4 ms·

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

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.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      its not making stuff up to say that oil is a much more flexible resource than ex solar or wind. That doesent mean its without consequences but you have to weight those up against non mechanical factors.
      - eigenvector 8y ago
        That's only true if you can afford an unlimited amount of petroleum products and have the facility to transport and store them. That's often not the case in developing countries.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        Compared to solar and wind it certainly is.
    - eigenvector 8y ago
      First of all, I am a power systems engineer. Oil and refined petroleum products are not an economical source of power generation, which is why it isn't used anywhere in the developed world except at small scale where lots of fuel storage is required, like the Canadian Arctic. Coal and natural gas are much more appropriate, if they are available. The biggest advantage to renewables, as I stated in my initial comment, is that they don't have to be transported. Arguments about resource adequacy (not enough sun, not enough water) are largely irrelevant because fossil fuel power is already rationed in developing off grid locations due to the massive cost of transport. Recall that developing countries do not have advanced transportation infrastructure nor a highly developed power grid to transit energy. Finally, energy security is a major concern for all countries, especially those with limited ability to purchase US$ priced global commodities, and oil is an import in most of the world. To suggest that, for instance, countries in sub Saharan Africa are better off spending their minimal foreign currency reserves importing diesel and trucking it across the desert on non existent roads rather than using abundant solar energy flies in the face of the facts.
      - dreamcompiler 8y ago

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.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    its not making stuff up to say that oil is a much more flexible resource than ex solar or wind. That doesent mean its without consequences but you have to weight those up against non mechanical factors.
    - eigenvector 8y ago
      That's only true if you can afford an unlimited amount of petroleum products and have the facility to transport and store them. That's often not the case in developing countries.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        Compared to solar and wind it certainly is.
  - eigenvector 8y ago
    First of all, I am a power systems engineer. Oil and refined petroleum products are not an economical source of power generation, which is why it isn't used anywhere in the developed world except at small scale where lots of fuel storage is required, like the Canadian Arctic. Coal and natural gas are much more appropriate, if they are available. The biggest advantage to renewables, as I stated in my initial comment, is that they don't have to be transported. Arguments about resource adequacy (not enough sun, not enough water) are largely irrelevant because fossil fuel power is already rationed in developing off grid locations due to the massive cost of transport. Recall that developing countries do not have advanced transportation infrastructure nor a highly developed power grid to transit energy. Finally, energy security is a major concern for all countries, especially those with limited ability to purchase US$ priced global commodities, and oil is an import in most of the world. To suggest that, for instance, countries in sub Saharan Africa are better off spending their minimal foreign currency reserves importing diesel and trucking it across the desert on non existent roads rather than using abundant solar energy flies in the face of the facts.
    - dreamcompiler 8y ago