Wind and Solar Saved the US $250 Billion Over 4 Years, Report Finds (arstechnica.com) 170
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: When used to generate power or move vehicles, fossil fuels kill people. Particulates and ozone resulting from fossil fuel burning cause direct health impacts, while climate change will act indirectly. Regardless of the immediacy, premature deaths and illness prior to death are felt through lost productivity and the cost of treatments. Typically, you see the financial impacts quantified when the EPA issues new regulations, as the health benefits of limiting pollution typically dwarf the costs of meeting new standards. But some researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab have now done similar calculations -- but focusing on the impact of renewable energy. Wind and solar, by displacing fossil fuel use, are acting as a form of pollution control and so should produce similar economic benefits. Do they ever. The researchers find that, in the U.S., wind and solar have health and climate benefits of over $100 for every Megawatt-hour produced, for a total of a quarter-trillion dollars in just the last four years. This dwarfs the cost of the electricity they generate and the total of the subsidies they received. [...]
As a result, the environmental and health benefits of wind in 2022 are estimated as being $143 for each Mw-hr, with solar providing $100/Mw-hr in benefits. Given the amount of power generated by wind and solar that year, that works out to a total of $62 billion and $12 billion, respectively. For the entire 2019-2022 period, they total up to $250 billion. Due to the uncertainties in various estimates, the researchers estimate that the real value for wind is somewhere between $91 and $183 per Mw-hr, with solar having a proportionate uncertainty. For comparison, they note that the unsubsidized costs of the electricity produced by wind and solar range from $20 to $60 per Mw-hr, depending on where the facility is sited. So, in some ways, the companies that own these plants are only receiving a very small fraction of the benefits of their operation. Wind and solar do receive subsidies, but even the most generous ones provided by the Inflation Reduction Act max out below $35/Mw-hr -- again, far less than the health and environmental benefits. The researchers note that most of these benefits (about 75 percent) come from the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Still, the nitrogen and sulfur emissions reductions were also substantial: They displaced the equivalent of roughly 20 percent of the power sector's total emissions of these chemicals. That translates into avoiding about 1,400 premature deaths in 2022 alone. The researchers acknowledge a number of limitations to their work. "One big one is that they don't include distributed solar at all, meaning their totals for that form of production are a significant underestimate," reports Ars, noting that the Energy Information Agency estimates that, in the U.S., distributed solar accounts for over 30 percent of total solar production. "It also, as mentioned, doesn't account for the use of storage such as batteries, which are increasingly used to offset the tail-off in solar production in the evenings."
"In addition, their work doesn't account for the intermittency of renewable power sources, which can sometimes result in the use of less efficient fossil fuel plants and so offset some of these benefits. The drop of wind and solar prices are also influencing decisions on what types of fossil fuel plants are getting built, disfavoring coal and increasing investments in natural gas plants that can respond quickly to changes in renewable output. Over the long term, this will result in additional benefits that can't be captured by this sort of short-term analysis."
The study has been published in the journal Cell Reports Sustainability.
As a result, the environmental and health benefits of wind in 2022 are estimated as being $143 for each Mw-hr, with solar providing $100/Mw-hr in benefits. Given the amount of power generated by wind and solar that year, that works out to a total of $62 billion and $12 billion, respectively. For the entire 2019-2022 period, they total up to $250 billion. Due to the uncertainties in various estimates, the researchers estimate that the real value for wind is somewhere between $91 and $183 per Mw-hr, with solar having a proportionate uncertainty. For comparison, they note that the unsubsidized costs of the electricity produced by wind and solar range from $20 to $60 per Mw-hr, depending on where the facility is sited. So, in some ways, the companies that own these plants are only receiving a very small fraction of the benefits of their operation. Wind and solar do receive subsidies, but even the most generous ones provided by the Inflation Reduction Act max out below $35/Mw-hr -- again, far less than the health and environmental benefits. The researchers note that most of these benefits (about 75 percent) come from the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Still, the nitrogen and sulfur emissions reductions were also substantial: They displaced the equivalent of roughly 20 percent of the power sector's total emissions of these chemicals. That translates into avoiding about 1,400 premature deaths in 2022 alone. The researchers acknowledge a number of limitations to their work. "One big one is that they don't include distributed solar at all, meaning their totals for that form of production are a significant underestimate," reports Ars, noting that the Energy Information Agency estimates that, in the U.S., distributed solar accounts for over 30 percent of total solar production. "It also, as mentioned, doesn't account for the use of storage such as batteries, which are increasingly used to offset the tail-off in solar production in the evenings."
