5 ms·

Oh come on, one or two orders of magnitude more than our current energy system? The energy transition will be cheaper than our current infrastructure. The cha

Oh come on, one or two orders of magnitude more than our current energy system? The energy transition will be cheaper than our current infrastructure. The challenges are not technological nor economical, the challenge is prevent entrenched interests from preventing the best, cheapest, and most environmentally friendly system from taking its rightful place.

brutusborn 3y ago
If renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, why do poor countries keep building coal and gas fired power stations? If it is truly cheaper, surely the regions least able to afford development would choose renewables every time? I know there’s lots of measures that show renewables are cheaper, but I suspect a lot of these estimates ignore the huge cost of storage in most places. Most countries don’t have things like fjords to make energy storage cheap.
- epistasis 3y ago
  Planning cycles take 5-10 years and are often based on out of date information when the plans are made. Couple that with it being far easier for corrupt officials to skim off approvals of a few large projects than many small ones, and you will find that what has been happening 5 years ago is going to be completed different than what will happen 5 years from now. Renewable energy and battery storage are on tech curves like semiconductors or DNA sequencing. Fossil fuels are not. There will be no competition within a decade.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I think this theory has merit, but I don't think you can necessarily say that battery tech is on a similar tech curve to renewables. We simply haven't built many utility scale batteries so it's unclear how much improvements can be made. Add to that that batteries have been around for centuries, but renewables are decades old, so it makes sense that they are improving in cost so quickly: they are a newer tech.
    - epistasis 3y ago
      With respect, this is not a theory as much as it is basic observation. Even this old data is striking: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/levelized-cost-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/levelized-cost-of-energy Batteries are completely on a similar curve, continuously improving at an exponential rate, and as they get scaled up to TWh/year production there is a chance of acceleration of this trend. There is a proliferation of new chemistry and tech in all parts of the battery. We are just at the very beginning.
      - brutusborn 3y ago
        I’ll believe they are on a similar curve when I see a similar curve using data from utility scales. Of course stuff like Lithium batteries are accelerating, but these aren’t economical for utility scale batteries yet. There’s a good chance they will never be.
        epistasis 3y ago
        Check out any recent grid addiction assessment, such as this one: "US will see more new battery capacity than natural gas generation in 2023" https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/us-will-see-more-new-battery-capacity-than-natural-gas-generation-in-2023/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/us-will-see-more-new...
        brutusborn 3y ago
        I have been following the industry from a distance; construction is accelerating but the prices are still well beyond economical for the scale required for grid stability. And projects are still relatively tiny (<10 GW). Based on the latest projects such as this one in Australia [0], building a grid-scale system will result in energy prices increasing by many multiples. Of course it will get cheaper, but I don't see it being cheap enough that it won't have massive impact on costs (I hope I'm wrong btw). [0] https://reneweconomy.com.au/engie-and-macquarie-to-fund-150mw-big-battery-at-hazelwood/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/engie-and-macquarie-to-fund-150m...
- bertil 3y ago
  [Citation needed]
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/china-india-lead-us534-billion-global-gas-pipeline-build-out/ https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/china-india-lead-us53... There is a lot of fossil fuel development going on that doesn't make sense if renewables are cheaper. Especially in China where panels are actually made. I'm open to an alternative explanation, but I don't think it's inertia. Most industries switch to cheaper tech pretty soon after it becomes available.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - lovemenot 3y ago
      Social and political considerations can be components of inertia too. Consider China's fairly recent decision to stop funding new fossil fuel generation development outside its own borders, where social and political considerations should have minimal impact to Chinese citizens. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-says-it-will-stop-financing-coal-power-abroad/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-says-it-wil... China is starting to move in the right direction, but there's a ton of planning lag. China is by far the largest single consumer of solar panels. It also deploys more wind turbines than any other country. Two limiting factors are China's insatiable need for ever greater power generating capacity of any kind, and the surprisingly rapid uptake of renewables globally which has constrained new production.
- hnben 3y ago
  > Coal power: $4,074 > Solar PV with storage: $1,748 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Capital_costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... and for the fun of it > Nuclear $6,695-7,547 regarding you question: In large scale projects there is a lot of inertia, especially in less developed areas. Many of these places have just build a conventional grid, and are in no situation to upgrade to renewables. That being said: some non-industrial countries are actually moving fast towards adopting renewables (compared to developed countries). e.g. Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Brazil.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    Your link shows gas as the winner by a wide margin at $785. I'm interested what you mean about the 'conventional grid' preventing upgrades to renewables?
    - jabradoodle 3y ago
      Worth noting that is initial capital costs of building the plant. Maintenance, fuel etc are not included, even before considering external costs such as poor health outcomes from pollution.
      - brutusborn 3y ago
        I didn't even notice that. I think I got blind sighted by the fact that the parent commenter went to the effort of googling the Wikipedia page for a source and it didn't even support their point. The more confident an online commenter is of their assertion, the lower the chances it is true.
        hnben 3y ago
        LCOE is in the linked article as well, and it does paint a similar picture
