23 ms·

I hate to say it, but if energy prices keep rising this perspective is going to be disposed of rapidly. High energy prices mean rampant inflation and social un

by fny 4y ago

I hate to say it, but if energy prices keep rising this perspective is going to be disposed of rapidly. High energy prices mean rampant inflation and social unrest. With crude and natural gas prices skyrocketing, developing nations will again turn to coal as an energy source. Developed nations will return (see Germany) to coal as a heating source. Green energy will be thrown to the wayside for the sake of social stability give the tumult we've observed to this point. For the short run, there is unfortunately no viable alternative without enduring 5-10 years of pain. Over the long run, I hope we get more nuclear reactors online.

Retric 4y ago
Why would you spend more money on coal than you can spend on other options? Power companies aren’t building Wind/PV because it’s green they are building it because it’s cheap. Yes, higher inflation means higher interest rates, but it also means higher payments from customers over time.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  It's cheap and it's liberating. Once you go with solar or wind, you're actually harvesting the "fuel" at point of consumption, which completely changes your transportation story. They still need a transportation grid for repair and replacement parts, but that need is worlds away from the need of a coal plant supplied with continuous burnable fuel, or a natural gas plant at the end of a pipe. Renewables are a more flexible technology for a world of more change.
matthewdgreen 4y ago
You know what else causes social unrest? Starvation induced by crop failure. We’re already seeing the first signs with recent extreme weather and the megadrought. Wait just a short few years until it really gets moving.
- downsidesabound 4y ago
  That too will cause social unrest, indeed. But we won’t suffer social unrest today just to make tomorrow easier, however wise that might be. We’ll kick the can.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    It's already happening. https://archive.ph/pDvLA https://archive.ph/pDvLA
- fny 4y ago
  Natural gas is an incredible important input in the development of fertilizers. This is part of the reason cereal prices have skyrocketed so far. Unfortunately, everything is interlinked. Carbon is certainly an issue, but we've clearly put the cart before the horse.
- brnt 4y ago
  Syria collapsed due to crop failure (3 or 4 years in a row). Thats a decade ago now.
ben_w 4y ago
Why would the world turn to a more expensive fuel source? Even in Germany, coal is more expensive than wind and mostly more expensive than PV: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-of-electricity.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-o...
- barney54 4y ago
  It is not valid to compare the levelized cost of non-dispatchable sources of generation like wind and solar and dispatachable sources of generation like coal and nuclear. It’s an apples to oranges comparison, unless you some storage costs to the wind and solar. In that study you see there is overlap between coal and PV systems and batteries.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Only for rooftop batteries. The estimate for utility scale batteries is entirely lower than coal.
    - brnt 4y ago
      Afaik thats one of the challenges: there is no such thing as utility scale batteries. Nothing that stores a summers worth of PV and releases it in winter.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        That’s kinda why Tesla is doing what it’s doing. I’m not sure the exact production, but it looks like nearly 4 GWh in fixed storage last year, and at least 50 GWh (0.93 megacars * 54 kWh smallest battery) in their cars required the ability to rapidly make factories that can make batteries that could also be used in grid storage (I’m assuming making the batteries is the hard part of both electric cars and grid storage, if I’m wrong about that it breaks my argument). (And inter-season storage is too high a threshold: not many people are living in the artic/antarctic circles away from grids connecting them to places that still get some sun even in winter).
woodruffw 4y ago
This might have been true 20 years ago, but the economic envelope has changed: solar and wind power are both consistently cheaper than fossil fuels. This holds true even in developing nations[1], which means that countries that are still building out their initial power generation and distribution systems stand to benefit from skipping a costly transition entirely (not to mention eliminating a geopolitical lever.) [1]: https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majority-of-New-Renewables-Undercut-Cheapest-Fossil-Fuel-on-Cost https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majori...
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I think you missed the fact that what OP said is already happening and even the most highly invested in green (Scandinavia) isn't remotely close to keeping up with this.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    What do you mean by "keeping up with this"? Macro trends are what matter. For example, the US (a very not green country) has cut its coal use by over 50% in the last 20 years[1]. A lot of that is being replaced with natural gas generation, but that's partially because the coal-to-natgas transition is much quicker and cheaper due to the US's established power plants. That wouldn't apply to a developing nation, especially not ones where coal is historically imported (e.g. Pakistan). [1]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      This crisis. > Macro trends are what matter. No, it's not all that matters to everyone that can't afford to pay these skyrocketing prices because there's no way to keep up with demand other than reverting to coal. The OP is about social unrest and burning coal now not long-term trends. There is no long term if everything collapses before that. Germany is already burning more coal right now because alternatives cannot in fact keep up. Your head seems stuck in the US, apparently ignorant of news from Europe (take a look at electricity prices here and what's coming online.) There's literally not enough physical natural gas, and we'll outbid everyone else into starvation for what there is and fill the gaps with coal. Green cannot compete in this environment, even where it's most heavily invested in. No way does it have a chance elsewhere.
hedora 4y ago
Three of four home states for my extended family are under continuous threat of burnining down, and air quality has been unacceptably low (due to fires) for years. Also, at least one is running out of water, to the point that is has been causing food shortages elsewhere for years. I honestly think the US will end up in a civil war if it ends up being necessary to force action on climate change. As an aside, I own a pickup. I honestly don't give a shit if gas goes to $20. We already drive it as little as possible. However, there's no reason that would have to happen. It would cost about a dollar per gallon of gasoline-equivalent for existing prototype atmospheric carbon capture technologies to start drawing down CO2. That's much cheaper than societal collapse. Heck, it is less than Putin's war is costing US consumers. The excuses need to end, and action needs to start ramping up.
- 0x53 4y ago
  The book “American war” is an interesting fiction take on the idea of a civil war based on climate change policies
est31 4y ago
Rising energy prices are good for renewables, not bad. A rise makes renewable infrastructure more profitable just as it makes non-renewable infrastructure more profitable. Thus, renewables get even more competitive to non-renewable alternatives.
tsimionescu 4y ago
While I agree with you that this is what will most likely happen, I don't think it's the only possible alternative. The best solution to keep both short and long term in mind is to regulate prices on basic goods to prevent the worse social impacts, while allowing commodities to explode in price. This should greatly encoyrage all industries that can get rid of fossil fuels from their supply chains to do so, but also reduce overall consumption of unnecessary items and thus of fossil fuels. If the plastic toy you were importing from China suddenly costs 50$ instead of 5$, perhaps you simply won't buy it, so it won't get produced and wrapped in even more plastic and shipped halfway across the world.
skocznymroczny 4y ago
It won't be as easy to go back to coal for heating, at least short term. In Poland for example, one of the criteria to get a subsidy for switching away from coal for heating was to dispose of the old coal oven. I did that few months ago and switched to gas heating instead. If the prices of gas go up dramatically (and given the current situation that's likely), we don't really have an alternative at the moment.

