this into the debate you think it should be (over subsidies for renewables) instead of the important debate (subsidies for fossil fuels) and you are here to help them. Why?
Re: So much dishonesty (Score:5, Informative)
You also don't have to pay a single cent to get generation companies to INSTALL renewables. All you have to do is END FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES.
In case anyone is skeptical about whether fossil fuel subsidies are real:
Here's [eesi.org] a 2019 paper that goes through the federal subsidies for coal, oil and natural gas in the US and concludes that they amount to $20B per year. That's federal only, and direct subsidies only.
This study [iisd.org] finds that G20 governments give more than $580B annually in subsidies, including tax breaks
Those are direct subsidies and tax breaks only, though. This study [yale.edu] looks at the question globally and holistically, including indirect subsidies such as healthcare for negative health impacts and the long term impact of global warming. It concludes that the world subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of $5.9T annually.
We should end all direct subsidies for fossil fuels, and enact carbon taxes and carbon tariffs to at least partially remove the indirect subsidies. If we did that, there would be no need whatsoever for renewable subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
Just used up my mod points, can someone throw swillden a few Interesting and Insightfuls, please?
Re: (Score:2)
I will back you 100% on ending fossil fuel subsidies. - Especially if that include the biggest subsidy of all ending our imperialist presence in oil producing regions.
As long as you agree to do the same for solar/batter/ev technologies - including the biggest subsidy there - China's "Most Favored" status.
This is really a debate about subsidies, at least not the way YOU think it is, its mostly about America last Democrats, undermining our economic independence for their private gain and in support of their t
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and solar in Europe have reached the point where they don't need subsidies to be highly profitable. In fact the main issue in the UK is that the government won't hand out licences to build it fast enough, and has completely banned onshore wind and most solar farms.
The reason why there are some subsidies available is mostly to help with up-front costs. For example, The Netherlands provides cheap loans to build offshore wind, paid back in the first few years of operation. The amounts are tiny compared to
Someone didn't get the memo (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone should tell Siemens Energy and its recently announced 2.4 billion loss for its wind turbine division [cnbc.com]. Or the Giant windfarm off Norfolk coast halted due to spiralling costs [theguardian.com]. Or all the other offshore wind farms projects plagued with rising costs and delays [nytimes.com].
The reality is that we so far demonstrated that we could deploy renewables quite cheaply by spending fossil fuel to do so. Both for installation, and for manufacturing; not even talking about maintenance. And also for the gas plants needed as backup or for peaks. With fossil fuels becoming harder to extract, and consequently more expensive, it seems like a lot of country are not willing to bet their future on wind (or solar for that matter) only. Which is why most big countries (US, China) are betting on both nuclear and renewables for the future of their electricity grid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The articles all say the same thing. It's not that wind is unprofitable, far from it. It's that the technology is rapidly evolving which causes two issues:
1. The manufacturers are releasing lots of new products, and not putting enough effort into quality control to avoid costly reworking.
2. The wind farm developers have to make large up-front investments, which have short pay-back periods but cause short term cash flow problems.
Coal and gas are very mature so don't have those issues. Nuclear should be matur
Always look on ... (Score:3)
Re:Tokyo (Score:5, Informative)
renewed opposition to expensive nuclear after the Fukushima disaster
No idea which world you live in. Even after Fukushima, Japan still expressed interest in pursuing nuclear, because in the end they understand they have to keep the lights on (which is also a metaphor for keeping their industry running), and not just when wind is blowing.
Given that we have a climate emergency, we should be looking at ways to get the best technology mass produced in ways that governments and corporations will accept.
Which is why more and more countries are betting on both nuclear and renewables, which are both low-carbon energy sources.
Glad we finally agree on something, I knew you would turn around after looking at the facts!
Re: (Score:2)
No idea which world you live in. Even after Fukushima, Japan still expressed interest in pursuing nuclear, because in the end they understand they have to keep the lights on (which is also a metaphor for keeping their industry running), and not just when wind is blowing.
