4 ms·

We are fast approaching the point where renewables are cheaper than fossils. Why would anybody invest in them anymore?

by oezi 3y ago

mym1990 3y ago
Investment isn't about how cheap something is, it is about how much of a return one can get on an item.
- oezi 3y ago
  The assumption is that the price trajectories represent profitable investments at a given time.
- meowkit 3y ago
  this video always comes to mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw The economic incentives (in a sort of basic example) are in favor of fossil fuel plants. It takes too long for traditional nuclear plants to have a return. Energy generation is sadly more complicated than I had hoped as a laymen. The sources have to compete on variable demand basis along with amortized costs over years. Nuclear needs novel designs with better economic returns, or to be given assistance by government to be more competitive on this amortized basis.
EricE 3y ago
If that was actually true we would need to talk about it. It’s not, so here we are. Solar and wind do nothing for base load generation - except distract people from talking rationally about energy. I don’t know where people think all the power to charge electric cars is going to come from. And what transmission lines are going to carry the miracle of power either.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=baseload+is+a+myth https://www.google.com/search?q=baseload+is+a+myth Feel free to pick a citation of your preference.
- oezi 3y ago
  Aren't electric cars thought to be a big part of the battery/storage solution? You can charge the cars at night and draw power when other consumers are peaking? I think the trajectories for solar are so strong that we will stop talking about any lack of energy in one or two decades. Case in point: Germany will build 13 GW of renewables this year, which offsets those last 4 GW of Nuclear which were switched off this year.
  - mcv 3y ago
    But the fact that they move away from nuclear rather than coal is the big problem. More renewables is great of course, but it's useless if it's done to replace only nuclear and not oil and coal. Last winter's reduced gas useage was a big positive, though. We really need to build on that.
revelio 3y ago
Renewables aren't cheaper than fossil fuels if you consider the cost of grid outages. This is an externality that is normally not considered when arguing they're cheaper.
- matsemann 3y ago
  I've never experienced a grid outtake in my life. And most of this gas is being burned in big power plants anyways, which have the exact same grid problem.
  - revelio 3y ago
    Well no, the grid is pretty stable today because fossil fuels are very predictable and base-loady. The point is that renewables aren't, so if you push too hard on renewables then you will have more outages due to losing control of the supply/demand balance.
    - matsemann 3y ago
      Maybe because I live in a municipality known for hydro power, so I don't consider that an issue. But it's a renewable that's just as easy to control as gas. Even better, can pump up water and store energy when solar or wind have excess power.
      - Gud 3y ago
        Hydro power is terrible for the local environment, an aspect always neglected.
      - revelio 3y ago
        Yes hydro and geothermal are exceptions, but also irrelevant on a global scale. Hydro sources are already tapped and won't take us any further. When people say renewables in this context they mean the sources that can be scaled up. Pumped hydro is nice when you can get it but again there isn't enough. Re-reading I didn't quite understand your original point. What do you mean big power plants have the exact same grid problem? The issue comes from the dispatchable nature. You can tell a combustion plant to set output to a particular level and it will do so. That's what you need to keep a grid stable. Wind/solar can't do that.
londons_explore 3y ago
Only for the 'easy' things... A gas furnace works out far cheaper per unit of heat than a heat pump... A plane is far cheaper to fly with jet fuel than batteries. Steel is far cheaper to make (not recycle) with coal and a blast furnace than direct reduction. Cement is far cheaper to make with gas than electricity...
- oezi 3y ago
  I just recently read that heat pumps are beating gas furnaces already and on the price trajectories of renewables will be winning easily in the future. We won't need to focus on the hard things as long as we have sufficient easy things to get done first. For instance I don't think replacing jet fuel is something we should be prioritizing over bringing renewables to developing countries.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    > I just recently read that heat pumps are beating gas furnaces already In general, no. For a few select usecases, yes - particularly highly insulated newbuilds which need very small systems (heat pumps miniaturize better than furnaces).
    - oezi 3y ago
      I think the calculations go something like this (in Europe): Gas costs 12c per kWh Electricity 36c per kWh Heat pump generate something like 2.5x to 4.5x of heat per kWh spend. Alas they can be cheaper already.
mywittyname 3y ago
Ohio passed a law that allows one of counties, townships, and cities to ban "green" developments. I'm not sure if other states have passed similar laws, but I wouldn't be surprised. This makes it trivial to stop any new solar or wind development (ofc, natural gas and coal are not impacted by this law). This has made it so that major solar developers have stopped even considering the state for new developments. So it's completely possible that people are going to be willing to pay a price premium to ensure the demise of civilization and perhaps humanity.
aksss 3y ago
You are very misinformed if you believe this is true for planet-scale energy demand. Dial back the hope and faith and engage the critical thinking.
- oezi 3y ago
  Why? Fossil energy reserves are finite anyway. We need and will transition off them. We can discuss how and when but trajectories make it clear that it will be rather fast.

