8 ms·

It's so funny to read discussions of "whether or not renewables are viable for replacement of all or most of electricity needs in the U.S.". Here in Europe, we

It's so funny to read discussions of "whether or not renewables are viable for replacement of all or most of electricity needs in the U.S.". Here in Europe, we have it figured many years ago and are replacing fossil-fueled generation at a crazy rate, will probably push it to a niche use (gas peakers to fill void when there's neither sun or wind and before enough electrolyzers are put online), in less than 10 years.

adrianN 4y ago
"A crazy rate" that is unfortunately still much too slow to limit warming to 2° or below.
- anovikov 4y ago
  Forget global warming. Of course it will not be stopped. All fossil fuels will be burnt till full exhaustion of reserves, until the remainder is completely uneconomical to extract. But then the nations that were the last to start switching will find their economies too inefficient and expensive to run with the fossil fuels while everyone else is using much cheaper renewables, and will probably no longer have money for the switch, ending up in a major predicament.
  - zeckalpha 4y ago
    As climate risk increases demand for renewables, we may actually see a decline in price for fossil fuels, at least for a time, resulting in prolonged bimodal consumption. I think we've been in this artificially low fossil fuel price environment since the beginning though: the externalities aren't priced in.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    It's more or less a tautology that extraction will continue until it isn't worth doing. The thing is, abundant cheap energy will make it less and less worth doing.
  - staunton 4y ago
    > Of course it will not be stopped One way or another, it will definitely be stopped. At some point, civilization collapse would end the burning of fossil fuels at scale. The question is at what point it will stop and whether any tipping points are passed which accelerate the process out of control. It's far from obvious that all efforts to limit carbon emissions will fail and to say otherwise is deeply cynical. Measures are being taken already. They are not enough to reach the claimed goals and the claimed goals will probably not be reached, but that's very different from saying warming will not be stopped at all, let alone "of course". More measures will follow once the adverse effects get worse in industrialized countries (e.g. deaths and economic damage due to changing climate and weather events).
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Expanding renewable energy is exactly what will make the fossil fuels uneconomical to extract. I won't happen by magic. Even with their ever increasing scarcity, as long as no alternative exists, they will be economical.
  - pyrale 4y ago
    > But then the nations that were the last to start switching will find their economies too inefficient and expensive to run with the fossil fuels while everyone else is using much cheaper renewables, and will probably no longer have money for the switch, ending up in a major predicament. If all the fossil fuel is burned, we will probably never reach that point ; society breakdown will happen sooner.
- goatlover 4y ago
  Was limiting warning below 2° ever realistic? I can't understand why 1.5° when it was clear to everyone that there was no way in hell that is happening. Why not set a realistic goal and try to figure out the best way to deal with the consequences?
  - adrianN 4y ago
    We've known about climate change for at least fifty years now. Every goal we set since then has been "realistic" with considerable effort. Unfortunately we never even attempted to reach them, so we raise the goal by a degree or two every decade or two.
    - goatlover 4y ago
      Realistic means it's likely people will put considerable effort into achieving said climate goal, not whether it's possible. Everyone on earth could join hands and achieve world peace or governments could decide to pour trillions into terraforming Mars. But neither is likely to happen.
      - adrianN 4y ago
        If you want to lose weight, just setting a goal is insufficient, you have to change your habits too, no matter how unambitious your goal is. It's the same with climate change.
  - pyrale 4y ago
    It depends on what you call realistic. If your objection to realism is that it's hard to convince politicians to act on this topic, then 2° is still not very realistic, and the future is likely going to be very bleak. If it's about having the understanding and technical means to define new targets for our economy in order to reach that goal, even if it means reducing our consumption, then yes, it was a reasonable goal back when we started considering the issue seriously.
    - goatlover 4y ago
lenkite 4y ago
It is not at all funny when apparently Germany had to reopen coal plants. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-21/germany-bolsters-coal-fired-power-to-meet-winter-power-demand https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-21/germany-b... "Utility Steag GmbH will add four hard-coal plants with a capacity of 2.5 gigawatts to the market within the next few weeks, while Uniper SE will prolong operations at its 345-megawatt Scholven-C hard-coal-fired power plant, the companies said on Friday. " https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energy-crisis https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energ... https://www.ft.com/content/9d3c8af8-ae00-4dc5-9e85-579681450c9c https://www.ft.com/content/9d3c8af8-ae00-4dc5-9e85-579681450... "Germany turns to coal for a third of its electricity"
- dwan128 4y ago
  This seems really specific information that’s not really relevant to that parent comment. How did you learn about this and why do you care?
  - lenkite 4y ago
    "How did you learn about this and why do you care?" Because my german colleagues were ranting about this whenever there was a break/issue in "Teams meetings". (which happens often) Why do I care ? Because people are apparently not looking at reality when they make grandiose claims about renewables and electricity generation in Europe. Replace by renewables by all means - but at-least be honest about the data.
    - revertmean 4y ago
      So Germany, a country that is well behind other European countries on renewables, had an over-dependence on Russian gas and was forced to reopen some coal plants when the price spiked. And you came to the conclusion that this was somehow a fault with renewables? How does that make sense to you?
      - lenkite 4y ago
soitgoes511 4y ago
Is this why we were having energy shortages during the winter time and there was a rush to get the nuclear reactors back online in France ? I don't consider that having, "it figured out". If you want to discuss prices.. my place of employment is paying millions more euro this year than last. The increase in energy cost is also leading to increase in water costs.. I could go on, but you get the point.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Wouldn’t rushing to get nuclear reactors online just make the OPs point stronger? Geopolitics of oil showed the weakness of relying on fossil fuels.
  - soitgoes511 4y ago
    The point is that Europe does not have energy in general figured out. If I am being told I can be fined for having my thermostat higher than 19C (true for children school also), than we are far from that statement.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Or maybe Europe does have it figured out and an unforeseen shock to the system temporarily set back plans?
      - soitgoes511 4y ago
        I love the idea of clean energy. But the energy "sobriety" we have been experiencing this year in France particularly has been painful. TF1 educated the population on the nightly news on how to block our door jams to not lose energy and warmth. Villages were creating centers for people to go and stay warm. Boulangeries have been shutting down because they cannot afford the still increasing cost of energy. Whatever the plan is, it currently isn't working.
        pyrale 4y ago
MrPatan 4y ago
Ukrainians think it's hilarious, yes.
stainablesteel 4y ago
the reason the article only focuses on the US is because this mindset caused europe to become a massive coal user again - its a distraction piece renewables do not have this kind of obvious benefit, fossil fuels and fission are the best options until we can get fusion
- Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
  The EU relied on coal for 15.8% of its electricity generation in 2022 vs. 40% renewable (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/how-is-eu-electricity-produced-and-sold/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20EU%20produced,followed%20by%20coal%20(15.8%25) https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/how-is-eu-el....) while the US's coal share is 20% vs. 21% renewable (posted article).
  - stainablesteel 4y ago
    this conveniently leaves out how much renewables fluctuate, as well as how much more inefficient it is to transport energy coming from renewables if these fluctuations happen over large distances. either way it ends up getting offset by coal