by fny 4y ago

Retric 4y ago

Why would you spend more money on coal than you can spend on other options? Power companies aren’t building Wind/PV because it’s green they are building it because it’s cheap. Yes, higher inflation means higher interest rates, but it also means higher payments from customers over time.

shadowgovt 4y ago
It's cheap and it's liberating. Once you go with solar or wind, you're actually harvesting the "fuel" at point of consumption, which completely changes your transportation story. They still need a transportation grid for repair and replacement parts, but that need is worlds away from the need of a coal plant supplied with continuous burnable fuel, or a natural gas plant at the end of a pipe. Renewables are a more flexible technology for a world of more change.

matthewdgreen 4y ago

You know what else causes social unrest? Starvation induced by crop failure. We’re already seeing the first signs with recent extreme weather and the megadrought. Wait just a short few years until it really gets moving.

downsidesabound 4y ago
That too will cause social unrest, indeed. But we won’t suffer social unrest today just to make tomorrow easier, however wise that might be. We’ll kick the can.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  It's already happening. https://archive.ph/pDvLA https://archive.ph/pDvLA
fny 4y ago
Natural gas is an incredible important input in the development of fertilizers. This is part of the reason cereal prices have skyrocketed so far. Unfortunately, everything is interlinked. Carbon is certainly an issue, but we've clearly put the cart before the horse.
brnt 4y ago
Syria collapsed due to crop failure (3 or 4 years in a row). Thats a decade ago now.

ben_w 4y ago

Why would the world turn to a more expensive fuel source? Even in Germany, coal is more expensive than wind and mostly more expensive than PV: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-of-electricity.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-o...