"In addition, their work doesn't account for the intermittency of renewable power sources, which can sometimes result in the use of less efficient fossil fuel plants and so offset some of these benefits. The drop of wind and solar prices are also influencing decisions on what types of fossil fuel plants are getting built, disfavoring coal and increasing investments in natural gas plants that can respond quickly to changes in renewable output. Over the long term, this will result in additional benefits that can't be captured by this sort of short-term analysis."
The study has been published in the journal Cell Reports Sustainability.
Deflationary. Economists won't like it (Score:5, Funny)
Removing 250 billion in transactions? Economists won't be happy about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Real economists would understand things become cheaper over time as we improve our efficiencies. And this usually allows consuming more of that thing, whatever it is.
(Gas prices for example are allowed to float just for this reason. If there is a glut, people will take more roadtrips thanks to cheaper gas. If there is a shortage prices rise sharply, people only to essential trip, and then the price tapers to a more reasonable, but still high point by itself).
Anyway, the "economists" who insist on forever in
Forever inflation is good (Score:3)
It allows the relative price of items in oversupply to fall gently without the fall getting fought destructively. And it's important to avoid deflation. But it needs to be a low value; the 2% figure was pulled from nowhere in particular, but it's probably as good an aim as any.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Economists will be pretty happy after they read your comment that they can explain you the broken window fallacy though.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad example of a real problem (Score:2)
Given that the first economist paid the second $50 to eat the canine faecal material(!), that action must have been worth more than $50 to the person who paid for it. given that GDP is supposed to be a measure of valuable activity in an economy, a real addition to GDP has occurred.
A better example of the problem is what happens when a tornado strikes and a burst of economic activity occurs afterwards. This is recorded as an increase in GDP, but is actually only restoring a previously existing status quo.
The
Re:Deflationary. Economists won't like it (Score:5, Insightful)
How is the USA, a capitalist country, building wind and solar when China, a communist country, is still ramping up on coal?!?
China installed more solar and wind capacity in 2023 than the rest of the world combined, including the USA. Additionally, China produced the majority of the solar panels used globally.
However, China, along with other similar countries, is still catching up in terms of energy per capita, which directly correlates with the standard of living, compared to the USA and other Western nations. This is why they are also rapidly expanding their nuclear energy capacity and, unfortunately, continuing to build coal plants.
It's hard to blame them for wanting the same standard of living that we enjoy, especially given our own reluctance to make significant changes.
Re: (Score:3)
It's hard to blame them for wanting the same standard of living that we enjoy, especially given our own reluctance to make significant changes.
I agree with you on one level but it still doesnt change the fact that these brand new coal plants will be actively working against net zero for at least the next half century and we REALLY dont need even more obstacles in reaching that benchmark. As it is as a planet we havent even leveled off our increasing emissions which means we have an extremely long way to go to reach net zero.
Knowing what we know now we dont have room for exceptions so those in the developing world can raise their standard of living
Re:Deflationary. Economists won't like it (Score:4, Informative)
I agree with you on one level but it still doesnt change the fact that these brand new coal plants will be actively working against net zero for at least the next half century
That is true, but it is a bit dishonest to call them "new". Chinese are almost exclusively building *replacement* coal plants, often limited by the existing infrastructure and supply logistics of an existing site. Over the past 20 years China's coal consumption has barely changed despite all these "new" coal plants.
It would be nice to see them reduce, but one thing that is clear here: China is massively increasing energy generation without increasing coal consumption. They'll end up as a rich first world nation having contributed only a tiny fraction of the per capita emissions we have in the west.
I find it hard to sympathise with people criticising them, while also wasting phenomenal amounts of power themselves. Glass houses and stones and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, but it is a bit dishonest to call them "new". Chinese are almost exclusively building *replacement* coal plants, often limited by the existing infrastructure and supply logistics of an existing site.
No, "new" is the correct word and we know they'll be around for a half century minimum because of that. I know when I buy a new car I dont walk around telling everyone "No, it's not new. It's just a replacement".
As for the logistics of replacing coal plants with something else, we've been managing that just fine here in the US. A massive portion of our coal power has been swapped out in recent years and the rest of our coal power seem destined for such a changeover soon. Why is China not able to do the same
Re:Deflationary. Economists won't like it (Score:4, Insightful)
We need everyone making sacrifices and moving off of non renewables right now (and yes, we could likely be doing more right here in the US although we are reducing them). I hate the fact that that isnt fair to developing nations but global warming doesnt give a shit about economic fairness, it only cares about total global emissions and those are still going up and that increase is being driven entirely by the developing world.