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Have you looked at poor countries energy builds recently or are you just assuming? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_developing_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_developing... > Renewable energy technology was once seen as unaffordable for developing countries. However, since 2015, investment in non-hydro renewable energy has been higher in developing countries than in developed countries, and comprised 54% of global renewable energy investment in 2019. The International Energy Agency forecasts that renewable energy will provide the majority of energy supply growth through 2030 in Africa and Central and South America, and 42% of supply growth in China.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I suspect this is because many poor countries are used to intermittent power, and so renewables are acceptable. In developed countries, continuous power is expected. It may be luxurious, but if power is interrupted too often the populace will reject renewables. There's lots of gas plant construction, even in poor countries https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/boom-and-bust-gas-2022/ https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/boom-and-bust-gas-202...
    - epistasis 3y ago
      That has nothing to do with it, as renewable power is being deployed extremely quickly in developing countries too. Intermittent generators does not mean an intermittent grid, and in fact by having fewer single points of failure, and ensuring that grid operators are used to dynamic dispatch from intermittent generators, grids like Germany's have become more reliable with the addition of intermittent generators. It's like ~10 years ago when web apps went from large architectures with a few boxes to cloud-scale operators where random failure was expected. By planning for lots of small, less reliable components, overall reliability increased.
      - brutusborn 3y ago
        Got any data for German reliability? Is it not just because they get backup from French nuclear and they have turned their coal plants back on? I.e. renewables have made things worse?
- KSteffensen 3y ago
  In all of the places I have worked both for pay and voluntarily money has very rarely been the problem, but it has always been the excuse. E.g. how many billions of euros were collected within a week after the Notre Dame burned? At the risk of offending a lot of french I will say that the Notre Dame is just a building. In the big scheme of things it is not important. Nobody will starve if it is not re-built. The problem is 'mental inertia', convenience and (perceived) risk aversion.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > If renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, why do poor countries keep building coal If rich countries open sourced all tech related to renewables and made -publicly avable designs for solar panels, batteries, wind turbines and factories that produce them, then it would be a valid question. Oh, also provide loans because renewables have higher cap-ex and lower op-ex. This factor alone can account for massive difference, as -or countries don’t have cash on hand and can’t access credit. Instead US tells them not to take loans from China but offers no alternative
  - benj111 3y ago
    China's building more coal plants than anyone, and also building more solar panels than anyone. And a lot of these poorer countries don't have the industrial capacity to build all this stuff even if it was open sourced. >Instead US tells them not to take loans from China but offers no alternative Well it depends why. The west tried this and it just ended up bankrupting multiple countries. Eg for hydro, which is also high cap ex, low op ex.
- Gasp0de 3y ago
  At least in Germany, fossil fuels are gifted to power companies (they don't pay per ton of coal extracted), while the resulting costs due to fueling the climate crisis are carried by society (and mostly by poor countries around the globe). That's why it is profitable.
aeturnum 3y ago
Remember we're not just talking about power plants. We also need to replace our petrochemical distribution networks, beef up our grid in a real way, replace all of the petrochemical based heating (a majority of heating in the US, often built centrally into buildings), both replace all petrochemical-powered vehicles and make any changes required to routing, replace all on-demand power generation with non-gas-based solutions, rebuild all industrial facilities to not use petrochemicals...and so on. This is all happening concurrently and would largely focus on existing infrastructure and it would need to happen FAST. World war two, the example raised the most often, required only increased output. It had no limits on how to get there. This requires both. I really don't think it's like anything we've ever tried to do before. In particular it wouldn't be this hard to...replace everything eventually when it makes sense. In order to maximally dampen climate change we would need to do this as quickly as possible.
- oezi 3y ago
  Cost estimates of attaining net zero are on the order of 100-200% of global GDP. To get this done by 2050 we would need to spend 3-6% of global GDP on the energy transition. Not a small ask, but also not insane.
  - aeturnum 3y ago
    I would love to see the estimates you're talking about because, as I said (and linked) above the estimates I've seen are much more dire!
    - oezi 3y ago
      There are various studies from consultancies such as McKinsey, the IEA or national thinktanks (e.g. Fraunhofer in Germany) that have put out ballpark figures like these. Commonly the total is on the order of 100-300 trillion USD. Current global GDP is 100 trillion.
      - aeturnum 3y ago
        I think the point of the reports in that I linked is that we don't avoid climate change by following that time frame. Instead, we'd spend 100-300% of GDP on avoiding old projections, while moving forward into more poorly understood territory. Ignoring the timeliness of a particular change has been a common error / delay tactic of groups that urge less expeditious responses. Obviously, unless you link these reports, I don't really know if that critique applies - but it is a common critique for plans with a longer time frame. Edit: I also want to add that any project that needs 100-300% of global GDP certainly qualifies as "one to two orders of magnitude bigger than anything we have done." Wikipedia puts the 1940 world GDP at 3,000 billion USD[1]. The manhatten project cost ~$2bn (0.06%). The whole war was estimated to cost the US ~$288bn (9.6%)[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product [2](unreliable but fine for a ballpark) https://www.whatitcosts.com/world-war-ii-cost-united-states-facts/ https://www.whatitcosts.com/world-war-ii-cost-united-states-...

