3 ms·

Climate tech has driven solar and wind generation from the most expensive generation assets to the cheapest over the last 20 years. Energy storage has gone from

Climate tech has driven solar and wind generation from the most expensive generation assets to the cheapest over the last 20 years. Energy storage has gone from a product for cordless consumer devices to something that's cheap enough to replace fossil fuel peaking and reliability units. Nest built an energy efficiency product that's a household name. So, yes, the world would be way worse off.

jillesvangurp 7y ago
Exactly, we owe a lot to those pioneers that started innovating half a century ago. About five years ago is when non subsidized renewables caught up with just about everything else in terms of unsubsidized cost/kwh. By now, coal plants are going bankrupt and people have all but stopped building new ones. Gas plants are not far behind. I'd say another five years of price drops will push that over the point where that becomes equally uneconomic. Most plants under construction right now are extremely likely to be retired long before their projected end of lives. To preempt the inevitable "but ... we need unspecified amounts of reserve capacity for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't come out" croqs. This is a real problem that is easily addressed with 1) batteries, cables, and excess capacity (name your safety factor; 10x is feasible and probably still cheaper if needed). Batteries give you local energy buffers. We've used cables to move power around since electricity became commercially available. Multiple interconnected production sites distributed across every country (as well as off shore) can absorb any amount of clouds, or other weather phenomena that might temporarily cause a continent lack of wind & sun. And of course there's no rule that says we can only cover 100$ of our energy needs. A few extra panels, wind mills, etc. can push this to 200, 300, or more percent. Also the excess is actually useful for doing stuff like generating synthesized fuels, desalinating water (or condensing it from thin air), etc. My main argument here is that clean energy is about to create an economic boom that is similar in size to what happened when we discovered fire, coal, and oil (in that order). Historically every time we reduce the cost of energy, we've had a massive economic boom. IMHO we're on the edge of the next one which will be powered by dirt cheap and plentiful clean energy that we can consume by the twh completely guilt free. The main problem in this space is that people don't see the big picture. Too many tree huggers (no offense) and not enough people with vision.

jillesvangurp 7y ago

Exactly, we owe a lot to those pioneers that started innovating half a century ago. About five years ago is when non subsidized renewables caught up with just about everything else in terms of unsubsidized cost/kwh. By now, coal plants are going bankrupt and people have all but stopped building new ones. Gas plants are not far behind. I'd say another five years of price drops will push that over the point where that becomes equally uneconomic. Most plants under construction right now are extremely likely to be retired long before their projected end of lives. To preempt the inevitable "but ... we need unspecified amounts of reserve capacity for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't come out" croqs. This is a real problem that is easily addressed with 1) batteries, cables, and excess capacity (name your safety factor; 10x is feasible and probably still cheaper if needed). Batteries give you local energy buffers. We've used cables to move power around since electricity became commercially available. Multiple interconnected production sites distributed across every country (as well as off shore) can absorb any amount of clouds, or other weather phenomena that might temporarily cause a continent lack of wind & sun. And of course there's no rule that says we can only cover 100$ of our energy needs. A few extra panels, wind mills, etc. can push this to 200, 300, or more percent. Also the excess is actually useful for doing stuff like generating synthesized fuels, desalinating water (or condensing it from thin air), etc. My main argument here is that clean energy is about to create an economic boom that is similar in size to what happened when we discovered fire, coal, and oil (in that order). Historically every time we reduce the cost of energy, we've had a massive economic boom. IMHO we're on the edge of the next one which will be powered by dirt cheap and plentiful clean energy that we can consume by the twh completely guilt free. The main problem in this space is that people don't see the big picture. Too many tree huggers (no offense) and not enough people with vision.