There is an interesting debate to consider here.
Let's picture a similar situation: Imagine a group of 10 people embarking on a multi-day hike. They start with a reserve of 100 liters of water for the whole group. After a few days, they check the water reserves and find that one person used 45 liters (for drinking, showering, refreshing their face, and other personal uses), while the rest of the group collectively used only 5 liters. The group still has a long way to go—let's say 10 more days of walking—and they realize they need to ration the water. There are several potential solutions:
Most of the group argues that everyone should get an equal share (50L / 10 / 10 = 0.5L per person per day).
The person who used 45 liters proposes that everyone reduces their share by 50%. He argues that this would reduce his usage by 22.5 liters, which is a significant cut! He insists that he is making the most effort. The others would only need to reduce their daily consumption by 0.1L, which shouldn't be too hard, right?
The problem with the second solution is not just that it is unfair; it also doesn't work. The rest of the group is willing to make some sacrifices (like China, which is doing more than the US in terms of renewable and nuclear energy deployment), but they don't accept that the one person continues to use more water. This issue isn't just about past behavior but also about what is happening now and will happen in the future. The US (and Western countries in general) is signaling to other countries that they want to continue enjoying high emissions at the expense of others.
Saying "global warming doesn't care about economic fairness" is true, but global warming also doesn't care about borders. It doesn't matter if emissions are coming from a US citizen or a Chinese citizen. Are you then suggesting that a US citizen has the right to emit more than a Chinese citizen? This is what is happening right now, and what will happen in the future, as China is expected to level off their emissions under those of the US (both cumulative and per capita by the way, even though China is also emitting to produce goods for the US).
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the well-explained insight. I wish I had mod points to give you.
Re: Deflationary. Economists won't like it (Score:3)
Your water example assumes that the resource is fixed*. In the case of energy, the demand is growing and new capacity must be added**. New investments most be made. And given the correct market signals***, one would expect them to be made "wisely"****.
*A common misconception shared by socialists and communists.
**Like wealth creation in a capitalist system.
***Like an open and transparent carbon market. Not a closed, secretive one like Washington State's CCA created.
****I guess wisdom in the CCP is that X
Re: (Score:2)
My water example is not an example, but a parable.
Your water example assumes that the resource is fixed. In the case of energy,
Speaking about the topic at hand, the working analogy could be that the resource in question is not energy, but CO2 emissions. They are not fixed in the sense that we can always emit more, but if we fix another parameter, such as limiting global warming to +2C by 2050, then that leaves us with a quota of CO2 we can emit until 2050 while keeping global warming under 2C. In that sense, the amount of CO2 available for us to emit is fixed.
Does that make sense?
New investments most be made. And given the correct market signals, one would expect them to be made "wisely".
Tr
Re: (Score:2)
Does that make sense?
Yes. But only if you have a robust model for the relationship between CO2 emissions and warming. Some claim we have this. But then someone else steps in and says, "Gee. We were really surprised by how the North Atlantic current affects global temperature. And we're not really sure under what conditions it might collapse. Guess it's back to the drawing board." That model is nowhere near complete enough to use for making economic decisions. It's not wrong, in a theoretical sense. Just not useful.
Current mode
Re: (Score:3)
The relation between CO2 emissions and climate change is already established. If your position is to refute that, be my guest, and provide your sources. Just make sure they are peer-reviewed and contain actual science.
Re: (Score:2)
If your position is to refute that
No. My position is to state that the function of the relationship is poorly understood. We are still discovering second order effects that change it significantly and render it useless for numerical analysis.
We haven't even collected all the "actual science" involved yet. So go ahead and list all the things that we don't know. I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasnt interested in reading some lengthy hypothetical scenario so I just read your final paragraph and you missed part of what I was saying. We need to reach net zero as a species, that is literally impossible unless everyone goes to net zero or we invent some crazy sci fi carbon capture. Given the risks involved we cant just hope that technology will save us so we need everyone chipping in right now.
As I already said, no this isnt fair. That doesnt change the fact that this is absolutely what must happe
Re: (Score:3)
I wasnt interested in reading some lengthy hypothetical scenario so I just read your final paragraph and you missed part of what I was saying.
Maybe you should have read the whole post instead of being a lazy ass, that way you would have understood why I didn't miss what you were saying.
We need to reach net zero as a species, that is literally impossible unless everyone goes to net zero or we invent some crazy sci fi carbon capture. Given the risks involved we cant just hope that technology will save us so we need everyone chipping in right now.
