3 ms·

The moment it becomes more economically viable to use renewables on a large scale than to use coal is when this stops. The tipping point isn't here yet, but it

The moment it becomes more economically viable to use renewables on a large scale than to use coal is when this stops. The tipping point isn't here yet, but it's coming. Always follow the money.

rsj_hn 7y ago
This all boils down to economic realities, available technology, etc. Yes, the politicians can wring their hands but don't end up actually doing much because they understand that people like to complain about global warming but when asked how much money they are willing to spend to reduce carbon emissions, the dollar amount is usually like 20 bucks per person/per year. Macron discovered how angry people get when you actually force them to pay more and he quickly backtracked. None of the Paris signatories have met their goals, nor are they on track to meet their goals, because of political reality, not despite it. So the politicians are generally smarter at reading the pulse of the public than the activists on this issue. People care, but only a little bit. But as technology continues to progress, I have no doubt that long term we will not be using coal anymore. But solar has serious problems, the most intractable being the disposal of the solar cells -- they are quite toxic, and no one has figured out what to do with the decommissioned cells -- and we will have a lot of them if solar accounts for a non-trivial share of global electricity output. As in billions would need to be disposed of each year. So I don't think solar is the answer, given current materials. Personally, I like nuclear, but I could be wrong. We will move on from coal just as we moved on from wood and whale oil and all the energy sources of the past, but it's going to happen on a timeline determined by technological feasibility and economics, not by politics or political pledges.
- creato 7y ago
  > But as technology continues to progress, I have no doubt that long term we will not be using coal anymore. But solar has serious problems, the most intractable being the disposal of the solar cells -- they are quite toxic, and no one has figured out what to do with the decommissioned cells -- and we will have a lot of them if solar accounts for a non-trivial share of global electricity output. As in billions would need to be disposed of each year. So I don't think solar is the answer, given current materials. Source? I find it hard to believe this is a problem given they last decades, I'm not aware of any major problematic materials in solar panels, and the primary alternative is burning coal.
  - rsj_hn 7y ago
    There are many alternatives to solar other than burning coal. For example, you can build a nuclear plant or hydro dam, or use more natural gas or biomass. The world is not divided into solar v. coal -- solar is not even a major player in global energy right now. In terms of sources about the disposal issues for solar, there are many discussions about this online, but here is a nice, readable, layman's introduction to the problem: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18018820/solar-panel-waste-chemicals-energy-environment-recycling https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18018820/solar-panel-was... "To understand the challenges of solar waste, it’s helpful to understand how the panels are built. There are different types of solar panels, but most of them contain aluminum, glass, silver, and an elastic material called ethylene-vinyl acetate. The problem is that they can also contain more dangerous and sometimes cancer-causing, materials such as lead, chromium, and cadmium. Functional panels are sealed off with glass and are very safe. But when the glass breaks or the panels are damaged, those substances can leak. This risk is especially high with poorly made solar panels installed in areas that experience extreme weather, like hurricanes and hail. Winds and rain can break the glass, allowing chemicals to leach into the soil and then into the water system" Now imagine a world where solar is a major player. So world energy consumption was 1.575 × 10^17 Wh (2013) and growing at, say, 3% per annum (conservative). (wikipedia). Let's imagine that in 2033, when world energy consumption is 2.8 * 10^17 WH, solar accounts for 1/3 of that. Now today's panels are about 1.65 m^2 and can generate about 300W (https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electricity-does-a-solar-panel-produce/ https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electr...), so let's say due to improvements in science, that becomes 600W. And let's say they do that 12 hours per day nonstop year round, to produce 2.63*10^6 WH per annum. That means they can account for 1/3 of world energy needs if we have 38 Billion of these futuristic solar cells (the ones with double the current energy output and that produce peak output 12 hours each day 365 days per year). That's about 20% of the area of Arizona. And let's say that due to external damage and internal failure, the cells need to be replaced once every 40 years, so that means we need to recycle about 1 billion of these cells each year, each weighing about 25kg, so that is 25 Billion kilograms of waste that would need to be recycled each year, contaminated with some nasty chemicals. And that number too will grow by 3% each year as global energy use increases. And this situation is only going to get worse because as we do more research and create more efficient cells, that's not going to happen by switching to more organic compounds. It means more exotic compounds. And we still need to find something else for the other 2/3 of global energy use.
crispinb 7y ago
Not necessarily. Most governments of wealthy nations are determined to prop up fossil fuel use regardless of so-called 'economic' or environmental fundamentals. This is very well-established in research but for a recent newsy report see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/g20-nations-triple-coal-power-subsidies-climate-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/g20-nati.... You might say this can't go on forever as it soaks up government revenue unsustainably. But many decades can pass before 'forever' is hit, and we're in amongst the decades that really count, right now.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  It can go on for a long time indeed. The issue is that eventually your infrastructure is hopelessly outdated. And your key industries run by goldbricks whose core competence is demanding subsidies and hand outs. See the US steel industry for an example. It was a long hard fight but we did it. The US steel industry went from being a world leader to not particularly important in 50 years.

