3 ms·

Except we we replaced all current forms of power generation with wind and solar, it would be more expensive: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/would-getting-all-

Except we we replaced all current forms of power generation with wind and solar, it would be more expensive: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/would-getting-all-our-electricity-wind-and-solar-power-raise-price-electricity https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/would-getting-all-our-electr...

epistasis 2y ago
That's just one guy's opinion, namely: > Richard Schmalensee, Howard W. Johnson Professor of Management Emeritus, Professor of Economics Emeritus, and Dean Emeritus of the MIT Sloan School of Management An economics and b-school professor is not equipped to evaluate a multi-decade transition, and he apparently hasn't even taken into account how batteries are falling in cost like solar and wind are. Those who do cost-optimal grid planning find that wind, solar, storage, our existing nuclear result in a grid that is cheaper than our current grid. However the problem is that we don't do grid planning based on what costs the least, we do small incremental changes from utilities that are using cost estimates that are years out of date, and we don't think about making large scale changes that result in big cost changes. And one other thing about looking about predictions from the past with grid modeling, everybody always underestimated the rate of how fast solar and wind prices fall. They are doing the same for batteries now.
- loeg 2y ago
  The fine article is also just one guy's opinion. Notably someone who sues people who disagree with him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson#Critiques_of_100%_renewable_papers_and_court_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson#Critiques_of_...
  - epistasis 2y ago
    Technically, not just one guy, there are coauthors: Danning Fu, Daniel J. Sambor, Andreas Mühlbauer: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c10686 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c10686 I'm not a huge fan of Jacobson's behavior, and he has made some mistakes, but he's also been very very right on a lot of things. And while a single paper is a lot more reliable than a single person writing an editorial on an MIT site, it is still a single paper and must be taken as a pointer towards the truth, rather than truth revealed.
AlienRobot 2y ago
I don't think that's what he is saying. >Would switching entirely to these clean energy sources raise the price of electricity? Yes—at least if you don’t count the cost of the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels, says Richard Schmalensee, MIT’s Howard W. Johnson Professor of Management Emeritus, Professor of Economics Emeritus, and Dean Emeritus of the MIT Sloan School of Management.. The electricity bill will be more expensive, but that's only because the damages to the environment caused by carbon are externalized costs. Presumably, if those externalized costs did show up in the electricity bill today, then it would get cheaper if we switched to renewable. >“If you take into account the total cost of running a system that puts CO2 into the air, [then renewables] will be cheaper,” Schmalensee says

epistasis 2y ago

That's just one guy's opinion, namely: > Richard Schmalensee, Howard W. Johnson Professor of Management Emeritus, Professor of Economics Emeritus, and Dean Emeritus of the MIT Sloan School of Management An economics and b-school professor is not equipped to evaluate a multi-decade transition, and he apparently hasn't even taken into account how batteries are falling in cost like solar and wind are. Those who do cost-optimal grid planning find that wind, solar, storage, our existing nuclear result in a grid that is cheaper than our current grid. However the problem is that we don't do grid planning based on what costs the least, we do small incremental changes from utilities that are using cost estimates that are years out of date, and we don't think about making large scale changes that result in big cost changes. And one other thing about looking about predictions from the past with grid modeling, everybody always underestimated the rate of how fast solar and wind prices fall. They are doing the same for batteries now.

loeg 2y ago
The fine article is also just one guy's opinion. Notably someone who sues people who disagree with him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson#Critiques_of_100%_renewable_papers_and_court_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson#Critiques_of_...
- epistasis 2y ago
  Technically, not just one guy, there are coauthors: Danning Fu, Daniel J. Sambor, Andreas Mühlbauer: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c10686 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c10686 I'm not a huge fan of Jacobson's behavior, and he has made some mistakes, but he's also been very very right on a lot of things. And while a single paper is a lot more reliable than a single person writing an editorial on an MIT site, it is still a single paper and must be taken as a pointer towards the truth, rather than truth revealed.

AlienRobot 2y ago

I don't think that's what he is saying. >Would switching entirely to these clean energy sources raise the price of electricity? Yes—at least if you don’t count the cost of the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels, says Richard Schmalensee, MIT’s Howard W. Johnson Professor of Management Emeritus, Professor of Economics Emeritus, and Dean Emeritus of the MIT Sloan School of Management.. The electricity bill will be more expensive, but that's only because the damages to the environment caused by carbon are externalized costs. Presumably, if those externalized costs did show up in the electricity bill today, then it would get cheaper if we switched to renewable. >“If you take into account the total cost of running a system that puts CO2 into the air, [then renewables] will be cheaper,” Schmalensee says