4 ms·

Ok, you're just wrong on some of this stuff. When I say "renewable", I mean wind and solar for the most part, so keep that in mind. No, renewables don't solve

by beat 7y ago

Ok, you're just wrong on some of this stuff. When I say "renewable", I mean wind and solar for the most part, so keep that in mind. No, renewables don't solve the plastic/pesticides/concrete problem. It's energy, not hardware. Renewables can and do deliver cheap, reliable, scalable energy. The automobile is a really good example of that, and electric cars are quickly edging out internal combustion. I imagine we're no more than two decades from total electric car base. There is such a thing as batteries, you know. Wind and solar are only delivering x% of our power now, but time moves, and they are growing exponentially. Their lower cost provides a strong financial incentive to do all new construction in renewables. So again, over the next few decades, we will transition to a mostly-renewable grid. Nuclear is expensive because it's hard, not because of "regulation". And considering the track record of the industry and the consequences of failure, I'm all for the regulation. If regulation was the problem, we'd see more nuclear in nations with very little environmental regulation and strong central governments, like Russia and China. But they still only get a small fraction of their power from nuclear, and it's about to be outstripped by renewables. Because renewable is much cheaper. I wouldn't invest in the industry because a: speculating on individual companies is just gambling (an industry fund would be different), and b: the cost of energy is going to go down, so profit margins won't be great. It'll wipe out the fossil energy industry, but the end result will be the world spending less money for more energy. Bad investment, good for humanity.

coldtea 7y ago
>Renewables can and do deliver cheap, reliable, scalable energy. The automobile is a really good example of that, and electric cars are quickly edging out internal combustion. I imagine we're no more than two decades from total electric car base. There is such a thing as batteries, you know. The electric cars are still made, transported, maintained, and powered by fossil fuels and nuclear. Renewables at the moment (and for the foreseeable future) can't handle changing the world's fleet (?), or even 20% of it, to electric cars... Renewables are to projected to be around 16%-18% in 2040: "Should progress continue at the pace currently forecast, the share of renewables in final energy consumption would be roughly 18% by 2040" https://www.iea.org/renewables2018/ https://www.iea.org/renewables2018/ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/United_States_electricity_generation_by_fuel_1990-2040.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/United_S...
- beat 7y ago
  Yes, electric car manufacturing is still done largely with non-renewable sources. But it's happening nonetheless. Manufacturers like Porsche and Volvo expect to be over 50% EV by 2025. Even for fuel-based cars, plug-in hybrids are becoming more common. So the auto industry will be switching quickly. Unfortunately, we will still have other pockets where fossil fuels are much harder to root out - heavy oil for shipping, jet fuel, and the existing base of coal plants that aren't financially viable to replace. But how many decades are left in those coal plants? Who will build a new coal plant to replace the old one? And as gasoline and coal are phased out, they will become more expensive, as economies of scale drop out. Meanwhile, economies of scale in manufacturing are a key reason for the drop in the cost of renewables. Market forces are mostly on the side of renewables here, and trends even more so.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    "expecting" is the problem word here. That means absolutely nothing. Its marketing talk with no real foundation in reality. Gasoline and coal will be phased out but it's not because of wind and solar as they literally can't deliver what is needed and will need at a minimum nuclear or oil or coal as backup when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. We are nowhere near fuel cells. One could even make a case for us being closer to fusion than fuel cells.
    - beat 7y ago
      "When the sun isn't shining" shows that you really don't understand the field. Again... ever heard of batteries? There are any number of ways to temporarily store power. Collect wind/solar when the wind blows and the sun shines, and have some spare energy cached when demand exceeds supply. There's no "can't" anywhere in this. It's just a question of cost. And if wind/solar + sufficient storage is still cheaper than coal and gas peaker plants, it wins. That's the way the entire industry is betting, worldwide. The experts whose careers are on the line think this is the right path for a reason.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
ThomPete 7y ago
No I am not wrong on any of this stuff. Solar and wind aren't projected to be more than around 3%-4% in 2040 there is nothing exponential about that at all. They cant compete and have made energy more expensive in ex. germany and Denmark where it's being subsidized by the taxpayer any look at an invoice from the energy supplier makes that painfully clear. The fact that renewables can't solve those things makes it less attractive because with oil you get those extra uttilitizes so when you extract the cost is divided on those different areas. Thats just hard to compete with. So yes the other renewables aren't hardware, thats just one of their problems. No nuclear isn't hard, it was at times almost as cheap as coal back when it was less regulated. Renewables aren't cheap they are expensive which you would see once you started investing in it and which is why almost no one do. Keep in mind this isn't some product market fit problem. If we could do fuel-cells it would be a pretty safe bet so there isn't really much excuse when investing in energy which is exactly my point. It's pretty hard to find alternatives, not hard to find one that works if it existed.
- beat 7y ago
  Solar and wind are more than 3-4% already. Where are you getting your projections?
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    Nope, I think you are confusing it with electricity. Electricity is only a subset of energy. https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR3eH1AFcRSPSEit8JINLCMvE_UmZAsNNdxRRpIepIGqCz_rILNEHHwLtNw https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR3eH1AFcRSPSEit8JINLCMvE_...

