2 ms·

But this data fully destroys the idea of a binary economic choice presented by the current political landscape. It's not renewables vs fossil fuels. It's renewa

But this data fully destroys the idea of a binary economic choice presented by the current political landscape. It's not renewables vs fossil fuels. It's renewables AND fossil fuels and whatever else we can use to make stuff move. The whole ideological split is a fabricated culture war. The economy demands energy, full stop. Another thing to be wary of in this title: headlines like this are written specifically to sound like renewables are winning this ideological battle against fossil fuels. It's so vital to understand: that is not happening at all. Renewables and fossil fuels capacity are BOTH increasing (though renewables at a faster rate - don't confuse the derivative with the scalar value of interest). We are not "replacing" fossil fuels by any metric, and saying so is outright greenwashing. The atmosphere responds to CO2 concentration, not good intentions.

epistasis 2y ago
I don't know what "idea of binary economic choice presented by the current political landscape means." Are you saying that the political sphere is saying that only one of natural gas or renewables could be built? If that's what you're saying, I don't think it's a widespread idea, it's just the Republican idea spread to straw man against building any renewables at all. If it's something else, I'm very interested! It takes a long time for people to adapt to new reality, and I would expect natural gas to continue to be build even after it is no longer economically feasible until people learn the hard way. Also, batteries are continuously dropping in cost. Gas might be able to reach a tiny decrease, but it does not benefit from the continual improvement of technology like batteries do. We are not replacing fossil fuels, yet, but only becuase energy use is expanding, and the energy capacity additions are eating up our entire production capacity of renewables. As we build out more and more factories for renewables, and as existing natural gas turbines reach end of life, the switchover will happen. Globally, fossil fuels are barely expanding. The IEA, a famously pro-fossil fuel org, thinks that China reached peak fossil fuel consumption in 2024, and will decrease fossil fuel use in the future even as every consumption grows. IEA also thinks that more than half of electricity generation will be carbon free, worldwide, by 2030: https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-242-iea-outlook-2025/ https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-242-iea-outlook-2... We are not transitioning the energy system fast enough to get the cheapest possible energy, or to meet reasonable climate goals, but that's entirely because of politics instead of technical or economic feasibility.
- perrygeo 2y ago
  > idea of binary economic choice presented by the current political landscape The media and US political parties frame our energy futures as either renewable or fossil fueled. Do I even need to explain this? Compare the official climate positions of the two major US political parties. Read the headline, it literally positions the story of renewable growth in relation to other energy sources. The real story is that both renewables and oil and gas are growing to satisfy the ever-increasing demand for energy. We evidently need growth in both just to keep up. > that's entirely because of politics instead of technical or economic feasibility True. We've tried working within the system for decades, it has clearly not worked. Perhaps we should examine the status quo more critically? The earth's atmosphere doesn't give a shit about our intentions, good or bad. Just the pollution we emit. What we need desperately is a real strategy for emissions reduction based on physical evidence. Instead, we have the "green new deal" and "drill baby drill" - both of which are positions in the great US culture war, not evidence-based strategies for the energy market. Thankfully there are rational scientist and engineers working on our energy system - they don't have the luxury of picking sides in a culture war. They use the best of renewables and gas to build resilience into the system while gradually increasing renewables year over year. There is no ideological choice to be made - so long as we demand energy, we need growth in renewables and oil. Acknowledging that fact is politically toxic to both the left and the right.
  - epistasis 2y ago
    As far as a political binary, only a single side has been disproven, the Republican side that says that renewables and storage can't meet market needs. The democratic proposition, in policy, in rhetoric, in action, has always been a transition from fossil fuels to renewables and storage, which this ERCOT news is completely consistent with. The future of resilience is batteries, not gas. Most of these new gas generators will be stranded assets within a decade. Additionally the part of the picture missing in this announcement is retirements, which are of course all fossil fuel.
  - perrygeo 2y ago
    And I'm dancing around the point - the problem is demand for energy, not fossil fuels. Reducing emissions means reducing demand - an end to economic growth as we know it. Again, politically toxic. The green new deal envisions us driving around in EVs. The drill baby drill folks picture us driving around in our pickups. And the reality (if we want any hope of meeting our climate goals) is probably no more driving, or at least significantly less. We saw what covid lockdown did to our supply chains. Do we really think we could handle a drastic reduction in mobility and economic demand? I don't see that happening anywhere today, do you? I see us getting less resilient to oil decline by the year. You can no longer live a normal life in most American towns without a car. Want to eat and send your kids to school? You drive. We're not prepared to have a conversation about consuming less, let alone actually achieving it IRL.

