5 ms·

Cheap and plentiful oil helps poor countries dealing with climate change way better than expensive and inflexible renewables. This is the actual dilemma that is

Cheap and plentiful oil helps poor countries dealing with climate change way better than expensive and inflexible renewables. This is the actual dilemma that is worth discussing, not whether rich nations who can afford the way more expensive and much less scaleable renewables. But most of the political elite dont care cause they have found a new political course to use as a way to control many voters.

nixpulvis 8y ago
Renewable power can be less expansive and more reliable for things like small islands and places where importing oil is hard. Not to mention the fact that it's much better to build clean/green infrastructure first. Of course a micro grid system like I'm talking about might also use some Dino fuels too. http://microgridnews.com/microgrid-value-propositions/ http://microgridnews.com/microgrid-value-propositions/
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I dont thinks thats true. Oil isnt great but its much more flexible and accessible that expensive solar or wind. Of course all that is dwarfed by nuclear but thats a whole other story.
  - dreamcompiler 8y ago
    "Solar is expensive" is no longer true. Wholesale PV panels are less than $1 per watt now; this is 1/10 the price of 15 years ago. PV electricity is cost-comparable to coal-fired electricity in many places, and is on track to be cheaper than coal everywhere very soon [0]. This happened largely because China has been dramatically increasing their PV manufacturing capacity to the point that almost no other country makes solar panels any more, but still, the fact is that today solar is cheap and getting cheaper. [0] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608114/clean-energy-prices-are-about-to-become-cheaper-than-coal/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608114/clean-energy-price...
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      With heavy subsidies and again its unreliable compared to ex coal, nuclear and fossil fuel.
    - gcthomas 8y ago
      Fossil fuels all have massive hidden subsidies, since the cost doesn't include handling the waste gases and other effluent, which will end up being covered out of general taxations. If your fuel bill included an element to clear up the environmental mess, then coal and oil comes out much more expensive that solar and wind.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        All human existence have an effect. If you factor in all the good things that coal and oil provide that solar or wind cannot then you will quickly realize how superior it is despite the obvious problems with co2. Put another world, id rather live in a world with access to oil and gas than one only having wind and solar energy.
        gcthomas 8y ago
        All these good things that solar and wind _can't_ provide? This'll be good - do you have a list?
        ThomPete 8y ago
        Lets start with plastics and tires or what about Solar Turbines and solar cells who also use oil for some of it's parts. And then there is obviously the production of them which also requires oil/oilbased products. Then when it comes to weather. Oil works whether sun or wind. Oil is in most of the products around you. Oil is used for all sorts of motoric vehicles especially those that require a lot of muscle. I am all for replacing those things with electric circuits and infrastructure but let's not claim that fossil fuel is so easily replaced. It's not.
        8y ago
eigenvector 8y ago
At least from the electricity perspective, renewables are both cheaper and more flexible than oil for developing countries. They do not require dependence on a constant stream of imports, because the resource - wind, water, sun - is already there. They can be built at any scale, from rooftop solar to utility-scale wind power, so they don't require the access to capital involved in building large thermal power plants.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Renewables are not reliable nor are they cheaper or more flexible, not sure why you think that. Poor countries dont drive around teslas or have fance electrical grids. Oil is by far the best choice for them by several factors.
  - gpm 8y ago
    I don't pretend to be an expert. It seems like rooftop solar + a battery would be a far more reliable power supply in reasonably sunny regions, than oil in a place that doesn't have a stable electrical grid. The alternative to solar is what, generators in every building and delivering fuel? The efficiency of that sort of scheme must be terrible, and you're still relying on regular delivery of fuel. Am I missing something? Personal experience tells me that this sort of thing is possible. I stayed a few days a few years ago in a friend of a friend's house that relied solely on solar + batteries for power (apparently the cost of getting it hooked up to the grid made this setup far cheaper). Completely reliable. Power had to be rationed slightly more carefully than in grid connected places, but it wasn't a real impediment in any way. This was in Ontario, Canada. Which isn't one of the sunniest places in the world.