Agreed. This is literally what my post (that you acknowledged you didn't read) is about.
That doesnt negate the fact that net zero is (once again) completely impossible without everyone making reductions.
This is where you go off track, exactly as I explained in my previous post (which you acknowledged you didn't read). We don't need everyone to make the same reductions. We need everyone to emit an amount of CO2 that is compatible with net zero. Net zero doesn't mean no CO2 emiss
Re: (Score:2)
... it still doesnt change the fact that these brand new coal plants will be actively working against net zero for at least the next half century and we REALLY dont need even more obstacles in reaching that benchmark.
You're probably right, but I have a rare chance here to play an optimistic Devil's advocate so I'm going to indulge myself.
It takes a lot of energy to produce solar cells - keeping in mind that they start out as various ores dug from the ground and end up as energy producers. So using coal for power now, because realistically they have no other short-term choice, may actually speed up the transition to solar power. Maybe - just maybe - the net result will be taking coal plants offline well before the 50-yea
Re: (Score:2)
But there are better choices than coal. Right here in the US we're changing out all of our coal power for much cleaner gas. Sure, we still need to get rid of those as well but at least we're not opening up more of the worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey....and WE had it first...so, we get to keep and live with that lifestyle.
Other's figure their own way with clean energy....as we clean ours up.
But to the winners go the spoils and all...We are not obligated to give it up.
Re:Deflationary. Economists won't like it (Score:5, Informative)
China is due to peak its per-capita emissions this year or next, 5 years ahead of their agreed Paris climate goal. They will peak at a fraction of the level we did.
Energy per capital does not correlate with standard of living. The US per-capital energy consumption peaked in the 1970s, at over 350 million BTU. If it was correlated then living standards would have been falling since the 1970s.
https://www.npr.org/sections/m... [npr.org]
This should be obvious if you spend a moment thinking about it. A more fuel efficient car still gets you from A to B, but saves you money and reduces the harm done to your lungs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Energy correlates with GDP, which correlates with standard of living.
Just look at the graphs [theshiftproject.org] in this study for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying quality of life has declined in the US since the 1970s? Because if the correlation holds then that must also be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying quality of life has declined in the US since the 1970s?
I am saying that energy use correlates quite well with GDP [theshiftproject.org] at the global level.
But don’t worry, I understand your point: I’m quite sure that if you look hard enough, you can cherry-pick specific indicators to contradict this on a smaller scale.
If you want to read about decoupling GDP and energy use, I encourage you to start with that [carbone4.com]. This is especially crucial if you want to avoid the trap of conflating partial decoupling with absolute decoupling.
Re: (Score:2)
Running the economy uses energy, but energy doesn't cause the economy. So for example, on the days that energy prices go negative from abundant solar power, there's no huge spike in GDP nor in standard of living. Perhaps you should spend a moment thinking about it, like OP suggested.
Re: (Score:2)
How is the USA, a capitalist country, building wind and solar when China, a communist country, is still ramping up on coal?!? ( /s )
It's hard to blame them for wanting the same standard of living that we enjoy, especially given our own reluctance to make significant changes.
Yet...
ah nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
lol looks like rsilvergun is living in AC's head rent free
Inflamatory Propaganda (Score:2, Redundant)
Whenever I see an article like this I look to see the tone, assumptions, and sweeping generalizations. Sure enough, this article has all that. The hand waving is just as boring and wrong as ever. Wake me up when there's a real article without all the crap.
No mention of the cost of money (Score:2)
Re:No mention of the cost of money (Score:4, Insightful)
It's right there in TFS, you don't even have to read the article, let alone the paper:
the unsubsidized costs of the electricity produced by wind and solar range from $20 to $60 per Mw-hr
What did you think that cost was for, if not building it? It's certainly not for "fuel costs".
All cited power generation costs include the amortised cost of the capital required to build the plant. For nuclear that's a big chunk of the power cost, and for solar & wind it's virtually all of it.
Well done since you read the study (Score:4, Informative)
Or Christ you could at least be bothered to read the f****** article and debunk some of the summary of the study. No?
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers may or may not be accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
But, I for am glad that we are investing in solar. We as a nation waste tremendous amounts on utterly pointless endeavors. But solar is one of the few things we do that is actually worthwhile. Once the equipment is installed, cost of energy is close to $0. And best of all, we are putting less toxic shit in the air. And reduced pollution due to increased EV use is cherry on top.
I don't fully understand why people are against this sort of thing that benefits us all.
