7 ms·

These kinds of articles, that falsely try to paint renewables as economically competitive with traditional energy sources (and now, they are actually at a negat

These kinds of articles, that falsely try to paint renewables as economically competitive with traditional energy sources (and now, they are actually at a negative cost!), are constantly popping up in NYT and other lefty publications. They satisfy the cravings of their left-leaning readers, who desperately want the world to embrace their feelings about the environment. They understand that the only way for this to happen is to use smoke and mirrors to convince the populace that the enormous upfront cost of these initiatives (often borne by governments and then passed onto taxpayers) will eventually be a financial net positive. Unfortunately, most of these claims are either completely false, or come with huge caveats. The reality is that with upfront costs included, most renewable energy today is significantly more expensive to produce than traditional forms of energy. No amount of clever journalism will change that.

leeoniya 9y ago
> They satisfy the cravings of their left-leaning readers, who desperately want the world to embrace their feelings about the environment. i'm not aware of any left-leaning readers who want renewables to succeed because of their lower costs. the point is to reduce environmental impact and externalities that the fossil fuel industry simply chooses to ignore. even if the burden of upfront cost must be borne by taxpayers, it's no different than simply taking into account all factors of power generation using existing infrastructure and methods.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 9y ago
  Even as someone who is very left wing on the environment, it's hard for me to overlook how much misinformation exists on the issue from left-leaning media. This article is a great example: the central implication is that renewable energy is so cheap and plentiful, that it's driving energy prices negative!
  - kelnos 9y ago
    You shouldn't overlook it; you should absolutely call out news sources when they're being intellectually dishonest. But that doesn't change the fact that if we don't transition to renewable energy, we will wreck the planet, at least wrt humans surviving on it. The cost doesn't really matter when you consider that aspect.
    - YawningAngel 9y ago
      Will we? Seems like we could use fission plants just fine if we wanted to.
      - kelnos 9y ago
        Two issues with that: 1) We still haven't solved the nuclear waste disposal issue. 2) Even if fears around #1 are overblown, "if we wanted to" is the rub: there's very little political or public will to move any meaningful amount of energy production to nuclear, and in some places in the world, countries are actually retiring nuclear plants as the age and replacing them with something else.
kelnos 9y ago
Even if what you're saying is true (I don't buy it for all forms of renewable energy, at least), it kinda doesn't matter: I'd rather pay more for electricity than die on an uninhabitable planet. The cost of renewables will certainly go down as scale increases; there's no evidence that there's anything special about renewables that would cause them to behave contrary to expectation there. Will fully-renewable energy generation ever be cheaper than the mess we had in the mid 1900s? Maybe, with technology that doesn't already exist, but otherwise maybe not. But that's ok. Paying more for power is better than destroying the planet and being dead.
- Smushman 9y ago
  Without a downvote option available to me I will try to explain instead. This statement - 'I'd rather pay more for electricity than die on an uninhabitable planet.' is in question. Who wouldn't do that?? If it was as simple as that - logic would dictate that is the only valid option! Unfortunately in the world of facts there is only incidental and anecdotal evidence that paying more for electricity would have even a small effect on the habitability of our planet. To summarize - while it is possible to suggest it may have a positive impact; it is a huge leap to state this as fact in any way (and the largest disagreement I have personally). To turn your logic on its head - if you believe this then maybe you would let me re-sell you your local electricity at 2x or 3x the price?
  - manmal 9y ago
    Put up 100 gigafactories, install turbines and/or solar everywhere, and buffer the off times with huge on premises batteries. I’m not sure if a 2-3x price increase will buy this in the short term, but going into this direction will have a positive effect. Oh and that’s not my idea, it’s someone else’s ;) Since price is a signal, I would not simply charge 2-3x more for local electricity, but instead switch to 30m charge windows for end customers. Prices change every 30m, and the consumers (or rather, their smart homes) decide whether to charge that Tesla right now, or wait until price goes down. Consumers will buy batteries to store electricity when it’s cheaper, giving an incentive to buy solar panels to match. I’m glad you don’t have a downvote button, because having a conversation is so much more productive. EDIT: Added paragraph before last.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
strken 9y ago
Wind has been profitable for years and years even without government handouts, and turbine blades can be feathered if electricity prices are negative. Profitability isn't the issue here. As I understand it, the real problem is two-fold. Firstly, wind isn't reliable, and if you have too much wind power feeding into your electrical grid but don't have enough storage, the entire grid becomes unreliable. Secondly, wind turbines cost about the same whether they're producing power or not, meaning that they're always feeding power into the grid if the market price is above zero. This takes money away from more reliable power sources - coal, gas, hydro, storage - and can drive them out of business. That's a more complicated problem than "NYT is a left-wing conspiracy", and it's harder to solve.
- downandout 9y ago
  >Wind has been profitable for years and years even without government handouts Please cite your credible source saying that wind energy is currently profitable in practice without subsidies in more than a tiny fraction of areas on earth.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    Nice double standard there. You're allowed to make claims without presenting evidence, but when someone else does, you attack them for not providing sources? A quick google for "unsubsidized wind power profitability" turned up a bunch of interesting things, though I didn't delve too deeply into any of them.
    - downandout 9y ago
      I can find plenty of sources saying that it isn’t profitable (there are too many to list here). I did look after reading his comment and found exactly 0 credible sources showing that it is currently profitable without subsidies today, and I looked again after reading your comment and still found nothing even when using the exact search you suggested. In fact the entire SERP for the one you suggested, with the exception of one article that suggests that offshore wind power might soon be profitable, has links to articles essentially saying that wind power is economically doomed. Am I (along with the rest of the world, who would be dancing in the streets, dedicating trillions of dollars to deploying wind towers in every corner of the earth at this very moment, and writing thousands of credible articles about how the world’s energy problems have been solved if this were true) missing something? Edit: the green folks are coming in and downvoting these comments like crazy. Could one of you please justify your downvote by replying with a link to a credible article that shows wind energy to be profitable without subsidies in non-exceptional places? I think everyone would love to see it, including myself! Google doesn’t seem to know about this very special, world-changing article. Perhaps it is protected with an overly aggressive robots.txt.
pishpash 9y ago
How much externality should be added to traditional forms of energy to make a fair comparison?