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      I'm going to put it out there that when two (now three) non-experts discuss the relative costs everyone gets to be wrong about everything, so why bother? Nevertheless... Firstly, relative costs will be region specific. Secondly, prices are always in a state of flux over the medium term. Thirdly, there are probably tax and subsidy implications. Fourthly, I suspect the rooftop solar is going to be a poor choice compared to utility-scale centralised solar and a grid so your specific arguments may be academic (I certainly hope so, those industrial solar towers look amazing vs. rooftop panels). Fifthly, the failure modes of the two systems are different making a comparison challenging. For example, how reliable is a solar system in the face of three days of cloud cover? Vandalism? Do these panels actually last 20 years, given that manufacturing techniques are presumably changing and we haven't had 20 years to test them out? What are the actual fire risks posed by house-powering batteries? Putting together a similar list for generators is easy but I know the answers to a lot of those questions because I'm quite familiar with fossil fuels, as we all are. Anyone who says either is going to be more suitable for purpose without an opinion sourced from an engineer or a couple of case studies is just making stuff up. You can't first-principles this sort of thing, it is very context sensitive. Even case studies I mistrust, because solar can look very good if the grid is mismanaged by environmentalists to the point people opt-out.
joe_the_user 8y ago
Cheap and plentiful oil helps poor countries dealing with climate change way better than expensive and inflexible renewables. Cheap oil helps everyone, except for the everyone dies part. There's no doubt that ameliorating climate change has a cost. Most of the plans around paying the cost have been around charging those already suffering the most in a, dare I say it, neoliberal economic regime. Those won't fly as the "yellow vests" demonstrate (literally and metaphorically). The only way out has to be the rich biting the bullet and paying the costs themselves, because in this world, no one else has the money. I doubt this will happen. The last twenty years has been this not happening. But the alternatives are: 1 - Mass catastrophe, of extreme to surface-of-venus level 2 - Rich bite bullet and pay 3 - World revolution Of course, 1 is most likely but I thought I'd put this out there.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Human existence have a cost. Why you would be more worried about the wellbeing of future generation than the current one i have no idea. Mass extinction can happen without co2 as we saw with dinosaurs and i would rather have a fighting chance against mother nature than to succumb to her. But each to their own of course.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    I believe there are resources on this earth for the survival of human being now and in the future. I'm a bit taken a back at having to even argue this. Further, global warming isn't hypothetical problem. The measures that experts and world-bodies are calling for to fight the problem aren't speculative but critically necessary - for those future generations that I somehow care about. I've made the point already that the poor and the more impoverished nations can't pay the cost of global warming - this cost is going to have to come out of taxing the wealthy because there is no other source of resources here. One might think that those with the greatest money and power would be most concerned with future generations - they're already guaranteed in the present so why not think about the future. Evidence doesn't point that way, unfortunately. The current trend for present short-sighted policies to continue and even accelerate. Extreme global warming predictions are fortunately more speculative than immediate predictions. Sadly, we may get to discover how accurate those are.
village-idiot 8y ago
Oil to fight climate change is perhaps the most insane idea I have ever heard, and that’s quite a high bar.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  How do you think humans managed to decrease the number of climate related deaths over the years if it wasnt for the ability of oil to help us in so many areas?
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Sure, in 1850 when we had no other sources of power that would be a good argument. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we as a species are hurtling towards voluntary extinction because some people are just profiting too much from oil. Encouraging those most likely to face the consequences of global warming to burn more oil isn’t just insane, it’s downright evil.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      It's nothing as evil as asking them not to and just let them die which is what you are basically suggesting. Unless you have an actual solution to their situation you have nothing but a misunderstood idea of your own morals.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        Do not put words in my mouth. I never said “do nothing and die”. What I said was “stop burning oil”.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        And I didn't encourage anything. I said that unless you have an actual alternative you have nothing of use to poor countries and their current citizens.
torpfactory 8y ago
I really don’t get the whole “climate change and renewable energy are just a new form of political control”. What a load of hogwash. Oil and gas have histically been some of the largest contributors to political campaigns in the US. The “polictical elite” are literally oil industry people.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  you are missing the point and mixing two different discussions up. energy security is not the debate here.

