6 ms·

And the thing that's going to save us boiling frogs, if it's not too late already, is the invisible hand of the free market. Fossil fuels are rapidly getting ou

by beat 7y ago

And the thing that's going to save us boiling frogs, if it's not too late already, is the invisible hand of the free market. Fossil fuels are rapidly getting out-priced by renewables, which are getting order-of-magnitude improvements in cost. We got lucky.

IpV8 7y ago
I'd hardly say that the free market is the savior, The innovation in renewables was the result of heavy government spending in R&D grants to universities, subsidies on renewable tech, and cap and trade on emissions. Lets hope that the free market can take the baton after government intervention pushed down the initial price barriers.
- noir_lord 7y ago
  You aren't looking it through the lens of "all business good/all government bad" enough. When in reality the picture is "somethings the market does well, some things absolutely should not have a profit motive - the picture is complex" which frankly these days wouldn't fit on the side of a bus so no-one this side of the pond would pay any attention.
- dnautics 7y ago
  and conversely, continued hydrocarbon dominance was the result of heavy government subsidy for the industry. It's truly impossible to know if renewables would have happened faster or slower in a free market.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  A free market could've done all of this faster and more efficiently if governments were capable to commensurately price externalities like climate change. They clearly aren't, so this whole prediction that hydrocarbons are on their way out will turn out false. Any serious amount of political unrest brings gas subsidies out of the political toolbox. Even if climate change happens exactly as predicted, it will not stop hydrocarbon use. If anything, a downtrend in living standards will cause even more hydrocarbon use, as it is cheaper and more primitive technology.
- beat 7y ago
  Mostly nonsense. The improvements we've seen over the past decade have been improvements in manufacturing and other process, not subsidy. It truly is cheaper now, and will get cheaper still. The free market has had the baton for the past decade, at least. The main impediment is mostly the time scale of power plant projects, and the cost of intermediate storage (which has also plummeted). And of course, this doesn't take into account our direct and indirect subsidies to the fossil fuel industry - you know, like what we spend on a military presence in the Middle East.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    > Mostly nonsense. Citation needed. Even a market darling like Tesla benefited greatly from government subsidies on “green” technologies.
    - beat 7y ago
      Tesla has more than doubled in size every year since it was founded. It has grown faster than Amazon did. That's not subsidy, because subsidy is bound politically and could not keep up with that sort of growth. No, that's what being the best-bet winner for a trillion dollar market looks like.
toiletfuneral 7y ago
this is maybe the worst comment I've ever read on HN, it has to be a joke
Animats 7y ago
We did get lucky. It was not at all clear that solar panels could get cheap and have long useful lives. Or that battery technology, which barely moved for a century, would get much better. Or even that large numbers of huge windmills would be cost-effective. We got unlucky in that nuclear power turned out to be much more troublesome than expected. Breeder reactors were a dud. Fusion didn't work out.
a3n 7y ago
I suspect there is no such thing as an ungamed "free market." The phrase reminds me of apologists that talk about "communism done right, in theory," in response to condemnation of communism as practiced. We rank and file are just resources for those who game whatever system we find ourselves in.
- beat 7y ago
  As Peter Thiel pointed out, in the idealized frictionless free market of politicians and economists, profits are driven to zero. The market is only profitable when there is friction.

by beat 7y ago

IpV8 7y ago

I'd hardly say that the free market is the savior, The innovation in renewables was the result of heavy government spending in R&D grants to universities, subsidies on renewable tech, and cap and trade on emissions. Lets hope that the free market can take the baton after government intervention pushed down the initial price barriers.

noir_lord 7y ago
You aren't looking it through the lens of "all business good/all government bad" enough. When in reality the picture is "somethings the market does well, some things absolutely should not have a profit motive - the picture is complex" which frankly these days wouldn't fit on the side of a bus so no-one this side of the pond would pay any attention.
dnautics 7y ago
and conversely, continued hydrocarbon dominance was the result of heavy government subsidy for the industry. It's truly impossible to know if renewables would have happened faster or slower in a free market.
gridlockd 7y ago
A free market could've done all of this faster and more efficiently if governments were capable to commensurately price externalities like climate change. They clearly aren't, so this whole prediction that hydrocarbons are on their way out will turn out false. Any serious amount of political unrest brings gas subsidies out of the political toolbox. Even if climate change happens exactly as predicted, it will not stop hydrocarbon use. If anything, a downtrend in living standards will cause even more hydrocarbon use, as it is cheaper and more primitive technology.
beat 7y ago
Mostly nonsense. The improvements we've seen over the past decade have been improvements in manufacturing and other process, not subsidy. It truly is cheaper now, and will get cheaper still. The free market has had the baton for the past decade, at least. The main impediment is mostly the time scale of power plant projects, and the cost of intermediate storage (which has also plummeted). And of course, this doesn't take into account our direct and indirect subsidies to the fossil fuel industry - you know, like what we spend on a military presence in the Middle East.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  > Mostly nonsense. Citation needed. Even a market darling like Tesla benefited greatly from government subsidies on “green” technologies.
  - beat 7y ago
    Tesla has more than doubled in size every year since it was founded. It has grown faster than Amazon did. That's not subsidy, because subsidy is bound politically and could not keep up with that sort of growth. No, that's what being the best-bet winner for a trillion dollar market looks like.

toiletfuneral 7y ago

this is maybe the worst comment I've ever read on HN, it has to be a joke

Animats 7y ago

We did get lucky. It was not at all clear that solar panels could get cheap and have long useful lives. Or that battery technology, which barely moved for a century, would get much better. Or even that large numbers of huge windmills would be cost-effective. We got unlucky in that nuclear power turned out to be much more troublesome than expected. Breeder reactors were a dud. Fusion didn't work out.

a3n 7y ago

I suspect there is no such thing as an ungamed "free market." The phrase reminds me of apologists that talk about "communism done right, in theory," in response to condemnation of communism as practiced. We rank and file are just resources for those who game whatever system we find ourselves in.

beat 7y ago
As Peter Thiel pointed out, in the idealized frictionless free market of politicians and economists, profits are driven to zero. The market is only profitable when there is friction.