I'm sure there was some interest but they shut down all the plants after Fukushima. It took until 2023 for opinions to flip and to reverse the decision: https://world-nuclear-news.org... [world-nuclear-news.org]
Re: Tokyo (Score:2)
"Even after Fukushima, Japan still expressed interest in pursuing nuclear,"
After Fukushima support for nuclear was at an all time low in Japan. But once it became clear that no alternatives would be explored, Japanese came to support turning the reactors back on because power is better than no power. Pretending Japan is one monolithic thing to support your argument is disingenuous.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially since things like Fukushima were not a result of a reactor shortcoming. But of cheaping out on physical plant specs.
Something that could have been eliminated with a few tons more concrete in their sea wall, or putting the shutdown generators higher in the facility.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of it is because they want to extract the maximum possible value from their existing technology, which is also why many Japanese car manufacturers waited so long and stuck with hybrids before introducing pure EV models.
Doesn't it make sense though? Given how costly (in CO2 terms) a new vehicle is? As in, you're better off driving your old clunker until it dies than buying a new Tesla every 10 or 15 years? Also, regarding the hybrid model, doesn't it make a lot of sense given the cost and relative scarcity of metals used for batteries? Assuming your goal is to limit tailpipe emissions, are you not better off with 60% hybrid (and zero ev) market share than 20% EV share (and zero hybrid)?
Re: (Score:2)
Much of it is because they want to extract the maximum possible value from their existing technology, which is also why many Japanese car manufacturers waited so long and stuck with hybrids before introducing pure EV models.
Doesn't it make sense though?
No.
Given how costly (in CO2 terms) a new vehicle is? As in, you're better off driving your old clunker until it dies than buying a new Tesla every 10 or 15 years?
That does not bear any relation to the current debate. Japanese have to replace their vehicles after a few years because they start getting oppressively taxed at three years and the fees increase every year. Consequently they rarely see over 25,000 miles. So they are in fact buying a new car every five to ten years (Japanese put 3-5,000 km on vehicles per year on average.) They travel shorter distances on average, so they don't typically need as much range out of an EV as we do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Tokyo (Score:2)
They bet on hydrogen and lost as well. Going EV meant admitting that was a mistake
Go ahead, make my day! (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead, mod me down. It will only open a window into thinking in the "geek community."
Quoting from a comment on a "denier" Web site
"There are now 8 billion people living on our planet and it is only because of the use of fossil fuels that this has happened .
Even 100 years ago the average age in many countries was in the thirties . Life was short and brutal for the vast majority of the worlds population of around 2 billion .
Politicians are to blame from local councils right to the UN using the threat of climate change to exert their influence. With out fossil fuel the world will starve as 50% of all of the worlds food is grown using nitrogenous fertilizer manufactured using natural gas .
Don’t these eco loons know this simple fact . This period is the best the world has ever known but politicians right around the world are trying to push the world back into a dark place without fossil fuel ."
The people in Japan and their leaders are thinking long and hard about what they are doing--they don't have the fall-back of rich natural resources of the US and hence have a much narrower "engineering margin" to follow ill-considered policies.
Re: (Score:3)
Since we're using up petroleum faster than nature can replace it, a future without fossil fuels is a mathematical certainty.
We should be using what we have left to make that transition as painless as possible. Uranium and rare earths mining and steel and cement and aluminum production may have no pract
Fixed that for you (the original web site) (Score:3)
Quoting from a comment on a "denier" Web site
"There are now 8 billion people living on our planet and it is only because of the availability of cheap energy that this has happened .
Fossil fuels are not some magical panacea. They provided a cheap energy source. Every new cheap energy source from better foods to wood power to water power to coal power and others have seen similar expansions in quality of life.
It is true that fossil fuels use has seen the longest and most substantial growth in history. HOWEVER, it isn't because it was "fossil fuels" it was because it was cheap energy.
Unlike 150 years ago, we now know that fossil fu
Re: (Score:2)
There are challenges, but doesn't mean there's no progress or that it couldn't be even worse. For example, my local grid is now only 40% fossil fuels. Absolute quantities of every category of fossil fuels has been decreased, with solar expansion more than covering the expanding energy generation. In my personal household, I usually get more power from my own panels than my grid, usually more power to the grid than I get from the grid.