20 ms·

Part of the problem of these kind of studies is that the allocation of costs between solar+wind vs fossil is difficult when fossil fuels alone can provide all t

Part of the problem of these kind of studies is that the allocation of costs between solar+wind vs fossil is difficult when fossil fuels alone can provide all the energy, but solar+wind are intermittent and have to be backstopped by fossil fuel plants. So if you have to use short-term and therefore expensive fossil fuel plants when solar+wind can't supply enough energy, the additional cost over long-term fossile fuel use should be allocated to the renewable side IMO. If you don't do that, you make renewables look cheaper than their real economic cost. Another way to think about it is if renewables were saving us a lot of money over fossil fuels, shouldn't our fuel billsbe going down? Most utilities are regulated so they are not allowed to keep excess profits. But even before the spike in oil prices related to Ukraine, the places with a higher proportion of renewables have higher energy costs than those without. So where are these so-called savings? You could make the alternative argument that we need to use renewables despite their greater cost to help the environment, and in the hope that greater use leads us down the learning curve to lower costs in future, but that's clearly not the argument being made by the posted article

insane_dreamer 4y ago
> shouldn't our fuel bills be going down? I believe the point is that the cost/kW to consumers has remained steady despite the large increase in the price of fossil fuels. See https://www.texaselectricityratings.com/resources/historical-rates https://www.texaselectricityratings.com/resources/historical... (there has been a sharp increase this year, which counters the argument made, but otherwise steady since 2016).
bee_rider 4y ago
Backing intermittent sources with dispatchable generation is a solution, but not the only solution (energy storage and deferring loads are some alternatives for example). The cost of the fuel also doesn't account for costs they can externalize (ecosystem, healthcare) and the political issues it causes (Saudi Arabia gets by with more shit than they would otherwise, Russia is a big problem).
- epistasis 4y ago
  People also severely overestimate the cost of battery storage today, and underestimate the cost curve of how it's decreasing. For example, for batteries charged directly from a paired solar installation, the cost is estimated to be $85-$158/MWh. [0] The rest of the solar instal costs $28-$37/MWh, unsubsidized. If 3/4 of energy consumption is from the primary solar install, and 1/4 from storage, then you have a firm energy source at a cost of $42-$67/MWh. The national average for generation cost of electricity is something like $50-$60/MWh, (with the rest of the average price of $130/MWh going to transmission and distribution). So today, solar plus storage offers cost competitive, zero carbon energy in the average US location. And costs are going to drop by 50% over the next decade or two. We have a really bright energy future, where energy is cheap and plentiful and carbon free. And the faster we build new renewable resources, the faster the technology gets better, and the faster the prices drop. Slowing down the deployment of renewables is a huge risk that makes us all poorer, and also happens to make our climate challenge worse. We should be doing everything we can to massively expand solar wind and battery production capacity and deployment, as fast as possible. The tech is ready, it just needs to be deployed. [0] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    Where are the terawatts of batreries coming from? It will be decades before we have the manufacturing capacity to make that many batteries, assuming we have the natural resources to make that possible. Batteries are reasonably priced per unit, but they do not scale reasonably. Batteries will not provide grid scale storage in our lifetime, IMO. I think the concept of grid scale storage is misguided Fission (and hopefully fusion) can provide base load at all times, with as much wind & solar as needed to provide for variable load.
    - throwaway5959 4y ago
      I’m going to guess lots of factories that we mass produce, aka gigafactories.
santoshalper 4y ago
You're right. A total "P&L" of the hybrid solution (fossil+renewable) vs. the fossil fuel only solution is what's needed to make a fair economic comparison. Of course, there are other important non-economic considerations.
arb-spreads 4y ago
Great point. Renewables are getting cheaper, but are still interment and require baseload power. They also require significant investments in grid infrastructure, with costs borne by governments and utilities. Additionally, equipment must be recycled and discarded after ~30 years. For perspective, it takes about 1 unit of materials to generate 2 units of power from wind and solar. Significant resources are used, often on land that was formerly growing food. Oil and gas are roughly 10:1 in terms of output, with nuclear around 100:1. ~85% of world energy is currently non-renewable, relative to ~87% at the start of the millenia. Even if the world suddenly started building hundreds of nuclear facilities and blanketing the landscape with solar, wind, hydrothermal, and hydro, these investments will take decades to come into effect. Easiest solution is to tax externalities and let the market efficiently allocate resources. Charge 100, 200, or even 500/ton for carbon emissions, allocated globally. Distribute some of the proceeds to low income countries who are still developing. Every 100/ton in taxes is ~3.5B, which could be distributed to the majority of the world who subside on less than 20 dollars per day. Furthermore, tax air pollution. There are ~10m deaths annually from air pollution, primarily due to fossil fuels. Not to mention shortened life and health complications for the majority of the planet. Air pollution taxes could generate another couple billion in revenue. Finally - stop subsidizing both oil and gas and renewables. Current incentives are riddled with loopholes and tax breaks. A mix of carbon and air pollution taxes would efficiently incentivize far more renewables development. Viola - more renewables and a cleaner world for eons
- slaw 4y ago
  China produces 30% of global CO2. How are you going to tax China? https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/co2-emissions-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/co2-emiss...
  - arb-spreads 4y ago
    Participation would involve every nation. As a lower/middle income country, China would receive commensurate benefits from redistribution. Significant collaboration would be required to mandate participation from all countries
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> the places with a higher proportion of renewables have higher energy costs than those without. That's not true. You are almost certainly including added taxes in the costs, and well run states tax pollution and also invest in renewables. Both of these are sensible policy responses to pollution. It's like claiming states that tax cigarettes are using more expensive cigarette technology.

