6 ms·

That's the only environmental hope I've been able to hang onto. It's now cheaper in most places[1] for net new energy installations to NOT use fossil fuels. I k

That's the only environmental hope I've been able to hang onto. It's now cheaper in most places[1] for net new energy installations to NOT use fossil fuels. I knew environmentally conscious approaches could never survive being the morally correct yet more expensive option. [1] IRENA 2023 report shows that solar photovoltaic (PV) generation was 56% less expensive than the weighted average fossil fuel-fired alternatives, despite being 414% more expensive back in 2010. Bloomberg New Energy Finance found in March 2021 that "renewables are the cheapest power option for 71% of global GDP and 85% of global power generation."

Paradigma11 1y ago
But how much more expensive would it make the power for the last 15% of global power generation? What is the total cost for both scenarios?
- ls612 1y ago
  There’s probably nothing wrong with using fossil for the last 15% of generation for at least our lifetimes. As well as for things like airliners and rockets where energy density is king.
  - SirHumphrey 1y ago
    It makes sense to start decarbonising where it’s easiest (cheapest) to do so.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Use it for the 85% first, and then when that's done, battery prices will have declined enough that the number will be a lot closer to 100%.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
    And honestly 85% would be pretty damn good all by itself. That would significantly stem the bleeding and give time to address the long tail
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      I thought we were past the stem the bleeding point?
      - datadrivenangel 1y ago
        There are reasons to be optimistic! Lots of bad things will happen from climate change, but we can mitigate the impact of many of those issues.
        Teever 1y ago
        How many people do you think are going to die painful deaths because of climate change?
        bryanlarsen 1y ago
        IPCC estimates are about a quarter of a million excess deaths per year.
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Yes, but GP asked, how many of those are painful?
- mrDmrTmrJ 1y ago
  In the US Nuclear gives about 19% of total generation and hydro another 6%. So you don't have to go beyond 75% renewables to start with. Long term, we need a combination of the following technologies to get to 100% carbon free electricity with 80% renewables: 1. Long distance transmission lines. 2. Some type of "clean, firm, dispatchable" power. Examples include: Nuclear fission, fusion power, deep geothermal, and space based solar power. We can certainly use the cost savings from getting to 80% renewables to finance figuring out how to scaling production of one (or more) of the later technologies to lower cost. Simply reducing the regulatory burden on Nuclear Fusion can accomplish that if a society chooses this path. Lot of work to do. And many economic powers would loose out from this transition (e.g. Exxon or Russia) but totally feasible to accomplish. If you want to do a deep dive into cost scenarios look at the work of Christopher Clack or Jesse Jenkins. Example: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921
  - candiddevmike 1y ago
    Too little, too late. We should've been switching to solar in the 80s. Even if we could switch to be carbon free tomorrow, the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere is predicted to cause breadbasket collapses within the next 20 years. If it makes folks feel better, there's a good chance you probably had no control/influence over this outcome if you were born after 1980. https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-weve-underestimated-the-risk-of-simultaneous-crop-failures-worldwide https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-weve-underestimated...
    - kstrauser 1y ago
      We were trying to switch to solar in the 80s, but it was infeasible. The technology just wasn't there. Now it is and we're adopting it en masse.
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      We will spray the atmosphere to buy more time. People will haggle over it because of the unknowns, but when imminent social chaos becomes obvious, we'll be forced to pull the trigger on it.
rasz 1y ago
>solar photovoltaic (PV) generation was 56% less expensive than the weighted average fossil fuel-fired alternatives Only if you need electricity during the day.
- nielsbot 1y ago
  I thought solar + battery was cheaper the nat gas now. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/lcoe-and-value-adjusted-lcoe-for-solar-pv-plus-battery-storage-coal-and-natural-gas-in-selected-regions-in-the-stated-policies-scenario-2022-2030 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/lcoe-and-valu... (If not it soon will be.)
  - nielsbot 1y ago
    *than
  - frontlodjkgi 1y ago
    Depends where you live. If you live here, sun wouldn't be up for a few months at a time, so the battery would have to be pretty big. And it can easily drop below -30C for long periods
    - dalyons 1y ago
      A very small % of the global population lives in those conditions. We can thus safely ignore it as an edge case for now, and still solve for the vast majority of emissions reduction
thiht 1y ago
Sorry to break your hopes: https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-war/US-sets-tariffs-as-high-as-3-403-on-solar-cells-from-Southeast-Asia https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-war/US-sets-tariffs-as...
- ZeroGravitas 1y ago
  Luckily global warming is global and PV installed in countries nearer the equator with dirtier grids have a bigger impact. Chinese PV exports have already become majority "global south". "China’s surging solar exports to the global south" https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-briefing-3-april-2025-solar-exports-carbon-market-expansion-leaders-climate-commitments/#:~:text=Top%20importers,2022%20to%20126GW%20in%202024. https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-briefing-3-april-2025-sola... America demonstrating how expensive ignoring cheap renewables can be may well do the world more good in the long run. It not like a few years ago where a country could "cheat" and get an advantage by avoiding renewables, now it's self-sabotage.
baranul 1y ago
> That's the only environmental hope I've been able to hang onto. It's now cheaper in most places[1] for net new energy installations to NOT use fossil fuels. I knew environmentally conscious approaches could never survive being the morally correct yet more expensive option. This is one of the best takes I've read about the fossil fuel versus clean energy dilemma. Maybe it's lucky for humanity that moving towards clean energy is becoming so cost effective, thanks to many past government initiatives (from all over the world) that added momentum, and the many green energy related businesses that are now in existence.
- HeadsUpHigh 1y ago
  >lucky for humanity perhaps the word lucky isn't the correct one, since lots of people worked hard to push for the initial government programs that kick-started the economies of scale. And Tesla for making viable EVs both a reality as well as desirable for a growing chunk of the population.
- fruit_snack 1y ago
  It doesn’t need to be so hard to admit when capitalism succeeds.
  - clayhacks 1y ago
    Capitalism hasn’t succeeded yet in this case. It’s set the stage for success, but success in my eyes is measured when we hit net zero. That’s still not inevitable at this point
  - adrianN 1y ago
    I find it amusing that it counts as capitalism succeeding when first Germany and now China massively subsidize panel production.
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      To your point, it was political will, not capitalism. Capitalism is still slowing the EV transition down in developed countries attempting to protect their profits (tariffs and other protectionist policy) while China prints EVs as fast as they can, and they do not care about profits. Capitalism is also what is enabling oil companies to continue to exist with no recourse for the rest of us. We are succeeding despite capitalism.

