3 ms·

> This is nonsense. It's easier for developing countries to adopt renewables because they don't have to compete against existing infrastructure. When the US has

> This is nonsense. It's easier for developing countries to adopt renewables because they don't have to compete against existing infrastructure. When the US has a coal-fired power plant that was built 30+ years ago, the capital expenditure is paid off and it's only paying for operations and fuel, and renewables are still out-competing them. Are you going to tell Chinese that they can't take advantage of their coal resources because they were 30 years too late in their development? > In a developing country, building enough in renewables to power 60% of the homes 80% of the time is a bigger win than spending the same money to build enough fossil fuels to power 40% of the homes 100% of the time, and then you can add the expensive reliability technology at the end as the country becomes more developed. Sure you can spend a few 100 billion to build a giant dam, and that might give you something, but all your industry and water is in the east, while all your solar and wind resources are a few thousand miles away. Heck, you still need natural gas for heating, or you might use it for cars (like Thailand) because you have gas but not oil. You still can't go renewable alone with the investment they require, and maybe you will be able to, but not yet. > The countries doing it are doing it for political reasons, e.g. they have a domestic fossil fuel industry to subsidize, which is not a sympathetic excuse. That's just downright cynical. There might be some of that in the middle east, but most countries aren't so resource rich (with the exception of Australia and Russia) that this is going to be a dominating factor.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Are you going to tell Chinese that they can't take advantage of their coal resources because they were 30 years too late in their development? Precisely. > all your industry and water is in the east, while all your solar and wind resources are a few thousand miles away. There are only a small handful of countries that even have an "a few thousand miles away" in the same country. The large majority of developing countries are rather near the equator and can put solar anywhere. > Heck, you still need natural gas for heating In early-stage developing countries, heating is generally wood because they don't have the infrastructure to distribute anything else. In late-state developing countries, you put a nuclear reactor in the city and use cogeneration for heat. This is one of the other advantages of the infrastructure not being built yet. > you might use it for cars (like Thailand) because you have gas but not oil. This is soon going to be irrelevant. The bulk of cars in developing countries are the used cars from developed ones, so as developed countries transition to EVs, everybody does. Which is all the more reason to build renewable generation now, because charging those batteries at the right time of day can smooth out the load but also requires more generation, and that's going to be needed not a lot of years from now. > You still can't go renewable alone with the investment they require Renewables are cheaper than the operating cost for already paid off coal-fired power plants, much less new ones. If you can't afford to build renewables then how can you afford to build something even more expensive? > There might be some of that in the middle east, but most countries aren't so resource rich (with the exception of Australia and Russia) that this is going to be a dominating factor. > Are you going to tell Chinese that they can't take advantage of their coal resources because they were 30 years too late in their development? One of these seems to contradict the other. Also notice how the countries you're trying to make an exception out of are some of the largest CO2 emitters. Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Australia all have per-capita CO2 emissions higher than most of Western Europe. Meanwhile China is the highest on total CO2 emissions of any country in the world by a factor of two, accounting for almost a third of global CO2 emissions and higher emissions per capita than the UK or France.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  > There are only a small handful of countries that even have an "a few thousand miles away" in the same country. The large majority of developing countries are rather near the equator and can put solar anywhere. It’s not like they aren’t installing solar power in those countries at all, but with the cost, it’s still slow going. Philippines is up to 1.62 gigawatts, but they use 90k gigawatts, so only 88.4k to go.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Everything costs money to build. The question is, why are they spending the money building fossil fuel power plants that cost more? "Because they have a local fossil fuel industry" is not a good reason, but it's a common one.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Are you going to tell Chinese that they can't take advantage of their coal resources because they were 30 years too late in their development? Precisely. > all your industry and water is in the east, while all your solar and wind resources are a few thousand miles away. There are only a small handful of countries that even have an "a few thousand miles away" in the same country. The large majority of developing countries are rather near the equator and can put solar anywhere. > Heck, you still need natural gas for heating In early-stage developing countries, heating is generally wood because they don't have the infrastructure to distribute anything else. In late-state developing countries, you put a nuclear reactor in the city and use cogeneration for heat. This is one of the other advantages of the infrastructure not being built yet. > you might use it for cars (like Thailand) because you have gas but not oil. This is soon going to be irrelevant. The bulk of cars in developing countries are the used cars from developed ones, so as developed countries transition to EVs, everybody does. Which is all the more reason to build renewable generation now, because charging those batteries at the right time of day can smooth out the load but also requires more generation, and that's going to be needed not a lot of years from now. > You still can't go renewable alone with the investment they require Renewables are cheaper than the operating cost for already paid off coal-fired power plants, much less new ones. If you can't afford to build renewables then how can you afford to build something even more expensive? > There might be some of that in the middle east, but most countries aren't so resource rich (with the exception of Australia and Russia) that this is going to be a dominating factor. > Are you going to tell Chinese that they can't take advantage of their coal resources because they were 30 years too late in their development? One of these seems to contradict the other. Also notice how the countries you're trying to make an exception out of are some of the largest CO2 emitters. Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Australia all have per-capita CO2 emissions higher than most of Western Europe. Meanwhile China is the highest on total CO2 emissions of any country in the world by a factor of two, accounting for almost a third of global CO2 emissions and higher emissions per capita than the UK or France.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
> There are only a small handful of countries that even have an "a few thousand miles away" in the same country. The large majority of developing countries are rather near the equator and can put solar anywhere. It’s not like they aren’t installing solar power in those countries at all, but with the cost, it’s still slow going. Philippines is up to 1.62 gigawatts, but they use 90k gigawatts, so only 88.4k to go.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Everything costs money to build. The question is, why are they spending the money building fossil fuel power plants that cost more? "Because they have a local fossil fuel industry" is not a good reason, but it's a common one.