nixpulvis 8y ago

Renewable power can be less expansive and more reliable for things like small islands and places where importing oil is hard. Not to mention the fact that it's much better to build clean/green infrastructure first. Of course a micro grid system like I'm talking about might also use some Dino fuels too. http://microgridnews.com/microgrid-value-propositions/ http://microgridnews.com/microgrid-value-propositions/

ThomPete 8y ago
I dont thinks thats true. Oil isnt great but its much more flexible and accessible that expensive solar or wind. Of course all that is dwarfed by nuclear but thats a whole other story.
- dreamcompiler 8y ago
  "Solar is expensive" is no longer true. Wholesale PV panels are less than $1 per watt now; this is 1/10 the price of 15 years ago. PV electricity is cost-comparable to coal-fired electricity in many places, and is on track to be cheaper than coal everywhere very soon [0]. This happened largely because China has been dramatically increasing their PV manufacturing capacity to the point that almost no other country makes solar panels any more, but still, the fact is that today solar is cheap and getting cheaper. [0] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608114/clean-energy-prices-are-about-to-become-cheaper-than-coal/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608114/clean-energy-price...
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    With heavy subsidies and again its unreliable compared to ex coal, nuclear and fossil fuel.
  - gcthomas 8y ago
    Fossil fuels all have massive hidden subsidies, since the cost doesn't include handling the waste gases and other effluent, which will end up being covered out of general taxations. If your fuel bill included an element to clear up the environmental mess, then coal and oil comes out much more expensive that solar and wind.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      All human existence have an effect. If you factor in all the good things that coal and oil provide that solar or wind cannot then you will quickly realize how superior it is despite the obvious problems with co2. Put another world, id rather live in a world with access to oil and gas than one only having wind and solar energy.
      - gcthomas 8y ago
        All these good things that solar and wind _can't_ provide? This'll be good - do you have a list?
        ThomPete 8y ago
        Lets start with plastics and tires or what about Solar Turbines and solar cells who also use oil for some of it's parts. And then there is obviously the production of them which also requires oil/oilbased products. Then when it comes to weather. Oil works whether sun or wind. Oil is in most of the products around you. Oil is used for all sorts of motoric vehicles especially those that require a lot of muscle. I am all for replacing those things with electric circuits and infrastructure but let's not claim that fossil fuel is so easily replaced. It's not.
        8y ago

eigenvector 8y ago

At least from the electricity perspective, renewables are both cheaper and more flexible than oil for developing countries. They do not require dependence on a constant stream of imports, because the resource - wind, water, sun - is already there. They can be built at any scale, from rooftop solar to utility-scale wind power, so they don't require the access to capital involved in building large thermal power plants.

ThomPete 8y ago
Renewables are not reliable nor are they cheaper or more flexible, not sure why you think that. Poor countries dont drive around teslas or have fance electrical grids. Oil is by far the best choice for them by several factors.
- gpm 8y ago
  I don't pretend to be an expert. It seems like rooftop solar + a battery would be a far more reliable power supply in reasonably sunny regions, than oil in a place that doesn't have a stable electrical grid. The alternative to solar is what, generators in every building and delivering fuel? The efficiency of that sort of scheme must be terrible, and you're still relying on regular delivery of fuel. Am I missing something? Personal experience tells me that this sort of thing is possible. I stayed a few days a few years ago in a friend of a friend's house that relied solely on solar + batteries for power (apparently the cost of getting it hooked up to the grid made this setup far cheaper). Completely reliable. Power had to be rationed slightly more carefully than in grid connected places, but it wasn't a real impediment in any way. This was in Ontario, Canada. Which isn't one of the sunniest places in the world.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    I'm going to put it out there that when two (now three) non-experts discuss the relative costs everyone gets to be wrong about everything, so why bother? Nevertheless... Firstly, relative costs will be region specific. Secondly, prices are always in a state of flux over the medium term. Thirdly, there are probably tax and subsidy implications. Fourthly, I suspect the rooftop solar is going to be a poor choice compared to utility-scale centralised solar and a grid so your specific arguments may be academic (I certainly hope so, those industrial solar towers look amazing vs. rooftop panels). Fifthly, the failure modes of the two systems are different making a comparison challenging. For example, how reliable is a solar system in the face of three days of cloud cover? Vandalism? Do these panels actually last 20 years, given that manufacturing techniques are presumably changing and we haven't had 20 years to test them out? What are the actual fire risks posed by house-powering batteries? Putting together a similar list for generators is easy but I know the answers to a lot of those questions because I'm quite familiar with fossil fuels, as we all are. Anyone who says either is going to be more suitable for purpose without an opinion sourced from an engineer or a couple of case studies is just making stuff up. You can't first-principles this sort of thing, it is very context sensitive. Even case studies I mistrust, because solar can look very good if the grid is mismanaged by environmentalists to the point people opt-out.