barney54 4y ago
It is not valid to compare the levelized cost of non-dispatchable sources of generation like wind and solar and dispatachable sources of generation like coal and nuclear. It’s an apples to oranges comparison, unless you some storage costs to the wind and solar. In that study you see there is overlap between coal and PV systems and batteries.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Only for rooftop batteries. The estimate for utility scale batteries is entirely lower than coal.
  - brnt 4y ago
    Afaik thats one of the challenges: there is no such thing as utility scale batteries. Nothing that stores a summers worth of PV and releases it in winter.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      That’s kinda why Tesla is doing what it’s doing. I’m not sure the exact production, but it looks like nearly 4 GWh in fixed storage last year, and at least 50 GWh (0.93 megacars * 54 kWh smallest battery) in their cars required the ability to rapidly make factories that can make batteries that could also be used in grid storage (I’m assuming making the batteries is the hard part of both electric cars and grid storage, if I’m wrong about that it breaks my argument). (And inter-season storage is too high a threshold: not many people are living in the artic/antarctic circles away from grids connecting them to places that still get some sun even in winter).

woodruffw 4y ago

This might have been true 20 years ago, but the economic envelope has changed: solar and wind power are both consistently cheaper than fossil fuels. This holds true even in developing nations[1], which means that countries that are still building out their initial power generation and distribution systems stand to benefit from skipping a costly transition entirely (not to mention eliminating a geopolitical lever.) [1]: https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majority-of-New-Renewables-Undercut-Cheapest-Fossil-Fuel-on-Cost https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majori...

guerrilla 4y ago
I think you missed the fact that what OP said is already happening and even the most highly invested in green (Scandinavia) isn't remotely close to keeping up with this.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  What do you mean by "keeping up with this"? Macro trends are what matter. For example, the US (a very not green country) has cut its coal use by over 50% in the last 20 years[1]. A lot of that is being replaced with natural gas generation, but that's partially because the coal-to-natgas transition is much quicker and cheaper due to the US's established power plants. That wouldn't apply to a developing nation, especially not ones where coal is historically imported (e.g. Pakistan). [1]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    This crisis. > Macro trends are what matter. No, it's not all that matters to everyone that can't afford to pay these skyrocketing prices because there's no way to keep up with demand other than reverting to coal. The OP is about social unrest and burning coal now not long-term trends. There is no long term if everything collapses before that. Germany is already burning more coal right now because alternatives cannot in fact keep up. Your head seems stuck in the US, apparently ignorant of news from Europe (take a look at electricity prices here and what's coming online.) There's literally not enough physical natural gas, and we'll outbid everyone else into starvation for what there is and fill the gaps with coal. Green cannot compete in this environment, even where it's most heavily invested in. No way does it have a chance elsewhere.

hedora 4y ago

Three of four home states for my extended family are under continuous threat of burnining down, and air quality has been unacceptably low (due to fires) for years. Also, at least one is running out of water, to the point that is has been causing food shortages elsewhere for years. I honestly think the US will end up in a civil war if it ends up being necessary to force action on climate change. As an aside, I own a pickup. I honestly don't give a shit if gas goes to $20. We already drive it as little as possible. However, there's no reason that would have to happen. It would cost about a dollar per gallon of gasoline-equivalent for existing prototype atmospheric carbon capture technologies to start drawing down CO2. That's much cheaper than societal collapse. Heck, it is less than Putin's war is costing US consumers. The excuses need to end, and action needs to start ramping up.

0x53 4y ago
The book “American war” is an interesting fiction take on the idea of a civil war based on climate change policies

est31 4y ago

Rising energy prices are good for renewables, not bad. A rise makes renewable infrastructure more profitable just as it makes non-renewable infrastructure more profitable. Thus, renewables get even more competitive to non-renewable alternatives.

tsimionescu 4y ago

While I agree with you that this is what will most likely happen, I don't think it's the only possible alternative. The best solution to keep both short and long term in mind is to regulate prices on basic goods to prevent the worse social impacts, while allowing commodities to explode in price. This should greatly encoyrage all industries that can get rid of fossil fuels from their supply chains to do so, but also reduce overall consumption of unnecessary items and thus of fossil fuels. If the plastic toy you were importing from China suddenly costs 50$ instead of 5$, perhaps you simply won't buy it, so it won't get produced and wrapped in even more plastic and shipped halfway across the world.

skocznymroczny 4y ago

It won't be as easy to go back to coal for heating, at least short term. In Poland for example, one of the criteria to get a subsidy for switching away from coal for heating was to dispose of the old coal oven. I did that few months ago and switched to gas heating instead. If the prices of gas go up dramatically (and given the current situation that's likely), we don't really have an alternative at the moment.