epistasis 2y ago

I don't know what "idea of binary economic choice presented by the current political landscape means." Are you saying that the political sphere is saying that only one of natural gas or renewables could be built? If that's what you're saying, I don't think it's a widespread idea, it's just the Republican idea spread to straw man against building any renewables at all. If it's something else, I'm very interested! It takes a long time for people to adapt to new reality, and I would expect natural gas to continue to be build even after it is no longer economically feasible until people learn the hard way. Also, batteries are continuously dropping in cost. Gas might be able to reach a tiny decrease, but it does not benefit from the continual improvement of technology like batteries do. We are not replacing fossil fuels, yet, but only becuase energy use is expanding, and the energy capacity additions are eating up our entire production capacity of renewables. As we build out more and more factories for renewables, and as existing natural gas turbines reach end of life, the switchover will happen. Globally, fossil fuels are barely expanding. The IEA, a famously pro-fossil fuel org, thinks that China reached peak fossil fuel consumption in 2024, and will decrease fossil fuel use in the future even as every consumption grows. IEA also thinks that more than half of electricity generation will be carbon free, worldwide, by 2030: https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-242-iea-outlook-2025/ https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-242-iea-outlook-2... We are not transitioning the energy system fast enough to get the cheapest possible energy, or to meet reasonable climate goals, but that's entirely because of politics instead of technical or economic feasibility.

perrygeo 2y ago
> idea of binary economic choice presented by the current political landscape The media and US political parties frame our energy futures as either renewable or fossil fueled. Do I even need to explain this? Compare the official climate positions of the two major US political parties. Read the headline, it literally positions the story of renewable growth in relation to other energy sources. The real story is that both renewables and oil and gas are growing to satisfy the ever-increasing demand for energy. We evidently need growth in both just to keep up. > that's entirely because of politics instead of technical or economic feasibility True. We've tried working within the system for decades, it has clearly not worked. Perhaps we should examine the status quo more critically? The earth's atmosphere doesn't give a shit about our intentions, good or bad. Just the pollution we emit. What we need desperately is a real strategy for emissions reduction based on physical evidence. Instead, we have the "green new deal" and "drill baby drill" - both of which are positions in the great US culture war, not evidence-based strategies for the energy market. Thankfully there are rational scientist and engineers working on our energy system - they don't have the luxury of picking sides in a culture war. They use the best of renewables and gas to build resilience into the system while gradually increasing renewables year over year. There is no ideological choice to be made - so long as we demand energy, we need growth in renewables and oil. Acknowledging that fact is politically toxic to both the left and the right.
- epistasis 2y ago
  As far as a political binary, only a single side has been disproven, the Republican side that says that renewables and storage can't meet market needs. The democratic proposition, in policy, in rhetoric, in action, has always been a transition from fossil fuels to renewables and storage, which this ERCOT news is completely consistent with. The future of resilience is batteries, not gas. Most of these new gas generators will be stranded assets within a decade. Additionally the part of the picture missing in this announcement is retirements, which are of course all fossil fuel.
- perrygeo 2y ago
  And I'm dancing around the point - the problem is demand for energy, not fossil fuels. Reducing emissions means reducing demand - an end to economic growth as we know it. Again, politically toxic. The green new deal envisions us driving around in EVs. The drill baby drill folks picture us driving around in our pickups. And the reality (if we want any hope of meeting our climate goals) is probably no more driving, or at least significantly less. We saw what covid lockdown did to our supply chains. Do we really think we could handle a drastic reduction in mobility and economic demand? I don't see that happening anywhere today, do you? I see us getting less resilient to oil decline by the year. You can no longer live a normal life in most American towns without a car. Want to eat and send your kids to school? You drive. We're not prepared to have a conversation about consuming less, let alone actually achieving it IRL.