joe_the_user 8y ago

Cheap and plentiful oil helps poor countries dealing with climate change way better than expensive and inflexible renewables. Cheap oil helps everyone, except for the everyone dies part. There's no doubt that ameliorating climate change has a cost. Most of the plans around paying the cost have been around charging those already suffering the most in a, dare I say it, neoliberal economic regime. Those won't fly as the "yellow vests" demonstrate (literally and metaphorically). The only way out has to be the rich biting the bullet and paying the costs themselves, because in this world, no one else has the money. I doubt this will happen. The last twenty years has been this not happening. But the alternatives are: 1 - Mass catastrophe, of extreme to surface-of-venus level 2 - Rich bite bullet and pay 3 - World revolution Of course, 1 is most likely but I thought I'd put this out there.

ThomPete 8y ago
Human existence have a cost. Why you would be more worried about the wellbeing of future generation than the current one i have no idea. Mass extinction can happen without co2 as we saw with dinosaurs and i would rather have a fighting chance against mother nature than to succumb to her. But each to their own of course.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  I believe there are resources on this earth for the survival of human being now and in the future. I'm a bit taken a back at having to even argue this. Further, global warming isn't hypothetical problem. The measures that experts and world-bodies are calling for to fight the problem aren't speculative but critically necessary - for those future generations that I somehow care about. I've made the point already that the poor and the more impoverished nations can't pay the cost of global warming - this cost is going to have to come out of taxing the wealthy because there is no other source of resources here. One might think that those with the greatest money and power would be most concerned with future generations - they're already guaranteed in the present so why not think about the future. Evidence doesn't point that way, unfortunately. The current trend for present short-sighted policies to continue and even accelerate. Extreme global warming predictions are fortunately more speculative than immediate predictions. Sadly, we may get to discover how accurate those are.

village-idiot 8y ago

Oil to fight climate change is perhaps the most insane idea I have ever heard, and that’s quite a high bar.

ThomPete 8y ago
How do you think humans managed to decrease the number of climate related deaths over the years if it wasnt for the ability of oil to help us in so many areas?
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Sure, in 1850 when we had no other sources of power that would be a good argument. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we as a species are hurtling towards voluntary extinction because some people are just profiting too much from oil. Encouraging those most likely to face the consequences of global warming to burn more oil isn’t just insane, it’s downright evil.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    It's nothing as evil as asking them not to and just let them die which is what you are basically suggesting. Unless you have an actual solution to their situation you have nothing but a misunderstood idea of your own morals.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Do not put words in my mouth. I never said “do nothing and die”. What I said was “stop burning oil”.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        And I didn't encourage anything. I said that unless you have an actual alternative you have nothing of use to poor countries and their current citizens.

torpfactory 8y ago

I really don’t get the whole “climate change and renewable energy are just a new form of political control”. What a load of hogwash. Oil and gas have histically been some of the largest contributors to political campaigns in the US. The “polictical elite” are literally oil industry people.

ThomPete 8y ago
you are missing the point and mixing two different discussions up. energy security is not the debate here.