leeoniya 9y ago

> They satisfy the cravings of their left-leaning readers, who desperately want the world to embrace their feelings about the environment. i'm not aware of any left-leaning readers who want renewables to succeed because of their lower costs. the point is to reduce environmental impact and externalities that the fossil fuel industry simply chooses to ignore. even if the burden of upfront cost must be borne by taxpayers, it's no different than simply taking into account all factors of power generation using existing infrastructure and methods.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 9y ago
Even as someone who is very left wing on the environment, it's hard for me to overlook how much misinformation exists on the issue from left-leaning media. This article is a great example: the central implication is that renewable energy is so cheap and plentiful, that it's driving energy prices negative!
- kelnos 9y ago
  You shouldn't overlook it; you should absolutely call out news sources when they're being intellectually dishonest. But that doesn't change the fact that if we don't transition to renewable energy, we will wreck the planet, at least wrt humans surviving on it. The cost doesn't really matter when you consider that aspect.
  - YawningAngel 9y ago
    Will we? Seems like we could use fission plants just fine if we wanted to.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      Two issues with that: 1) We still haven't solved the nuclear waste disposal issue. 2) Even if fears around #1 are overblown, "if we wanted to" is the rub: there's very little political or public will to move any meaningful amount of energy production to nuclear, and in some places in the world, countries are actually retiring nuclear plants as the age and replacing them with something else.

kelnos 9y ago

Even if what you're saying is true (I don't buy it for all forms of renewable energy, at least), it kinda doesn't matter: I'd rather pay more for electricity than die on an uninhabitable planet. The cost of renewables will certainly go down as scale increases; there's no evidence that there's anything special about renewables that would cause them to behave contrary to expectation there. Will fully-renewable energy generation ever be cheaper than the mess we had in the mid 1900s? Maybe, with technology that doesn't already exist, but otherwise maybe not. But that's ok. Paying more for power is better than destroying the planet and being dead.