insane_dreamer 4y ago

> shouldn't our fuel bills be going down? I believe the point is that the cost/kW to consumers has remained steady despite the large increase in the price of fossil fuels. See https://www.texaselectricityratings.com/resources/historical-rates https://www.texaselectricityratings.com/resources/historical... (there has been a sharp increase this year, which counters the argument made, but otherwise steady since 2016).

bee_rider 4y ago

Backing intermittent sources with dispatchable generation is a solution, but not the only solution (energy storage and deferring loads are some alternatives for example). The cost of the fuel also doesn't account for costs they can externalize (ecosystem, healthcare) and the political issues it causes (Saudi Arabia gets by with more shit than they would otherwise, Russia is a big problem).

epistasis 4y ago
People also severely overestimate the cost of battery storage today, and underestimate the cost curve of how it's decreasing. For example, for batteries charged directly from a paired solar installation, the cost is estimated to be $85-$158/MWh. [0] The rest of the solar instal costs $28-$37/MWh, unsubsidized. If 3/4 of energy consumption is from the primary solar install, and 1/4 from storage, then you have a firm energy source at a cost of $42-$67/MWh. The national average for generation cost of electricity is something like $50-$60/MWh, (with the rest of the average price of $130/MWh going to transmission and distribution). So today, solar plus storage offers cost competitive, zero carbon energy in the average US location. And costs are going to drop by 50% over the next decade or two. We have a really bright energy future, where energy is cheap and plentiful and carbon free. And the faster we build new renewable resources, the faster the technology gets better, and the faster the prices drop. Slowing down the deployment of renewables is a huge risk that makes us all poorer, and also happens to make our climate challenge worse. We should be doing everything we can to massively expand solar wind and battery production capacity and deployment, as fast as possible. The tech is ready, it just needs to be deployed. [0] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- dahfizz 4y ago
  Where are the terawatts of batreries coming from? It will be decades before we have the manufacturing capacity to make that many batteries, assuming we have the natural resources to make that possible. Batteries are reasonably priced per unit, but they do not scale reasonably. Batteries will not provide grid scale storage in our lifetime, IMO. I think the concept of grid scale storage is misguided Fission (and hopefully fusion) can provide base load at all times, with as much wind & solar as needed to provide for variable load.
  - throwaway5959 4y ago
    I’m going to guess lots of factories that we mass produce, aka gigafactories.

santoshalper 4y ago

You're right. A total "P&L" of the hybrid solution (fossil+renewable) vs. the fossil fuel only solution is what's needed to make a fair economic comparison. Of course, there are other important non-economic considerations.

arb-spreads 4y ago

Great point. Renewables are getting cheaper, but are still interment and require baseload power. They also require significant investments in grid infrastructure, with costs borne by governments and utilities. Additionally, equipment must be recycled and discarded after ~30 years. For perspective, it takes about 1 unit of materials to generate 2 units of power from wind and solar. Significant resources are used, often on land that was formerly growing food. Oil and gas are roughly 10:1 in terms of output, with nuclear around 100:1. ~85% of world energy is currently non-renewable, relative to ~87% at the start of the millenia. Even if the world suddenly started building hundreds of nuclear facilities and blanketing the landscape with solar, wind, hydrothermal, and hydro, these investments will take decades to come into effect. Easiest solution is to tax externalities and let the market efficiently allocate resources. Charge 100, 200, or even 500/ton for carbon emissions, allocated globally. Distribute some of the proceeds to low income countries who are still developing. Every 100/ton in taxes is ~3.5B, which could be distributed to the majority of the world who subside on less than 20 dollars per day. Furthermore, tax air pollution. There are ~10m deaths annually from air pollution, primarily due to fossil fuels. Not to mention shortened life and health complications for the majority of the planet. Air pollution taxes could generate another couple billion in revenue. Finally - stop subsidizing both oil and gas and renewables. Current incentives are riddled with loopholes and tax breaks. A mix of carbon and air pollution taxes would efficiently incentivize far more renewables development. Viola - more renewables and a cleaner world for eons

slaw 4y ago
China produces 30% of global CO2. How are you going to tax China? https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/co2-emissions-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/co2-emiss...
- arb-spreads 4y ago
  Participation would involve every nation. As a lower/middle income country, China would receive commensurate benefits from redistribution. Significant collaboration would be required to mandate participation from all countries

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> the places with a higher proportion of renewables have higher energy costs than those without. That's not true. You are almost certainly including added taxes in the costs, and well run states tax pollution and also invest in renewables. Both of these are sensible policy responses to pollution. It's like claiming states that tax cigarettes are using more expensive cigarette technology.