3 ms·

It's an objective fact that closing coal plants and opening more expensive alternatives like wind and solar will raise prices. You can argue, perhaps rightly, t

• addicted 2y ago
  > It's an objective fact that closing coal plants and opening more expensive alternatives like wind and solar will raise prices. It is also an objective fact that in most places in the world new solar and wind (this may not be the case for wind anymore due to high interest rates) is cheaper than existing coal. That’s why coals plants have been shutting down globally. Now this may not be true specifically for Australia, which is one of the largest coal exporters in the world but your claim of what is and isn’t an objective fact isn’t true. Finally, all this is simply the dollar amounts that are paid for. What is also an objective fact that energy generation from sources like coal cost the local and global population far more in terms of medical expenses due to pollution and damage due to climate change, costs which are not captured in the cost of coal but instead borne as an externality by everyone. So no, your objective facts are blatantly wrong. Edit: Also, if you actually read the article, renewable energy is cheaper than coal in Australia already and the reason for the high costs are due to expensive coal contracts signed a few years ago. Renewables are actually making Australian energy cheaper and coal is making it more expensive.
  • 0xy 2y ago
    China is opening 40 gigawatts of new coal capacity this year alone. China is a world leader in solar technology, so can do it as cheap as possible. Why open any coal if solar is cheaper?
• washadjeffmad 2y ago
  You've cited costs but left out evidence that could be used to illustrate how they differ. If you put that together, it would be more discussion-worthy. You've also conflated the short and long terms where convenient. We have a century of energy and research dumped into petrochemicals, but absent are the historical costs of building and maintaining it. Roads, gas stations, cleaning, etc are acceptable ongoing costs of diesel, and the refineries and pipelines are all paid for, just as renewables will one day be. You do mention the cost of generators and peaking plants, but you haven't scaled any of it across a century for comparison. And rightfully, because that's one of the hard problems about illustrating change at scale. I think people should have more input over energy choices, as in, deciding whether and how long to allow energy companies to bill customers to cover construction costs, limits to externalizing costs, etc, but I think we need very open talks about the financials and feasibility. Lastly, our (great)grandparents subsidized energy development for our futures. As those who only grew up in the shade of those trees, how selfish are we to resist that for our children? If there's anyone to be annoyed with, it's the generation or two that lived large without saving or having to foot the bills - largely because of cheap energy. It will be more costly to wait until it's not our problem.
• nope1000 2y ago
  > The only way renewables win any cost argument is when the numbers are fudged Ironically, coal is only cheap because it does not price in the damage it causes via emissions (yet).
  • 0xy 2y ago
    Does solar and wind price in the damage it causes via emissions from gas peaking plants (a fundamental coupling to any renewables)? If not, why are you insisting that externalities be factored into one side of the equation but not your side? Is it because you're fudging the numbers? Again, gas peaking plants are a REQUIREMENT for any serious renewables deployment. The alternative, batteries, are extremely expensive, not renewable, and require extensive upkeep (batteries have a shelf life).
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• more_corn 2y ago
  Not true. There are false premises in your argument leading to a false conclusion. You’re either misinformed or deliberately misleading.
  • 0xy 2y ago
    Such as? Your comment amounts to "you're wrong".