5 ms·

Overall, I struggle to see how this is a bad thing. Take the example at the start of the article: 1. Two decades ago, the UN set up a program for selling volun

Overall, I struggle to see how this is a bad thing. Take the example at the start of the article: 1. Two decades ago, the UN set up a program for selling voluntary carbon credits under the assumption that renewables would not be price-competitive for a very long time, if ever, and would therefore need a subsidy. 2. Companies started buying those credits, even though they didn't have to, just to look good to consumers. As a result, the subsidy didn't cost taxpayers a dime. 3. Renewable technology developed faster than expected (in part due to the subsidy). Now renewables are competitive with fossil fuels and projects would be built even if companies didn't buy the credits. People should be absolutely thrilled by this outcome.

rglover 4y ago
> Now renewables are competitive with fossil fuels This isn't true. They might be competitive in a shallow sense (price per kWh) but in terms of benefit (specifically, reliability and output capacity), they're barely a sniff—hence the nightmare in Europe right now. That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime).
- thinkcontext 4y ago
  > hence the nightmare in Europe right now. How would being more reliant on fossil fuels help them now? The problem is they are struggling to import enough. If they had more fossil fuel plants and less wind and solar they'd have to import even more fossil fuels. > That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime). False. There have been dozens of lifecycle analysis studies they find a more than 10x advantage of solar and wind over gas per kwh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...
  - rglover 4y ago
    > How would being more reliant on fossil fuels help them now? The problem is they are struggling to import enough. Right. That problem exists because they drew back their own fossil fuel production to switch to renewables which are not providing the commensurate energy required, forcing them to go to outside providers. > False. There have been dozens of lifecycle analysis studies they find a more than 10x advantage of solar and wind over gas per kwh. Now do the factories to produce the components in the renewables, the trucks to ship the components, the equipment to install the components, the trucks to get the workers to maintain the components, etc. Batteries? You need massive trucks that can only run on diesel to mine the metals necessary to make them work. You're releasing insane amounts of emissions and wasting tons of energy just to say you're not on paper. It's absolute lunacy.
    - Mavvie 4y ago
      From their wikipedia link: > The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operation and waste management. So the studies should already be including everything you mentioned.
      - rglover 4y ago
        That still doesn't account for the scale of deployment necessary to make up for the missing power requirements (the entire point I'm making) which, if I had to guess, would make this "10x" number irrelevant, if not laughable. For example, a quick check [1]: > Peak power production for the coal power plant was in July 2020 (719GWh) which was also the month for the lowest output for wind (34.6GWh). In July, the wind turbines produced just 4.8% of the power produced by the coal power plant while operating at only 9.4% of rated capacity. In the month of July, it would require at least 3,764 similar sized wind turbines to replace the electricity generated by the coal power plant which was operating at just 47% of rated capacity. [1] https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/08/19/clash_of_the_titans_wind_power_vs_coal_power_790720.html https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/08/19/clash_of... I don't doubt that studies dealing in hypotheticals show that it's possible, but the reality doesn't match up. Solar is in the same boat.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > hence the nightmare in Europe right now. Ah yes. Everything that is not solar or wind had massive failures due to market and climate. The small contribution from the solar and wind is operating about as per normal. Must have been because we built too much solar and wind, not too little. What a hilariously bad argument. > That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime). This is a strict multiple of energy payback time, which is somewhere between 6 months and 5 years with current generation panels, and 1 month to 3 years with wind. Depending on how far down the fossil fuel pipeline that goes up a bit, but you have to multiply your fossil fuels by the same factor. It's so far from equal that it's not worth considering, and it gets further from equal as the renewable portion of silicon refining and composite manufacture increase.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    There was a year when Germany didn't build more solar and wind plants. The output increased 10% just from more extreme weather alone.
  - rglover 4y ago
    > Must have been because we built too much solar and wind, not too little. Is that what I said? No. They started turning off fossil fuel power plants—and ironically, nuclear—to precipitate the move to renewables and improve their emissions scores relative to in-country energy production. That led to reliance on third-party producers like Russia for actual baseload energy (because they're well aware renewables can't/won't cut it) and then had the bright idea to place sanctions on Russia who promptly cut them off. The whole thing is a giant circle jerk to fit into the PCA/ESG scams (which are low-key money laundering operations). The solution to climate change was/is nuclear power (and stuff like this [1]), which go figure, the same malthusian parasites who have found a blood source in government and NGOs continue to ignore in favor of less-viable solutions (wind, solar, and batteries). The demise of the whole thing is all but booked and it's deeply enjoyable to watch all of the zealots backing it scramble. I only hope that their foolishness doesn't lead to people being hurt/killed. [1] https://carbonengineering.com/ https://carbonengineering.com/
yccs27 4y ago
The program itself, with the intention and success of making renewables competitive, is absolutely a good thing. It's just not working quite as well as it could, because offset companies cheat. Carbon offsets now don't really help with the climate, and their price doesn't reflect the real cost of the emissions. And in the process, companies can present themselves as "carbon-neutral" when they really aren't, and thus can avoid consumer or even further regulatory actions.