Re: (Score:3)
Panels only require replacement after the 25 year warranty runs out (or there is new panel with enough increased efficiency to warrant an upgrade).
What maintenance do they need apart from a quick clean?
Whose fault is that if we rely on China for the panels?
At what point if there ground/water pollution associated with solar panel production?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How does storage pay for itself at grid scale? How much does the customer have to pay per kWh to achieve this end?
All the panels I've heard of start to lose efficiency after 15 years, though maybe that's an outdated number or maybe that's the inverters rather than the panels. In any case you've still got to swap them out eventually. Time will tell whether recycling can keep up with aging panels as they're taken out of use. A good number of them are probably going to wind up in the same e-waste piles in A
Re: (Score:3)
Also, fun fact, a substantial proportion of China's (and therefore the world's) polysilicon is made using Uyghur forced labour.
Re: (Score:3)
Solar PV loses less than 15% over 25 years, so worst case you will still be getting 85% of the output 25 years after you installed them. Remember that the "fuel" is free too, so it's not like your fossil car where reduced efficiency at 50k miles is costing you money.
It would be completely insane to throw away a solar panel that is producing >85% of its rated output. If you did ship one to Africa, someone would attach it to their roof for a few more decades at least.
As for grid scale storage, you already
Re:The numbers may or may not be accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
It's expensive when deployed with storage.
Less cheap, anyway - but still less expensive [lazard.com] at $46-102 per MWh including storage than nuclear ($141-221) or coal ($68-166), and similar to gas ($39-101). But again, only if you completely ignore the many externalised health and climate costs of fossil fuels, as TFA points out.
It's difficult to use as grid power without storage.
Only at really high penetration levels. In Australia the main grid regularly runs on 70%+ solar+wind with minimal storage, just through diversity of generation, and is doing fine. 90% is not hard with moderate storage, and even 100% is certainly achievable.
Panels require maintenance/cleaning and replacement.
Whereas coal & gas & nuclear plants just keep truckin' on 24/365 with no maintenance, no manpower and no failures? Sure sure. Solar needs far less maintenance than practically anything.
We currently rely on China for panels.
You mean, "we didn't invest enough in manufacturing ourselves, and sat on our thumbs while China built a massive PV production industry that dramatically out-competes us". But there are plenty of panels made in the US and the rest of the world, you just have to pay more.
There's quite a bit of ground/water pollution associated with solar panel production.
Pollution?? You can't be seriously trying to claim solar panels are remotely comparable to the massive waste stream from mining, refining, distributing, and burning fossil fuels?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The numbers may or may not be accurate (Score:4, Interesting)
That puts them 10-15 years ahead of a PV installation in terms of durability.
Sure. And lifespan is taken into account in the Lifetime Cost of Energy figures I cited above, because it's the cost per MW hour produced, not per panel or per plant. It also takes into account the regular maintenance needed to keep the natgas plants running too.
What it doesn't take into account is the externalised costs of health and climate impacts that TFA is discussing. I don't know how much of the environmental cost of polysilicon that China passes on in the price of their panels, but because any pollution is much more localised that's their own problem to worry about. Germany still produces a good amount of the world's polysilicon, and they're pretty conscious of impact.
And yeah, if you want to compete with China you probably will have to subsidise your own manufacturing industry - just like they did [sciencedirect.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Panels require maintenance/cleaning and replacement.
Seriously?
First, show me one mode of electrical generation that doesn't require maintenance / cleaning and replacement of parts. Even one.
Second, please compare the maintenance requirement of cleaning some solar panels every once in a while, to a complete shut-down and overhaul of mechanical thermal generation of literally any type and get back to us. Glass cleaner, elbow grease, a ladder, and a few labor hours while still producing, versus complete shutdown, at least partial disassembly of a very large m
Lobbyists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention savings from having to liberate oil (Score:5, Insightful)
Not having to ramp up ($$$$) the military to go "liberate" oil producing nations when they threaten our oil supply is a nice perk.
Also helps that the US now produces as much oil as either Russia or Saudi Arabia these days.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think this in any way would reduce the amount spent on the military? The USA already spends orders of magnitude more than needed to "bring democracy" to countries which have oil.
Re: Not to mention savings from having to liberate (Score:2)
There's a resting cost and an active cost to maintaining a standard army. Have you not been paying attention to what's going on the last three years east of Germany
Re: Not to mention savings from having to liberat (Score:2)
Standing*
Re: (Score:2)
There's a resting cost and an active cost to maintaining a standard army. Have you not been paying attention to what's going on the last three years east of Germany
Of course I have. There's a resting cost to the army in the USA as well. That doesn't even remotely explain the costs or why the USA thinks it needs an army the size it has.