brutusborn 3y ago

If renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, why do poor countries keep building coal and gas fired power stations? If it is truly cheaper, surely the regions least able to afford development would choose renewables every time? I know there’s lots of measures that show renewables are cheaper, but I suspect a lot of these estimates ignore the huge cost of storage in most places. Most countries don’t have things like fjords to make energy storage cheap.

epistasis 3y ago
Planning cycles take 5-10 years and are often based on out of date information when the plans are made. Couple that with it being far easier for corrupt officials to skim off approvals of a few large projects than many small ones, and you will find that what has been happening 5 years ago is going to be completed different than what will happen 5 years from now. Renewable energy and battery storage are on tech curves like semiconductors or DNA sequencing. Fossil fuels are not. There will be no competition within a decade.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I think this theory has merit, but I don't think you can necessarily say that battery tech is on a similar tech curve to renewables. We simply haven't built many utility scale batteries so it's unclear how much improvements can be made. Add to that that batteries have been around for centuries, but renewables are decades old, so it makes sense that they are improving in cost so quickly: they are a newer tech.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    With respect, this is not a theory as much as it is basic observation. Even this old data is striking: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/levelized-cost-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/levelized-cost-of-energy Batteries are completely on a similar curve, continuously improving at an exponential rate, and as they get scaled up to TWh/year production there is a chance of acceleration of this trend. There is a proliferation of new chemistry and tech in all parts of the battery. We are just at the very beginning.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      I’ll believe they are on a similar curve when I see a similar curve using data from utility scales. Of course stuff like Lithium batteries are accelerating, but these aren’t economical for utility scale batteries yet. There’s a good chance they will never be.
      - epistasis 3y ago
        Check out any recent grid addiction assessment, such as this one: "US will see more new battery capacity than natural gas generation in 2023" https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/us-will-see-more-new-battery-capacity-than-natural-gas-generation-in-2023/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/us-will-see-more-new...
        brutusborn 3y ago
        I have been following the industry from a distance; construction is accelerating but the prices are still well beyond economical for the scale required for grid stability. And projects are still relatively tiny (<10 GW). Based on the latest projects such as this one in Australia [0], building a grid-scale system will result in energy prices increasing by many multiples. Of course it will get cheaper, but I don't see it being cheap enough that it won't have massive impact on costs (I hope I'm wrong btw). [0] https://reneweconomy.com.au/engie-and-macquarie-to-fund-150mw-big-battery-at-hazelwood/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/engie-and-macquarie-to-fund-150m...
bertil 3y ago
[Citation needed]
- brutusborn 3y ago
  https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/china-india-lead-us534-billion-global-gas-pipeline-build-out/ https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/china-india-lead-us53... There is a lot of fossil fuel development going on that doesn't make sense if renewables are cheaper. Especially in China where panels are actually made. I'm open to an alternative explanation, but I don't think it's inertia. Most industries switch to cheaper tech pretty soon after it becomes available.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lovemenot 3y ago
    Social and political considerations can be components of inertia too. Consider China's fairly recent decision to stop funding new fossil fuel generation development outside its own borders, where social and political considerations should have minimal impact to Chinese citizens. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-says-it-will-stop-financing-coal-power-abroad/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-says-it-wil... China is starting to move in the right direction, but there's a ton of planning lag. China is by far the largest single consumer of solar panels. It also deploys more wind turbines than any other country. Two limiting factors are China's insatiable need for ever greater power generating capacity of any kind, and the surprisingly rapid uptake of renewables globally which has constrained new production.
hnben 3y ago