Paradigma11 1y ago

But how much more expensive would it make the power for the last 15% of global power generation? What is the total cost for both scenarios?

ls612 1y ago
There’s probably nothing wrong with using fossil for the last 15% of generation for at least our lifetimes. As well as for things like airliners and rockets where energy density is king.
- SirHumphrey 1y ago
  It makes sense to start decarbonising where it’s easiest (cheapest) to do so.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Use it for the 85% first, and then when that's done, battery prices will have declined enough that the number will be a lot closer to 100%.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
  And honestly 85% would be pretty damn good all by itself. That would significantly stem the bleeding and give time to address the long tail
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    I thought we were past the stem the bleeding point?
    - datadrivenangel 1y ago
      There are reasons to be optimistic! Lots of bad things will happen from climate change, but we can mitigate the impact of many of those issues.
      - Teever 1y ago
        How many people do you think are going to die painful deaths because of climate change?
        bryanlarsen 1y ago
        IPCC estimates are about a quarter of a million excess deaths per year.
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Yes, but GP asked, how many of those are painful?
mrDmrTmrJ 1y ago
In the US Nuclear gives about 19% of total generation and hydro another 6%. So you don't have to go beyond 75% renewables to start with. Long term, we need a combination of the following technologies to get to 100% carbon free electricity with 80% renewables: 1. Long distance transmission lines. 2. Some type of "clean, firm, dispatchable" power. Examples include: Nuclear fission, fusion power, deep geothermal, and space based solar power. We can certainly use the cost savings from getting to 80% renewables to finance figuring out how to scaling production of one (or more) of the later technologies to lower cost. Simply reducing the regulatory burden on Nuclear Fusion can accomplish that if a society chooses this path. Lot of work to do. And many economic powers would loose out from this transition (e.g. Exxon or Russia) but totally feasible to accomplish. If you want to do a deep dive into cost scenarios look at the work of Christopher Clack or Jesse Jenkins. Example: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921
- candiddevmike 1y ago
  Too little, too late. We should've been switching to solar in the 80s. Even if we could switch to be carbon free tomorrow, the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere is predicted to cause breadbasket collapses within the next 20 years. If it makes folks feel better, there's a good chance you probably had no control/influence over this outcome if you were born after 1980. https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-weve-underestimated-the-risk-of-simultaneous-crop-failures-worldwide https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-weve-underestimated...
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    We were trying to switch to solar in the 80s, but it was infeasible. The technology just wasn't there. Now it is and we're adopting it en masse.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    We will spray the atmosphere to buy more time. People will haggle over it because of the unknowns, but when imminent social chaos becomes obvious, we'll be forced to pull the trigger on it.