We are fast approaching the point where renewables are cheaper than fossils. Why would anybody invest in them anymore?

by oezi 3y ago

We are fast approaching the point where renewables are cheaper than fossils. Why would anybody invest in them anymore?

mym1990 3y ago

Investment isn't about how cheap something is, it is about how much of a return one can get on an item.

oezi 3y ago
The assumption is that the price trajectories represent profitable investments at a given time.
meowkit 3y ago
this video always comes to mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw The economic incentives (in a sort of basic example) are in favor of fossil fuel plants. It takes too long for traditional nuclear plants to have a return. Energy generation is sadly more complicated than I had hoped as a laymen. The sources have to compete on variable demand basis along with amortized costs over years. Nuclear needs novel designs with better economic returns, or to be given assistance by government to be more competitive on this amortized basis.

EricE 3y ago

If that was actually true we would need to talk about it. It’s not, so here we are. Solar and wind do nothing for base load generation - except distract people from talking rationally about energy. I don’t know where people think all the power to charge electric cars is going to come from. And what transmission lines are going to carry the miracle of power either.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=baseload+is+a+myth https://www.google.com/search?q=baseload+is+a+myth Feel free to pick a citation of your preference.
oezi 3y ago
Aren't electric cars thought to be a big part of the battery/storage solution? You can charge the cars at night and draw power when other consumers are peaking? I think the trajectories for solar are so strong that we will stop talking about any lack of energy in one or two decades. Case in point: Germany will build 13 GW of renewables this year, which offsets those last 4 GW of Nuclear which were switched off this year.
- mcv 3y ago
  But the fact that they move away from nuclear rather than coal is the big problem. More renewables is great of course, but it's useless if it's done to replace only nuclear and not oil and coal. Last winter's reduced gas useage was a big positive, though. We really need to build on that.

revelio 3y ago

Renewables aren't cheaper than fossil fuels if you consider the cost of grid outages. This is an externality that is normally not considered when arguing they're cheaper.

matsemann 3y ago
I've never experienced a grid outtake in my life. And most of this gas is being burned in big power plants anyways, which have the exact same grid problem.
- revelio 3y ago
  Well no, the grid is pretty stable today because fossil fuels are very predictable and base-loady. The point is that renewables aren't, so if you push too hard on renewables then you will have more outages due to losing control of the supply/demand balance.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    Maybe because I live in a municipality known for hydro power, so I don't consider that an issue. But it's a renewable that's just as easy to control as gas. Even better, can pump up water and store energy when solar or wind have excess power.
    - Gud 3y ago
      Hydro power is terrible for the local environment, an aspect always neglected.
    - revelio 3y ago
      Yes hydro and geothermal are exceptions, but also irrelevant on a global scale. Hydro sources are already tapped and won't take us any further. When people say renewables in this context they mean the sources that can be scaled up. Pumped hydro is nice when you can get it but again there isn't enough. Re-reading I didn't quite understand your original point. What do you mean big power plants have the exact same grid problem? The issue comes from the dispatchable nature. You can tell a combustion plant to set output to a particular level and it will do so. That's what you need to keep a grid stable. Wind/solar can't do that.

londons_explore 3y ago

Only for the 'easy' things... A gas furnace works out far cheaper per unit of heat than a heat pump... A plane is far cheaper to fly with jet fuel than batteries. Steel is far cheaper to make (not recycle) with coal and a blast furnace than direct reduction. Cement is far cheaper to make with gas than electricity...

oezi 3y ago
I just recently read that heat pumps are beating gas furnaces already and on the price trajectories of renewables will be winning easily in the future. We won't need to focus on the hard things as long as we have sufficient easy things to get done first. For instance I don't think replacing jet fuel is something we should be prioritizing over bringing renewables to developing countries.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  > I just recently read that heat pumps are beating gas furnaces already In general, no. For a few select usecases, yes - particularly highly insulated newbuilds which need very small systems (heat pumps miniaturize better than furnaces).
  - oezi 3y ago
    I think the calculations go something like this (in Europe): Gas costs 12c per kWh Electricity 36c per kWh Heat pump generate something like 2.5x to 4.5x of heat per kWh spend. Alas they can be cheaper already.

mywittyname 3y ago

Ohio passed a law that allows one of counties, townships, and cities to ban "green" developments. I'm not sure if other states have passed similar laws, but I wouldn't be surprised. This makes it trivial to stop any new solar or wind development (ofc, natural gas and coal are not impacted by this law). This has made it so that major solar developers have stopped even considering the state for new developments. So it's completely possible that people are going to be willing to pay a price premium to ensure the demise of civilization and perhaps humanity.

aksss 3y ago

You are very misinformed if you believe this is true for planet-scale energy demand. Dial back the hope and faith and engage the critical thinking.

oezi 3y ago
Why? Fossil energy reserves are finite anyway. We need and will transition off them. We can discuss how and when but trajectories make it clear that it will be rather fast.