We did all learn something east of Germany the past 3 years: We learnt that a country with a tiny arm compared to the USA and a tiny budget compared to the USA with the aid of a pooling of weapons from allies was able to fend off the country that the USA considers its single biggest threat. What is going on east of germany is making the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If Germany had kept their nuclear power plants operational then maybe that would have left Putin without as much leverage to invade Ukraine. Putin was betting on using natural gas supplies to Europe as a means to keep most of Europe from getting involved in protecting Ukraine from invasion.
Cutting off supplies of cheap energy from Russia certainly made in impact on Europe but with the understanding that Russia was not likely to stop with invading Ukraine this tactic from Putin largely failed. It still req
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we all stopped using oil today, there would still be plenty of things for the world's nations to fight about.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is certainly not about oil. Same for Gaza. Same for Haiti.
There will be something else that people value, that will become the next flashpoint in the next war.
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely love how you blame the administration that has increased oil output to become #1 in the world as "energy hostile" and "buffoon" when they actually are doing exactly what you prescribe.
You should re-examine your conclusion making.
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely love how you blame the administration that has increased oil output to become #1 in the world as "energy hostile" and "buffoon" when they actually are doing exactly what you prescribe.
Administrations have little control over or impact of what happens in the world. Foreign wars, energy costs, healthcare, economic conditions, innovation and employment are mostly shit that happens for reasons completely divorced from policy initiatives of those in office.
Re: (Score:2)
Which still works against the GP saying that the "energy hostile Biden buffoon administration" is responsible for anything to do with this topic at all. It's propagandist bullshit, through and through; and my suggestion that the GP should re-examine their conclusion making still stands.
75% of $ "savings" quoted are from CO2 (Score:5, Insightful)
The article and the paper it summarizes are a moderately confusing mix of "climate and health benefits".
like: "These emission reductions provided $249 billion of climate and health benefits" and as the summary here says: "The researchers note that most of these benefits (about 75 percent) come from the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions".
Now how exactly does CO2 cost money?
"The social cost of carbon (SCC) provides an estimate of the global monetary damage per incremental metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) released. Estimates of the SCC have increased over time with methodological improvements. Rennert et al.8
find a central-value SCC of $185/tCO2, 3.6 times larger than prior estimates used by the United States government."
Rennert et al is this paper in https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com] which is complex to say the least. models on top of models on top of models.
It bases its nummbers on thing like: "The roughly 300-year time horizon required to account for the vast majority of discounted future damages;"
and a $10M / person VSL (value of statistical life) for people who are going to die in future heatwaves and such.
That $10M number is quite high (https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/843310123/how-government-agencies-determine-the-dollar-value-of-human-life) and is not age adjusted by them afaict. and heatwaves kill primarily frail elderly people ... so counting each of those incremental deaths as $10M seems unreasonable.
In any case, whele these stochastic processes are the right way to go, imo, the error bars in these papers are huge. eg. that $185 / ton of CO2 comes with 95-th percentile confidence interval of $12-$682 ... that's a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
A 10 million per person total life value is very doable. And before we continue, I assume, the average diminished lifespan due to the pollution of fossil fuel is calculated as a fraction in total lifespan (75 odd years?) lost in respect to that 10 million.
For a simple calculation to someones total economic contribution over his/her lifespan:
An adult that earns $30.000 per year over its working life of 40 years (25-65), builds an economic output in that 40 years of over 10 million $US ($10,548,097. 65 to be
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we don't demand decarbonisation costs are borne by the user. The big businesses that own your government do.
Un-American (Score:2, Insightful)
Savings? Have they deducted the system cost? (Score:2)
Oh, look, solar and wind ... (Score:3)
... are orders of magnitude cheaper than nuke fission and fossil fuels. Gee wizz, who would've thunk? .... Aside from German civil engineers who did their math back in the late 80ies and prepared for a shift away from fission that is (cough *Kalkar* cough *Wackersdorf*).
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from German civil engineers who did their math back in the late 80ies and prepared for a shift away from fission that is (cough *Kalkar* cough *Wackersdorf*).
German opposition to nuclear energy is political rather than driven by engineers or scientific reasoning.
Interesting fun fact: Greenpeace's charts specifically mention fighting against nuclear energy, but omit fossil fuels.
Hmm how'd that happen? (Score:2)
haha (Score:2)
Haha. Good one. Journal of Irreproducible Results candidate.