adrianN 4y ago

"A crazy rate" that is unfortunately still much too slow to limit warming to 2° or below.

anovikov 4y ago
Forget global warming. Of course it will not be stopped. All fossil fuels will be burnt till full exhaustion of reserves, until the remainder is completely uneconomical to extract. But then the nations that were the last to start switching will find their economies too inefficient and expensive to run with the fossil fuels while everyone else is using much cheaper renewables, and will probably no longer have money for the switch, ending up in a major predicament.
- zeckalpha 4y ago
  As climate risk increases demand for renewables, we may actually see a decline in price for fossil fuels, at least for a time, resulting in prolonged bimodal consumption. I think we've been in this artificially low fossil fuel price environment since the beginning though: the externalities aren't priced in.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  It's more or less a tautology that extraction will continue until it isn't worth doing. The thing is, abundant cheap energy will make it less and less worth doing.
- staunton 4y ago
  > Of course it will not be stopped One way or another, it will definitely be stopped. At some point, civilization collapse would end the burning of fossil fuels at scale. The question is at what point it will stop and whether any tipping points are passed which accelerate the process out of control. It's far from obvious that all efforts to limit carbon emissions will fail and to say otherwise is deeply cynical. Measures are being taken already. They are not enough to reach the claimed goals and the claimed goals will probably not be reached, but that's very different from saying warming will not be stopped at all, let alone "of course". More measures will follow once the adverse effects get worse in industrialized countries (e.g. deaths and economic damage due to changing climate and weather events).
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Expanding renewable energy is exactly what will make the fossil fuels uneconomical to extract. I won't happen by magic. Even with their ever increasing scarcity, as long as no alternative exists, they will be economical.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > But then the nations that were the last to start switching will find their economies too inefficient and expensive to run with the fossil fuels while everyone else is using much cheaper renewables, and will probably no longer have money for the switch, ending up in a major predicament. If all the fossil fuel is burned, we will probably never reach that point ; society breakdown will happen sooner.
goatlover 4y ago
Was limiting warning below 2° ever realistic? I can't understand why 1.5° when it was clear to everyone that there was no way in hell that is happening. Why not set a realistic goal and try to figure out the best way to deal with the consequences?
- adrianN 4y ago
  We've known about climate change for at least fifty years now. Every goal we set since then has been "realistic" with considerable effort. Unfortunately we never even attempted to reach them, so we raise the goal by a degree or two every decade or two.
  - goatlover 4y ago
    Realistic means it's likely people will put considerable effort into achieving said climate goal, not whether it's possible. Everyone on earth could join hands and achieve world peace or governments could decide to pour trillions into terraforming Mars. But neither is likely to happen.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      If you want to lose weight, just setting a goal is insufficient, you have to change your habits too, no matter how unambitious your goal is. It's the same with climate change.
- pyrale 4y ago
  It depends on what you call realistic. If your objection to realism is that it's hard to convince politicians to act on this topic, then 2° is still not very realistic, and the future is likely going to be very bleak. If it's about having the understanding and technical means to define new targets for our economy in order to reach that goal, even if it means reducing our consumption, then yes, it was a reasonable goal back when we started considering the issue seriously.
  - goatlover 4y ago

