3 ms·

I found this article interesting: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0319-MM.pdf https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/

• ardit33 6y ago
  The guy that wrote is is a big Oil lobyist, and the Manhattan Institue is a conservative/big oil think tank It is like someone from the early 1900s saying: Combustion engines will never take over, steam is 98% of power... etc.. etc.. yet in 10 years they did take over, first cars, then larger vessels (trains and boats). Coal/Steam power generation for trains was seen as a super polluting thing and unwanted in cities anymore. Same thing is happening again, this time it is the combustion's engine turn to get replaced with something cleaner
  • mcwone 6y ago
    Well, I sure hope you are correct on this and we will see a green utopian future. What concerns me is the finiteness of non-renewable resources both oil and the materials used to produce wind and solar power. Processing of ore to produce the rare metals used is very power intensive and polluting. What happens in say 2050 when all this green power tech needs to be replaced?? Is there enough raw materials left over to continue the production of green energy tech ??
  • tertius 6y ago
    "That's like saying this other situation that we can look back at by analogy and overlay it on the future that hasn't yet played out." Nope.
• philipkglass 6y ago
  That's a very deceptive article. It compares the levelized cost of electricity from wind and solar generation (using Lazard's LCOE numbers) against gas production cost from a shale well. You have to pay for the power plant construction, operation, and maintenance in addition to the fuel in order to get electricity from gas. And the well owner has to charge more than bare costs for the fuel in order to stay in business.