Where's the beef? (Score:2)
Why would anyone build models that attempt to predict after the fact what could have happened based on model assumptions when you could actually check health statistics to see what actually happened?
Why wouldn't you just cite health statistics that reflect human health symptoms related to pollution improved since change x leading to a healthier society y that now pays hundreds of billions less as evidenced by correlation with rollout of PV and windmills?
Units (Score:2)
Re:inB4 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:AT Propaganda (Score:4, Interesting)
There are pretty straightforward policy solutions to that though, just don't allow any more coal plants to built in your country and have plans to shutter what's remaining over the next couple decades. It's pretty much that way in the US now, coal is only 16% of the grid and that's the highest it will be for the rest of our lives, it's all the way down at #4. [eia.gov]
Also simply don't allow grid batteries to be charged with non renewable sources which I agree is a very silly proposition. However I would be interested, if you have it, any data that shows grid batteries are getting charged up with NG or coal as I understand it (and my knowledge is limited) is that one of the real benefits of NG turbines is they can throttle around pretty easily and quickly so they don't "waste" a lot of power with changes in demand as compared to wind or solar so I can't imagine it makes economic sense to do that either, the entire idea is time shift demand curves renewable create.
I agree though that I think we are reaching a crossroads for renewables where when you scale anything up at all but especially very quickly you start to expose problems and create new ones and we always have to be honest about that. For the only dogmatic goal I have is to stop burning fossils, not just environmentally but economic and nationalistic. The problems are solvable though, the upsides are just strong not too.
For the last time I hope wind and solar (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that you dismiss a study you haven't even bothered to skim over let alone read as dogma when you can damn well see wind and solar work because that's where all the investment capital is going tells me you're the one with dogmatic beliefs.
I hope you're a
Re: (Score:2)
wind and solar have been able to provide base load power for around 15 years now.
Cool story. Any country with a significant population that you can point out, and where solar/wind are actually providing baseload (hint: if they need 20-30% hydro/gas/coal to cover their needs at nights, don't bother) ?
wind and solar work because that's where all the investment capital is going
This is funny, because the statement "wind and solar work because that's where all the investment capital is going" is a dogmatic belief. While wind and solar have seen efficiency improvements and environmental benefits, they still struggle to support baseload energy demands without backup f
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ever go to Austria? Do you believe all countries have:
- a low population density like they have (9M)
- the perfect blend of geological features for hydro
Also, they import ~40% of their electricity [worldometers.info], which is really quite bad.
Please do your research before posting, it just makes you look lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is hard to read, and I am wondering if that is done on purpose.
Anyway, what is a dogmatic belief? It is a conviction held with strong confidence and asserted without evidence (or consideration of opposing viewpoints).
My post was pointing out that investments going to solar/wind is not evidence that solar/wind work (same as correlation does not imply causation). Evidence that solar/wind work for baseload (which was the initial claim I was refuting) would be being able to provide a country as exampl
Re: (Score:2)
I do not intentionally try to make my postings hard to read... I apologize for that, I will try to be clearer in the future.
I am with you. I believe that nuclear and hydro (where reasonably feasible) backed up by wind/solar are the way to go.
What is frustrating to me is uneducated people that think that solar is the answer to everything. Not solar with batteries, just plain solar. The amount of solar that reaches the ground is (roughly) 1300 watts, our sola
Re: (Score:3)
Good to see that people around here are still letting "perfect" be the mortal enemy of "better".
Why is it a problem to use solar to reduce carbon output when the sun is up? Not building solar means those watts have to come from somewhere else, and predominantly that means carbon output.
If you only have to run gas and coal at night, that's still massively better than running it day and night, no?
Please try thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it a problem to use solar to reduce carbon output when the sun is up?
The opportunity cost of not investing that money in more scalable solutions better able to impact climate change and to do so with significantly less pollution and cost.
Not building solar means those watts have to come from somewhere else, and predominantly that means carbon output.
Building solar means money not invested in technologies with far greater energy returns and capacity factors such as large scale wind.
If you only have to run gas and coal at night, that's still massively better than running it day and night, no? Please try thinking.
Not just nights, weeks/months of overcast weather, enormous seasonal variation generally 4x differential between summer and winter when the sun is shining. In winter not only is irradiance halved so is the l
Re:AT Propaganda (Score:5, Funny)
Hint: when you use the phrase "preconceived conclusions" it's a clear signal you have preconceived conclusions yourself. I assume you suck at poker as well considering how obviously you project your personal bias.
