3 ms·

Because the government regulates, subsidizes, and mandates these forms of energy. It does all these things because renewable energy is more expensive and so the

Because the government regulates, subsidizes, and mandates these forms of energy. It does all these things because renewable energy is more expensive and so they have not been sustainable, financially, on their own in the free market. Therefore the government, and by extension those who lobby the government for this, are compelling people to spend more for energy. Whether or not this is justified is a different question - but regardless of justification, this is why it's political.

cycomanic 4y ago
You're >10 years out of date solar and wind have been cost competitive for a long time (wind much longer so). Moreover fossil fuels received (and still are receiving) orders of magnitude more subsidies, same with nuclear which has received significantly more subsidies than solar and wind combined (and that's not even counting the cross subsidies from military use). In many places wind and solar are a factor 3-4 cheaper than other sources.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  this is true up to a point: wind and solar require huge overbuilding relative to generation capacity as they make up an increasing fraction of the grid. plus storage which is also expensive.
- mbostleman 4y ago
  I would be surprised if what you’re saying is the case. For one, I would expect solar and wind to take off on their own and people falling over each other to replace fossil fuels with them. Especially if what you say has been the case for 10 years. Otherwise, the argument for why that hasn’t happened would have to be some kind of conspiracy theory I would think (like the oil companies have colluded to rig the market). One thing I do know is that I worked at First Solar from 2008 to 2016 and a couple of things things happened while I was there that don’t fit what you’re saying. First, when the cost of fossil fuels went up, we made bank because that got us closer to “grid parity”. I don’t remember anyone saying that we were in a commanding lead well over grid parity. Just that we were close enough for people to start buying. A year later when the fossil fuel prices would drop, we were back on the ropes. Second, we had a project in west Texas in the mid teens that everyone talked about as being the first, fully financially sustainable implementation of solar. The reason was because it was located in an area of highly dispersed population and very high temp extremes. So the economies of scale that made conventional plants so valuable were not there. Anyway, I’m not armed with enough details to make a good argument, but I am suspicious of your claim.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    > For one, I would expect solar and wind to take off on their own You may be confusing "solar and wind are cheap enough to win for new construction" vs. "solar and wind are cheap enough to displace existing fossil fuel burning power plants". US electric demand has been flat for more than a decade, so there's no growth to be causing new installations. All that said, renewables in the US have been dominating the construction of new power plants as old power plants slowly age out and need to be replaced (or need major maintenance). At some point, renewables may get cheap enough (or the fuel expensive enough) that it makes sense to install renewables to just reduce fuel usage in existing plants. We may be near that point in some locations.
    - mbostleman 4y ago
      >>renewables in the US have been dominating the construction of new power plants>> That may be the case but I think the question here is whether that success is based on the technology's own free market merits. The statement I was responding to was this: >>You're >10 years out of date solar and wind have been cost competitive for a long time>> Here, for instance, just two months ago is the CEO of First Solar saying that "solar is going to be investible again [because of the Inflation Reduction Act]". This doesn't strike me as a technology that is exactly flying on its own. And again, to be clear, there is no judgement intended as to whether or not government market manipulation is justified - that's a different question. https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-solar-to-invest-1-2-billion-in-u-s-plants-spurred-by-climate-law-11661852700 https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-solar-to-invest-1-2-billi...

cycomanic 4y ago

You're >10 years out of date solar and wind have been cost competitive for a long time (wind much longer so). Moreover fossil fuels received (and still are receiving) orders of magnitude more subsidies, same with nuclear which has received significantly more subsidies than solar and wind combined (and that's not even counting the cross subsidies from military use). In many places wind and solar are a factor 3-4 cheaper than other sources.

collegeburner 4y ago
this is true up to a point: wind and solar require huge overbuilding relative to generation capacity as they make up an increasing fraction of the grid. plus storage which is also expensive.
mbostleman 4y ago
I would be surprised if what you’re saying is the case. For one, I would expect solar and wind to take off on their own and people falling over each other to replace fossil fuels with them. Especially if what you say has been the case for 10 years. Otherwise, the argument for why that hasn’t happened would have to be some kind of conspiracy theory I would think (like the oil companies have colluded to rig the market). One thing I do know is that I worked at First Solar from 2008 to 2016 and a couple of things things happened while I was there that don’t fit what you’re saying. First, when the cost of fossil fuels went up, we made bank because that got us closer to “grid parity”. I don’t remember anyone saying that we were in a commanding lead well over grid parity. Just that we were close enough for people to start buying. A year later when the fossil fuel prices would drop, we were back on the ropes. Second, we had a project in west Texas in the mid teens that everyone talked about as being the first, fully financially sustainable implementation of solar. The reason was because it was located in an area of highly dispersed population and very high temp extremes. So the economies of scale that made conventional plants so valuable were not there. Anyway, I’m not armed with enough details to make a good argument, but I am suspicious of your claim.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  > For one, I would expect solar and wind to take off on their own You may be confusing "solar and wind are cheap enough to win for new construction" vs. "solar and wind are cheap enough to displace existing fossil fuel burning power plants". US electric demand has been flat for more than a decade, so there's no growth to be causing new installations. All that said, renewables in the US have been dominating the construction of new power plants as old power plants slowly age out and need to be replaced (or need major maintenance). At some point, renewables may get cheap enough (or the fuel expensive enough) that it makes sense to install renewables to just reduce fuel usage in existing plants. We may be near that point in some locations.
  - mbostleman 4y ago
    >>renewables in the US have been dominating the construction of new power plants>> That may be the case but I think the question here is whether that success is based on the technology's own free market merits. The statement I was responding to was this: >>You're >10 years out of date solar and wind have been cost competitive for a long time>> Here, for instance, just two months ago is the CEO of First Solar saying that "solar is going to be investible again [because of the Inflation Reduction Act]". This doesn't strike me as a technology that is exactly flying on its own. And again, to be clear, there is no judgement intended as to whether or not government market manipulation is justified - that's a different question. https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-solar-to-invest-1-2-billion-in-u-s-plants-spurred-by-climate-law-11661852700 https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-solar-to-invest-1-2-billi...