rasz 1y ago

>solar photovoltaic (PV) generation was 56% less expensive than the weighted average fossil fuel-fired alternatives Only if you need electricity during the day.

nielsbot 1y ago
I thought solar + battery was cheaper the nat gas now. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/lcoe-and-value-adjusted-lcoe-for-solar-pv-plus-battery-storage-coal-and-natural-gas-in-selected-regions-in-the-stated-policies-scenario-2022-2030 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/lcoe-and-valu... (If not it soon will be.)
- nielsbot 1y ago
  *than
- frontlodjkgi 1y ago
  Depends where you live. If you live here, sun wouldn't be up for a few months at a time, so the battery would have to be pretty big. And it can easily drop below -30C for long periods
  - dalyons 1y ago
    A very small % of the global population lives in those conditions. We can thus safely ignore it as an edge case for now, and still solve for the vast majority of emissions reduction

thiht 1y ago

Sorry to break your hopes: https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-war/US-sets-tariffs-as-high-as-3-403-on-solar-cells-from-Southeast-Asia https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-war/US-sets-tariffs-as...

ZeroGravitas 1y ago
Luckily global warming is global and PV installed in countries nearer the equator with dirtier grids have a bigger impact. Chinese PV exports have already become majority "global south". "China’s surging solar exports to the global south" https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-briefing-3-april-2025-solar-exports-carbon-market-expansion-leaders-climate-commitments/#:~:text=Top%20importers,2022%20to%20126GW%20in%202024. https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-briefing-3-april-2025-sola... America demonstrating how expensive ignoring cheap renewables can be may well do the world more good in the long run. It not like a few years ago where a country could "cheat" and get an advantage by avoiding renewables, now it's self-sabotage.

baranul 1y ago

> That's the only environmental hope I've been able to hang onto. It's now cheaper in most places[1] for net new energy installations to NOT use fossil fuels. I knew environmentally conscious approaches could never survive being the morally correct yet more expensive option. This is one of the best takes I've read about the fossil fuel versus clean energy dilemma. Maybe it's lucky for humanity that moving towards clean energy is becoming so cost effective, thanks to many past government initiatives (from all over the world) that added momentum, and the many green energy related businesses that are now in existence.

HeadsUpHigh 1y ago
>lucky for humanity perhaps the word lucky isn't the correct one, since lots of people worked hard to push for the initial government programs that kick-started the economies of scale. And Tesla for making viable EVs both a reality as well as desirable for a growing chunk of the population.
fruit_snack 1y ago
It doesn’t need to be so hard to admit when capitalism succeeds.
- clayhacks 1y ago
  Capitalism hasn’t succeeded yet in this case. It’s set the stage for success, but success in my eyes is measured when we hit net zero. That’s still not inevitable at this point
- adrianN 1y ago
  I find it amusing that it counts as capitalism succeeding when first Germany and now China massively subsidize panel production.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    To your point, it was political will, not capitalism. Capitalism is still slowing the EV transition down in developed countries attempting to protect their profits (tariffs and other protectionist policy) while China prints EVs as fast as they can, and they do not care about profits. Capitalism is also what is enabling oil companies to continue to exist with no recourse for the rest of us. We are succeeding despite capitalism.