lenkite 4y ago

It is not at all funny when apparently Germany had to reopen coal plants. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-21/germany-bolsters-coal-fired-power-to-meet-winter-power-demand https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-21/germany-b... "Utility Steag GmbH will add four hard-coal plants with a capacity of 2.5 gigawatts to the market within the next few weeks, while Uniper SE will prolong operations at its 345-megawatt Scholven-C hard-coal-fired power plant, the companies said on Friday. " https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energy-crisis https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energ... https://www.ft.com/content/9d3c8af8-ae00-4dc5-9e85-579681450c9c https://www.ft.com/content/9d3c8af8-ae00-4dc5-9e85-579681450... "Germany turns to coal for a third of its electricity"

dwan128 4y ago
This seems really specific information that’s not really relevant to that parent comment. How did you learn about this and why do you care?
- lenkite 4y ago
  "How did you learn about this and why do you care?" Because my german colleagues were ranting about this whenever there was a break/issue in "Teams meetings". (which happens often) Why do I care ? Because people are apparently not looking at reality when they make grandiose claims about renewables and electricity generation in Europe. Replace by renewables by all means - but at-least be honest about the data.
  - revertmean 4y ago
    So Germany, a country that is well behind other European countries on renewables, had an over-dependence on Russian gas and was forced to reopen some coal plants when the price spiked. And you came to the conclusion that this was somehow a fault with renewables? How does that make sense to you?
    - lenkite 4y ago

soitgoes511 4y ago

Is this why we were having energy shortages during the winter time and there was a rush to get the nuclear reactors back online in France ? I don't consider that having, "it figured out". If you want to discuss prices.. my place of employment is paying millions more euro this year than last. The increase in energy cost is also leading to increase in water costs.. I could go on, but you get the point.

ericmay 4y ago
Wouldn’t rushing to get nuclear reactors online just make the OPs point stronger? Geopolitics of oil showed the weakness of relying on fossil fuels.
- soitgoes511 4y ago
  The point is that Europe does not have energy in general figured out. If I am being told I can be fined for having my thermostat higher than 19C (true for children school also), than we are far from that statement.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Or maybe Europe does have it figured out and an unforeseen shock to the system temporarily set back plans?
    - soitgoes511 4y ago
      I love the idea of clean energy. But the energy "sobriety" we have been experiencing this year in France particularly has been painful. TF1 educated the population on the nightly news on how to block our door jams to not lose energy and warmth. Villages were creating centers for people to go and stay warm. Boulangeries have been shutting down because they cannot afford the still increasing cost of energy. Whatever the plan is, it currently isn't working.
      - pyrale 4y ago

MrPatan 4y ago

Ukrainians think it's hilarious, yes.

stainablesteel 4y ago

the reason the article only focuses on the US is because this mindset caused europe to become a massive coal user again - its a distraction piece renewables do not have this kind of obvious benefit, fossil fuels and fission are the best options until we can get fusion

Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
The EU relied on coal for 15.8% of its electricity generation in 2022 vs. 40% renewable (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/how-is-eu-electricity-produced-and-sold/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20EU%20produced,followed%20by%20coal%20(15.8%25) https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/how-is-eu-el....) while the US's coal share is 20% vs. 21% renewable (posted article).
- stainablesteel 4y ago
  this conveniently leaves out how much renewables fluctuate, as well as how much more inefficient it is to transport energy coming from renewables if these fluctuations happen over large distances. either way it ends up getting offset by coal