The moment it becomes more economically viable to use renewables on a large scale than to use coal is when this stops. The tipping point isn't here yet, but it's coming. Always follow the money.

rsj_hn 7y ago

This all boils down to economic realities, available technology, etc. Yes, the politicians can wring their hands but don't end up actually doing much because they understand that people like to complain about global warming but when asked how much money they are willing to spend to reduce carbon emissions, the dollar amount is usually like 20 bucks per person/per year. Macron discovered how angry people get when you actually force them to pay more and he quickly backtracked. None of the Paris signatories have met their goals, nor are they on track to meet their goals, because of political reality, not despite it. So the politicians are generally smarter at reading the pulse of the public than the activists on this issue. People care, but only a little bit. But as technology continues to progress, I have no doubt that long term we will not be using coal anymore. But solar has serious problems, the most intractable being the disposal of the solar cells -- they are quite toxic, and no one has figured out what to do with the decommissioned cells -- and we will have a lot of them if solar accounts for a non-trivial share of global electricity output. As in billions would need to be disposed of each year. So I don't think solar is the answer, given current materials. Personally, I like nuclear, but I could be wrong. We will move on from coal just as we moved on from wood and whale oil and all the energy sources of the past, but it's going to happen on a timeline determined by technological feasibility and economics, not by politics or political pledges.

creato 7y ago
> But as technology continues to progress, I have no doubt that long term we will not be using coal anymore. But solar has serious problems, the most intractable being the disposal of the solar cells -- they are quite toxic, and no one has figured out what to do with the decommissioned cells -- and we will have a lot of them if solar accounts for a non-trivial share of global electricity output. As in billions would need to be disposed of each year. So I don't think solar is the answer, given current materials. Source? I find it hard to believe this is a problem given they last decades, I'm not aware of any major problematic materials in solar panels, and the primary alternative is burning coal.
- rsj_hn 7y ago
  There are many alternatives to solar other than burning coal. For example, you can build a nuclear plant or hydro dam, or use more natural gas or biomass. The world is not divided into solar v. coal -- solar is not even a major player in global energy right now. In terms of sources about the disposal issues for solar, there are many discussions about this online, but here is a nice, readable, layman's introduction to the problem: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18018820/solar-panel-waste-chemicals-energy-environment-recycling https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18018820/solar-panel-was... "To understand the challenges of solar waste, it’s helpful to understand how the panels are built. There are different types of solar panels, but most of them contain aluminum, glass, silver, and an elastic material called ethylene-vinyl acetate. The problem is that they can also contain more dangerous and sometimes cancer-causing, materials such as lead, chromium, and cadmium. Functional panels are sealed off with glass and are very safe. But when the glass breaks or the panels are damaged, those substances can leak. This risk is especially high with poorly made solar panels installed in areas that experience extreme weather, like hurricanes and hail. Winds and rain can break the glass, allowing chemicals to leach into the soil and then into the water system" Now imagine a world where solar is a major player. So world energy consumption was 1.575 × 10^17 Wh (2013) and growing at, say, 3% per annum (conservative). (wikipedia). Let's imagine that in 2033, when world energy consumption is 2.8 * 10^17 WH, solar accounts for 1/3 of that. Now today's panels are about 1.65 m^2 and can generate about 300W (https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electricity-does-a-solar-panel-produce/ https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electr...), so let's say due to improvements in science, that becomes 600W. And let's say they do that 12 hours per day nonstop year round, to produce 2.63*10^6 WH per annum. That means they can account for 1/3 of world energy needs if we have 38 Billion of these futuristic solar cells (the ones with double the current energy output and that produce peak output 12 hours each day 365 days per year). That's about 20% of the area of Arizona. And let's say that due to external damage and internal failure, the cells need to be replaced once every 40 years, so that means we need to recycle about 1 billion of these cells each year, each weighing about 25kg, so that is 25 Billion kilograms of waste that would need to be recycled each year, contaminated with some nasty chemicals. And that number too will grow by 3% each year as global energy use increases. And this situation is only going to get worse because as we do more research and create more efficient cells, that's not going to happen by switching to more organic compounds. It means more exotic compounds. And we still need to find something else for the other 2/3 of global energy use.

crispinb 7y ago

Not necessarily. Most governments of wealthy nations are determined to prop up fossil fuel use regardless of so-called 'economic' or environmental fundamentals. This is very well-established in research but for a recent newsy report see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/g20-nations-triple-coal-power-subsidies-climate-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/g20-nati.... You might say this can't go on forever as it soaks up government revenue unsustainably. But many decades can pass before 'forever' is hit, and we're in amongst the decades that really count, right now.

Gibbon1 7y ago
It can go on for a long time indeed. The issue is that eventually your infrastructure is hopelessly outdated. And your key industries run by goldbricks whose core competence is demanding subsidies and hand outs. See the US steel industry for an example. It was a long hard fight but we did it. The US steel industry went from being a world leader to not particularly important in 50 years.