Smushman 9y ago
Without a downvote option available to me I will try to explain instead. This statement - 'I'd rather pay more for electricity than die on an uninhabitable planet.' is in question. Who wouldn't do that?? If it was as simple as that - logic would dictate that is the only valid option! Unfortunately in the world of facts there is only incidental and anecdotal evidence that paying more for electricity would have even a small effect on the habitability of our planet. To summarize - while it is possible to suggest it may have a positive impact; it is a huge leap to state this as fact in any way (and the largest disagreement I have personally). To turn your logic on its head - if you believe this then maybe you would let me re-sell you your local electricity at 2x or 3x the price?
- manmal 9y ago
  Put up 100 gigafactories, install turbines and/or solar everywhere, and buffer the off times with huge on premises batteries. I’m not sure if a 2-3x price increase will buy this in the short term, but going into this direction will have a positive effect. Oh and that’s not my idea, it’s someone else’s ;) Since price is a signal, I would not simply charge 2-3x more for local electricity, but instead switch to 30m charge windows for end customers. Prices change every 30m, and the consumers (or rather, their smart homes) decide whether to charge that Tesla right now, or wait until price goes down. Consumers will buy batteries to store electricity when it’s cheaper, giving an incentive to buy solar panels to match. I’m glad you don’t have a downvote button, because having a conversation is so much more productive. EDIT: Added paragraph before last.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

strken 9y ago

Wind has been profitable for years and years even without government handouts, and turbine blades can be feathered if electricity prices are negative. Profitability isn't the issue here. As I understand it, the real problem is two-fold. Firstly, wind isn't reliable, and if you have too much wind power feeding into your electrical grid but don't have enough storage, the entire grid becomes unreliable. Secondly, wind turbines cost about the same whether they're producing power or not, meaning that they're always feeding power into the grid if the market price is above zero. This takes money away from more reliable power sources - coal, gas, hydro, storage - and can drive them out of business. That's a more complicated problem than "NYT is a left-wing conspiracy", and it's harder to solve.

downandout 9y ago
>Wind has been profitable for years and years even without government handouts Please cite your credible source saying that wind energy is currently profitable in practice without subsidies in more than a tiny fraction of areas on earth.
- kelnos 9y ago
  Nice double standard there. You're allowed to make claims without presenting evidence, but when someone else does, you attack them for not providing sources? A quick google for "unsubsidized wind power profitability" turned up a bunch of interesting things, though I didn't delve too deeply into any of them.
  - downandout 9y ago
    I can find plenty of sources saying that it isn’t profitable (there are too many to list here). I did look after reading his comment and found exactly 0 credible sources showing that it is currently profitable without subsidies today, and I looked again after reading your comment and still found nothing even when using the exact search you suggested. In fact the entire SERP for the one you suggested, with the exception of one article that suggests that offshore wind power might soon be profitable, has links to articles essentially saying that wind power is economically doomed. Am I (along with the rest of the world, who would be dancing in the streets, dedicating trillions of dollars to deploying wind towers in every corner of the earth at this very moment, and writing thousands of credible articles about how the world’s energy problems have been solved if this were true) missing something? Edit: the green folks are coming in and downvoting these comments like crazy. Could one of you please justify your downvote by replying with a link to a credible article that shows wind energy to be profitable without subsidies in non-exceptional places? I think everyone would love to see it, including myself! Google doesn’t seem to know about this very special, world-changing article. Perhaps it is protected with an overly aggressive robots.txt.

pishpash 9y ago

How much externality should be added to traditional forms of energy to make a fair comparison?