Re:AT Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
" But in many cases the solar "saved" is actually being replaced by an increase in some other power source, like coal." - link for that claim as it doesn't make sense when the "saved" solar will be cheaper
Ars Technica is just the messenger, click the link at the bottom of the summary for the source of the report
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I was thinking about this and really I don't think we've really ever in time yet had a large issue with having too much electricity [youtu.be], like that was never thing, what do you mean we have "too much?". Unless you were a dam producing more than you needed was literally burning money.
It's a brand new problem, we're just still sorting through how to figure that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really asking how time works? Maybe we should start there before we tackle how solar panels work.
Re:AT Propaganda (Score:5, Informative)
Cheap energy storage makes cheap coal power even cheaper. For solar power to compete with this means being cheaper from the start, as in cheaper before storage gets in the mix. Solar can't do that, and given the labor and material requirements of solar versus coal it is unlikely solar could ever be cheaper than coal.
It's amazing how you keep blindly repeating this, in the face of all reality to the contrary. Solar has been vastly cheaper than coal for over a decade. It's now so cheap, it's cheaper to build new solar farms than to just buy coal to run existing coal plants. This is why so many coal plants have been going [forbes.com] out [ieefa.org] of business [bloomberg.com].
To refresh your memory (again), here are some LCoE costs from Lazard [lazard.com] and the EIA [eia.gov]:
Offshore wind: $100 (EIA), $72-140 (L)
Coal: $89 (EIA), $68-166 (L)
Nuclear: $71 (EIA), $141-221 (L)
Gas: $42 (EIA), $39-101 (L)
Solar+storage: $36 (EIA), $46-102 (L)
Onshore wind: $31 (EIA), $24-75 (L)
Solar (utility): $23 (EIA), $24-96 (L)
So yeah, wind is less than a third the cost of coal these days, and solar is even cheaper - even with storage it's less than half. Note that these costs include capital and any needed new transmission lines too. Note also that they do not include the externalised health and climate costs that TFA discusses, which would more than double [yale.edu] the cost of the fossil fuel power.
And another study [energyinnovation.org] that says:
This report finds 99 percent of the existing U.S. coal fleet is more expensive to run compared to replacement by new solar or wind. Replacing coal plants with local wind and solar would also save enough to finance nearly 150 gigawatts of four-hour battery storage, over 60 percent of the coal fleet’s capacity
So yeah, tell us again how solar can't compete, and then maybe explain why countries everywhere keep adding so much more [apnews.com] than any other form of generation. And maybe try citing some sources if you want to be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the coal mines exist? (Score:2)
And employ a lot of people. The result is that the actual cost of coal for the time being is, indeed cheaper. What the statistics you're criticising is the cost given a green field site.
Re: (Score:3)
poor countries would be burning gas as fast as possible
Let me stop you right there. As soon as you use "countries" plural along with a natural resource, you've already demonstrated you don't consider regional differences in supply in the equation. The LCoE figure applies to the USA's supply costs. They aren't the same for 3rd world countries, who would be happily burning gas if they were sitting of millions of cubic meters of it like the USA is.
Maybe next time you're in a thread about the USA, talking about energy in the USA, responding to an article about LCoE
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LCoE is an approximation, but it's a very useful approximation, which is why pretty much every energy agency around the world uses it.
I've noticed the only people to dismiss it are the ones who don't like the results. Like, say, nuclear power enthusiasts.
Re: (Score:2)
With low cost storage on the grid that can mean nuclear power plants being able to make the most of the fuel, more time between shutdowns for refuel and repair, therefore making nuclear power far less expensive to operate.
This claim is going to require to you say more. What is the overall percentage of operations cost represented by the fuel? By stretching fuel in the manner that you talk about here, what kind of percent reduction can be achieved.
Don't make claims like "making nuclear power far less expensive to operate" without backing it up with actual data, rather than assumptions and unquantified claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AT Propaganda (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you actually read the Royal Society report? For example, it notes that a grid using 100% solar and wind plus storage would cost around £52 to £92 per MWh (in 2021 prices) by 2050. That's actually similar to what we pay now: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... [tradingeconomics.com]
But that's a fairly extreme scenario, with unrealistic assumptions about the limits of being able to trade energy with our neighbours, and they seem to have over-estimated the price of battery storage by 2050 too.
The biggest issue though is that they are looking at just solar and wind. In reality the UK will still have a mixed grid by 2050. We probably won't ditch our nuclear plants that are still under construction, and we will likely still burn some gas or biofuel too (with carbon capture and offsetting to reach net zero).
So basically even in the most unrealistic scenario, it's still no more expensive than what we have today, and we have total energy security as an added bonus.