3 ms·

It wouldn't make more economical sense if we taxed the externalities. Right now, the coal plants are "using" (read destroying) resources (air, water, ...) for f

by rafale 5y ago

It wouldn't make more economical sense if we taxed the externalities. Right now, the coal plants are "using" (read destroying) resources (air, water, ...) for free. A tax should price in the cost of that harm in a way that make green alternatives more competitive.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
I disagree. You must enact a ban with a firm deadline, otherwise you end up in cryptoland where you're using country-level amounts of energy because someone, somewhere is willing to burn up fiat on it. This is of course expected in late stage capitalism where trillions of dollars are chasing returns, physical realm consequences be damned. Countries are already enacting deadlines for banning combustion vehicle sales [1], it is straightforward to enact fossil combustion electrical generation bans in similar fashion. The communicates to the market to no longer fund or implement combustion generation facilities, and investment will flow away from existing facilities towards renewables and energy storage (whether that's batteries, green hydrogen and/or ammonia, pumped hydro storage, etc). Most new generation is already renewables (due to cost, see Lazard's LCOE [2]) [3] [4] [5], what I discuss in this comment rapidly pulls forward fossil generation retirement (from 2030-2050 to something more reasonable, such as no latter than 2030). In short, outlaw fossil combustion, and investment will flow into clean alternatives. The planet doesn't care about your fiat and economic system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles#Places_with_planned_fossil-fuel_vehicle_bans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic... [2] https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... [3] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896 [4] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416 [5] https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Apr/World-Adds-Record-New-Renewable-Energy-Capacity-in-2020 https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Apr/World-...
- epistasis 5y ago
  You are correct, gentle supply and demand will operate too slowly to correct the market. A huge problem with the current market is that it's not very free, entrance is too difficult for new players, and the entrenched players have excessive political power through regulatory capture. There are far too many players with massive amounts of assets that would be stranded and devalued, if they were allowed to be exposed to competition. But even if there were a more free market, the speed of capital on these sorts of scales is very slow. So even though it may be more economically efficient to abandon a bunch of bad coal plants and do massive deployments of new technology, the amount of capital necessary makes it difficult to make the transition at the economically most cost effective pace. Look at all the coal plants that burn coal, despite losing money at it. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/report-claims-most-us-coal-plants-are-uneconomic-vs-local-wind-solar-64085652 https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights...
bojangleslover 5y ago
But nobody can quantify the cost of those externalities
- hbrav 5y ago
  It's not an easy task, but you can certainly try. For example: https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-economics-of-climate-change-the-stern-review/ https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-econ...
hbrav 5y ago
Oh I 100% agree with you. But imagine you're the government of a country that is struggling to provide heating over the winter. It would be very tempting to think "Hmm, we could recommission that coal power plant..."
- candiodari 5y ago
  Whereas people here are suggesting "only 1000 people will die if we don't. That'll save MORE carbon too!" It is not reasonable to seriously cut energy usage. It will make the lives of the poor unliveable. Also any meaningful decrease will make 90% of people's lives unliveable. No, we clearly need innovation to make this happen, not force. You cannot expect people to make these sorts of sacrifices, it's not going to happen.
The_Double 5y ago
A part of why gas prices are so high right now in the EU, is because of ETS (emission trading scheme) prices. EU industry has to buy CO2 emission rights, and the prices are at an all time high right now, causing coal plants to stop production. If the high gas prices cause more production from the coal plants, this will push the prices up even more.

by rafale 5y ago

toomuchtodo 5y ago

I disagree. You must enact a ban with a firm deadline, otherwise you end up in cryptoland where you're using country-level amounts of energy because someone, somewhere is willing to burn up fiat on it. This is of course expected in late stage capitalism where trillions of dollars are chasing returns, physical realm consequences be damned. Countries are already enacting deadlines for banning combustion vehicle sales [1], it is straightforward to enact fossil combustion electrical generation bans in similar fashion. The communicates to the market to no longer fund or implement combustion generation facilities, and investment will flow away from existing facilities towards renewables and energy storage (whether that's batteries, green hydrogen and/or ammonia, pumped hydro storage, etc). Most new generation is already renewables (due to cost, see Lazard's LCOE [2]) [3] [4] [5], what I discuss in this comment rapidly pulls forward fossil generation retirement (from 2030-2050 to something more reasonable, such as no latter than 2030). In short, outlaw fossil combustion, and investment will flow into clean alternatives. The planet doesn't care about your fiat and economic system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles#Places_with_planned_fossil-fuel_vehicle_bans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic... [2] https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... [3] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896 [4] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416 [5] https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Apr/World-Adds-Record-New-Renewable-Energy-Capacity-in-2020 https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Apr/World-...

epistasis 5y ago
You are correct, gentle supply and demand will operate too slowly to correct the market. A huge problem with the current market is that it's not very free, entrance is too difficult for new players, and the entrenched players have excessive political power through regulatory capture. There are far too many players with massive amounts of assets that would be stranded and devalued, if they were allowed to be exposed to competition. But even if there were a more free market, the speed of capital on these sorts of scales is very slow. So even though it may be more economically efficient to abandon a bunch of bad coal plants and do massive deployments of new technology, the amount of capital necessary makes it difficult to make the transition at the economically most cost effective pace. Look at all the coal plants that burn coal, despite losing money at it. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/report-claims-most-us-coal-plants-are-uneconomic-vs-local-wind-solar-64085652 https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights...

bojangleslover 5y ago

But nobody can quantify the cost of those externalities

hbrav 5y ago
It's not an easy task, but you can certainly try. For example: https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-economics-of-climate-change-the-stern-review/ https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-econ...

hbrav 5y ago

Oh I 100% agree with you. But imagine you're the government of a country that is struggling to provide heating over the winter. It would be very tempting to think "Hmm, we could recommission that coal power plant..."

candiodari 5y ago
Whereas people here are suggesting "only 1000 people will die if we don't. That'll save MORE carbon too!" It is not reasonable to seriously cut energy usage. It will make the lives of the poor unliveable. Also any meaningful decrease will make 90% of people's lives unliveable. No, we clearly need innovation to make this happen, not force. You cannot expect people to make these sorts of sacrifices, it's not going to happen.

The_Double 5y ago

A part of why gas prices are so high right now in the EU, is because of ETS (emission trading scheme) prices. EU industry has to buy CO2 emission rights, and the prices are at an all time high right now, causing coal plants to stop production. If the high gas prices cause more production from the coal plants, this will push the prices up even more.