> Coal power: $4,074 > Solar PV with storage: $1,748 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Capital_costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... and for the fun of it > Nuclear $6,695-7,547 regarding you question: In large scale projects there is a lot of inertia, especially in less developed areas. Many of these places have just build a conventional grid, and are in no situation to upgrade to renewables. That being said: some non-industrial countries are actually moving fast towards adopting renewables (compared to developed countries). e.g. Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Brazil.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Your link shows gas as the winner by a wide margin at $785. I'm interested what you mean about the 'conventional grid' preventing upgrades to renewables?
  - jabradoodle 3y ago
    Worth noting that is initial capital costs of building the plant. Maintenance, fuel etc are not included, even before considering external costs such as poor health outcomes from pollution.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      I didn't even notice that. I think I got blind sighted by the fact that the parent commenter went to the effort of googling the Wikipedia page for a source and it didn't even support their point. The more confident an online commenter is of their assertion, the lower the chances it is true.
      - hnben 3y ago
        LCOE is in the linked article as well, and it does paint a similar picture
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Have you looked at poor countries energy builds recently or are you just assuming? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_developing_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_developing... > Renewable energy technology was once seen as unaffordable for developing countries. However, since 2015, investment in non-hydro renewable energy has been higher in developing countries than in developed countries, and comprised 54% of global renewable energy investment in 2019. The International Energy Agency forecasts that renewable energy will provide the majority of energy supply growth through 2030 in Africa and Central and South America, and 42% of supply growth in China.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I suspect this is because many poor countries are used to intermittent power, and so renewables are acceptable. In developed countries, continuous power is expected. It may be luxurious, but if power is interrupted too often the populace will reject renewables. There's lots of gas plant construction, even in poor countries https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/boom-and-bust-gas-2022/ https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/boom-and-bust-gas-202...
  - epistasis 3y ago
    That has nothing to do with it, as renewable power is being deployed extremely quickly in developing countries too. Intermittent generators does not mean an intermittent grid, and in fact by having fewer single points of failure, and ensuring that grid operators are used to dynamic dispatch from intermittent generators, grids like Germany's have become more reliable with the addition of intermittent generators. It's like ~10 years ago when web apps went from large architectures with a few boxes to cloud-scale operators where random failure was expected. By planning for lots of small, less reliable components, overall reliability increased.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      Got any data for German reliability? Is it not just because they get backup from French nuclear and they have turned their coal plants back on? I.e. renewables have made things worse?
KSteffensen 3y ago
In all of the places I have worked both for pay and voluntarily money has very rarely been the problem, but it has always been the excuse. E.g. how many billions of euros were collected within a week after the Notre Dame burned? At the risk of offending a lot of french I will say that the Notre Dame is just a building. In the big scheme of things it is not important. Nobody will starve if it is not re-built. The problem is 'mental inertia', convenience and (perceived) risk aversion.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> If renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, why do poor countries keep building coal If rich countries open sourced all tech related to renewables and made -publicly avable designs for solar panels, batteries, wind turbines and factories that produce them, then it would be a valid question. Oh, also provide loans because renewables have higher cap-ex and lower op-ex. This factor alone can account for massive difference, as -or countries don’t have cash on hand and can’t access credit. Instead US tells them not to take loans from China but offers no alternative
- benj111 3y ago
  China's building more coal plants than anyone, and also building more solar panels than anyone. And a lot of these poorer countries don't have the industrial capacity to build all this stuff even if it was open sourced. >Instead US tells them not to take loans from China but offers no alternative Well it depends why. The west tried this and it just ended up bankrupting multiple countries. Eg for hydro, which is also high cap ex, low op ex.
Gasp0de 3y ago
At least in Germany, fossil fuels are gifted to power companies (they don't pay per ton of coal extracted), while the resulting costs due to fueling the climate crisis are carried by society (and mostly by poor countries around the globe). That's why it is profitable.