rglover 4y ago

> Now renewables are competitive with fossil fuels This isn't true. They might be competitive in a shallow sense (price per kWh) but in terms of benefit (specifically, reliability and output capacity), they're barely a sniff—hence the nightmare in Europe right now. That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime).

thinkcontext 4y ago
> hence the nightmare in Europe right now. How would being more reliant on fossil fuels help them now? The problem is they are struggling to import enough. If they had more fossil fuel plants and less wind and solar they'd have to import even more fossil fuels. > That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime). False. There have been dozens of lifecycle analysis studies they find a more than 10x advantage of solar and wind over gas per kwh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...
- rglover 4y ago
  > How would being more reliant on fossil fuels help them now? The problem is they are struggling to import enough. Right. That problem exists because they drew back their own fossil fuel production to switch to renewables which are not providing the commensurate energy required, forcing them to go to outside providers. > False. There have been dozens of lifecycle analysis studies they find a more than 10x advantage of solar and wind over gas per kwh. Now do the factories to produce the components in the renewables, the trucks to ship the components, the equipment to install the components, the trucks to get the workers to maintain the components, etc. Batteries? You need massive trucks that can only run on diesel to mine the metals necessary to make them work. You're releasing insane amounts of emissions and wasting tons of energy just to say you're not on paper. It's absolute lunacy.
  - Mavvie 4y ago
    From their wikipedia link: > The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operation and waste management. So the studies should already be including everything you mentioned.
    - rglover 4y ago
      That still doesn't account for the scale of deployment necessary to make up for the missing power requirements (the entire point I'm making) which, if I had to guess, would make this "10x" number irrelevant, if not laughable. For example, a quick check [1]: > Peak power production for the coal power plant was in July 2020 (719GWh) which was also the month for the lowest output for wind (34.6GWh). In July, the wind turbines produced just 4.8% of the power produced by the coal power plant while operating at only 9.4% of rated capacity. In the month of July, it would require at least 3,764 similar sized wind turbines to replace the electricity generated by the coal power plant which was operating at just 47% of rated capacity. [1] https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/08/19/clash_of_the_titans_wind_power_vs_coal_power_790720.html https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/08/19/clash_of... I don't doubt that studies dealing in hypotheticals show that it's possible, but the reality doesn't match up. Solar is in the same boat.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> hence the nightmare in Europe right now. Ah yes. Everything that is not solar or wind had massive failures due to market and climate. The small contribution from the solar and wind is operating about as per normal. Must have been because we built too much solar and wind, not too little. What a hilariously bad argument. > That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime). This is a strict multiple of energy payback time, which is somewhere between 6 months and 5 years with current generation panels, and 1 month to 3 years with wind. Depending on how far down the fossil fuel pipeline that goes up a bit, but you have to multiply your fossil fuels by the same factor. It's so far from equal that it's not worth considering, and it gets further from equal as the renewable portion of silicon refining and composite manufacture increase.
- imtringued 4y ago
  There was a year when Germany didn't build more solar and wind plants. The output increased 10% just from more extreme weather alone.
- rglover 4y ago
  > Must have been because we built too much solar and wind, not too little. Is that what I said? No. They started turning off fossil fuel power plants—and ironically, nuclear—to precipitate the move to renewables and improve their emissions scores relative to in-country energy production. That led to reliance on third-party producers like Russia for actual baseload energy (because they're well aware renewables can't/won't cut it) and then had the bright idea to place sanctions on Russia who promptly cut them off. The whole thing is a giant circle jerk to fit into the PCA/ESG scams (which are low-key money laundering operations). The solution to climate change was/is nuclear power (and stuff like this [1]), which go figure, the same malthusian parasites who have found a blood source in government and NGOs continue to ignore in favor of less-viable solutions (wind, solar, and batteries). The demise of the whole thing is all but booked and it's deeply enjoyable to watch all of the zealots backing it scramble. I only hope that their foolishness doesn't lead to people being hurt/killed. [1] https://carbonengineering.com/ https://carbonengineering.com/

yccs27 4y ago

The program itself, with the intention and success of making renewables competitive, is absolutely a good thing. It's just not working quite as well as it could, because offset companies cheat. Carbon offsets now don't really help with the climate, and their price doesn't reflect the real cost of the emissions. And in the process, companies can present themselves as "carbon-neutral" when they really aren't, and thus can avoid consumer or even further regulatory actions.