by beat 7y ago

coldtea 7y ago

>Renewables can and do deliver cheap, reliable, scalable energy. The automobile is a really good example of that, and electric cars are quickly edging out internal combustion. I imagine we're no more than two decades from total electric car base. There is such a thing as batteries, you know. The electric cars are still made, transported, maintained, and powered by fossil fuels and nuclear. Renewables at the moment (and for the foreseeable future) can't handle changing the world's fleet (?), or even 20% of it, to electric cars... Renewables are to projected to be around 16%-18% in 2040: "Should progress continue at the pace currently forecast, the share of renewables in final energy consumption would be roughly 18% by 2040" https://www.iea.org/renewables2018/ https://www.iea.org/renewables2018/ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/United_States_electricity_generation_by_fuel_1990-2040.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/United_S...

beat 7y ago
Yes, electric car manufacturing is still done largely with non-renewable sources. But it's happening nonetheless. Manufacturers like Porsche and Volvo expect to be over 50% EV by 2025. Even for fuel-based cars, plug-in hybrids are becoming more common. So the auto industry will be switching quickly. Unfortunately, we will still have other pockets where fossil fuels are much harder to root out - heavy oil for shipping, jet fuel, and the existing base of coal plants that aren't financially viable to replace. But how many decades are left in those coal plants? Who will build a new coal plant to replace the old one? And as gasoline and coal are phased out, they will become more expensive, as economies of scale drop out. Meanwhile, economies of scale in manufacturing are a key reason for the drop in the cost of renewables. Market forces are mostly on the side of renewables here, and trends even more so.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  "expecting" is the problem word here. That means absolutely nothing. Its marketing talk with no real foundation in reality. Gasoline and coal will be phased out but it's not because of wind and solar as they literally can't deliver what is needed and will need at a minimum nuclear or oil or coal as backup when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. We are nowhere near fuel cells. One could even make a case for us being closer to fusion than fuel cells.
  - beat 7y ago
    "When the sun isn't shining" shows that you really don't understand the field. Again... ever heard of batteries? There are any number of ways to temporarily store power. Collect wind/solar when the wind blows and the sun shines, and have some spare energy cached when demand exceeds supply. There's no "can't" anywhere in this. It's just a question of cost. And if wind/solar + sufficient storage is still cheaper than coal and gas peaker plants, it wins. That's the way the entire industry is betting, worldwide. The experts whose careers are on the line think this is the right path for a reason.
    - ThomPete 7y ago

ThomPete 7y ago

No I am not wrong on any of this stuff. Solar and wind aren't projected to be more than around 3%-4% in 2040 there is nothing exponential about that at all. They cant compete and have made energy more expensive in ex. germany and Denmark where it's being subsidized by the taxpayer any look at an invoice from the energy supplier makes that painfully clear. The fact that renewables can't solve those things makes it less attractive because with oil you get those extra uttilitizes so when you extract the cost is divided on those different areas. Thats just hard to compete with. So yes the other renewables aren't hardware, thats just one of their problems. No nuclear isn't hard, it was at times almost as cheap as coal back when it was less regulated. Renewables aren't cheap they are expensive which you would see once you started investing in it and which is why almost no one do. Keep in mind this isn't some product market fit problem. If we could do fuel-cells it would be a pretty safe bet so there isn't really much excuse when investing in energy which is exactly my point. It's pretty hard to find alternatives, not hard to find one that works if it existed.

beat 7y ago
Solar and wind are more than 3-4% already. Where are you getting your projections?
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Nope, I think you are confusing it with electricity. Electricity is only a subset of energy. https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR3eH1AFcRSPSEit8JINLCMvE_UmZAsNNdxRRpIepIGqCz_rILNEHHwLtNw https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR3eH1AFcRSPSEit8JINLCMvE_...