aeturnum 3y ago

Remember we're not just talking about power plants. We also need to replace our petrochemical distribution networks, beef up our grid in a real way, replace all of the petrochemical based heating (a majority of heating in the US, often built centrally into buildings), both replace all petrochemical-powered vehicles and make any changes required to routing, replace all on-demand power generation with non-gas-based solutions, rebuild all industrial facilities to not use petrochemicals...and so on. This is all happening concurrently and would largely focus on existing infrastructure and it would need to happen FAST. World war two, the example raised the most often, required only increased output. It had no limits on how to get there. This requires both. I really don't think it's like anything we've ever tried to do before. In particular it wouldn't be this hard to...replace everything eventually when it makes sense. In order to maximally dampen climate change we would need to do this as quickly as possible.

oezi 3y ago
Cost estimates of attaining net zero are on the order of 100-200% of global GDP. To get this done by 2050 we would need to spend 3-6% of global GDP on the energy transition. Not a small ask, but also not insane.
- aeturnum 3y ago
  I would love to see the estimates you're talking about because, as I said (and linked) above the estimates I've seen are much more dire!
  - oezi 3y ago
    There are various studies from consultancies such as McKinsey, the IEA or national thinktanks (e.g. Fraunhofer in Germany) that have put out ballpark figures like these. Commonly the total is on the order of 100-300 trillion USD. Current global GDP is 100 trillion.
    - aeturnum 3y ago
      I think the point of the reports in that I linked is that we don't avoid climate change by following that time frame. Instead, we'd spend 100-300% of GDP on avoiding old projections, while moving forward into more poorly understood territory. Ignoring the timeliness of a particular change has been a common error / delay tactic of groups that urge less expeditious responses. Obviously, unless you link these reports, I don't really know if that critique applies - but it is a common critique for plans with a longer time frame. Edit: I also want to add that any project that needs 100-300% of global GDP certainly qualifies as "one to two orders of magnitude bigger than anything we have done." Wikipedia puts the 1940 world GDP at 3,000 billion USD[1]. The manhatten project cost ~$2bn (0.06%). The whole war was estimated to cost the US ~$288bn (9.6%)[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product [2](unreliable but fine for a ballpark) https://www.whatitcosts.com/world-war-ii-cost-united-states-facts/ https://www.whatitcosts.com/world-war-ii-cost-united-states-...