4 ms·

I wonder how good it could be if the governments offered the exact same amount of subsidies to renewable energy they offer to coal and petroleum, including indi

I wonder how good it could be if the governments offered the exact same amount of subsidies to renewable energy they offer to coal and petroleum, including indirect subsidies like distribution infrastructure etc.

actionfromafar 6mo ago
[flagged]
oklahomasports 6mo ago
You also then have to include the subsidies renewables have gotten. They of course also use distribution infrastructure
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
epistasis 6mo ago
Right now renewables and storage are cheaper than most new fossil fuel types of generation. The cheapest new fossil fuel generation, gas, is bottlenecked by limited capacity to build new turbines currently. So if you look at new resources being added to the grid, it's all solar, wind, storage, and a tiny bit of new fossil gas generation. The biggest impediment to more renewables is no longer cost, it's politics and regulations. We have a president that has torpedoes one of the best new sources of wind, offshore wind, just as it's becoming super economical, and all the rest of the world is going to get the benefit of that cheap energy while the US falls behind. Floating offshore wind in the Pacific, based on the same type of tech as floating oil platforms, could provide a hugely beneficial amount of electricity at night and in winter, to balance out solar with less storage and less overbuilding. Meanwhile on land, transmission line are a huge bottleneck towards more solar and wind, and the interconnection queue for the grid is backed out to hell in most places. The technology and economics are there, but the humans and their bureaucracy is not ready to fully jump on board.
- dylan604 6mo ago
  You seem to be focused on generation and delivery costs. Fossil fuels like coal needs to be mined and then shipped to the power plants.
  - epistasis 6mo ago
    I'm including the costs of fossil fuel extraction in the comparison here; in the US fossil gas is super super cheap which makes it more competitive with solar and storage than in most places.
- KaiserPro 6mo ago
  > is bottlenecked by limited capacity to build new turbines currently. its bottlenecked by price. The reason why the UK's electricity is so fucking expensive is because its pegged to international gas prices
  - epistasis 6mo ago
    My comment, like the linked article, was focused entirely on the US's situation, which has abundant fossil gas to the point that many frackers burn it as a waste product. I'd totally agree for UK and continental Europe. The difference between oil and gas is massive on the distribution angle, oil moves easily as long as there's not a naval blockade, but fossil gas requires super super expensive infrastructure either via pipeline or LNG. And with nearly all fossil fuel companies in the last stages of their life, trying to maximize profits on existing capital, it's hard to get investor support to buy infrastructure that costs multiple billions and has limited lifetime. I don't know the details in Europe, but it seems like this phasing out of infrastructure as the transition happens is a major hassle... I'd love any links on that sort of info about Europe.
    - KaiserPro 6mo ago
      You're missing the nuance here, gas is priced internationally, as is oil. The distribution costs for the UK are much less than in the US
colechristensen 6mo ago
Can we stop with this? It's not a helpful line of thinking or a useful argument. This is the batman vs. superman argument of children at a comic convention. Arguing whether federal highway funding factors in to the cost of coal is absurdly useless. "I wonder how good it could be" It's already here, solar is already dramatically cheaper and has none of the risk profile a global energy market produces. You install solar and you have that energy for decades. Solar is here and its cheaper, batteries are good enough for utility scale. Now its simply an adoption curve. Moralizing or bringing up silly arguments about how cost ought to be accounted should be considered harmful to the progress away from fossil fuels. Unless it's your intent to start pointless arguments.
- WastedCucumber 6mo ago
  It doesn't seem like a silly argument to me, and certainly not moralizing. Rather "I wonder..." seems to be an indirectly phrased request for information, an open invitation for somebody who has seen the numbers to provide a link. But I do think I get your point - the subsidies are there so we should compare the costs as they are.
  - itopaloglu83 6mo ago
    I also acknowledge that we need energy for pretty much everything, so finding ways to make it cheaper enables a whole range of industrial activity as well. It’s quite intriguing that we haven’t been able to come up with solid energy policies in the recent decades and it’s all about rent seeking behavior of existing providers that’s holding us back. I don’t understand why we can enable things like Uber/Lyft to disrupt the taxi madalyon system, but become very protective about certain industries, even when it’s in our best interest to explore those areas in detail (regardless of the result).
Jblx2 6mo ago
Is there a good resource for finding out more about fossil fuel subsidies? There are lots of questionable sources out there, like ones that inform you that oil companies only pay taxes on profits, not on revenue, so they consider that a subsidy. But that is just like every other company.
ezst 6mo ago
Or subsidize nuclear because it complements beautifully solar & wind as cheap and clean energy?

actionfromafar 6mo ago

[flagged]

oklahomasports 6mo ago

You also then have to include the subsidies renewables have gotten. They of course also use distribution infrastructure

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

epistasis 6mo ago

Right now renewables and storage are cheaper than most new fossil fuel types of generation. The cheapest new fossil fuel generation, gas, is bottlenecked by limited capacity to build new turbines currently. So if you look at new resources being added to the grid, it's all solar, wind, storage, and a tiny bit of new fossil gas generation. The biggest impediment to more renewables is no longer cost, it's politics and regulations. We have a president that has torpedoes one of the best new sources of wind, offshore wind, just as it's becoming super economical, and all the rest of the world is going to get the benefit of that cheap energy while the US falls behind. Floating offshore wind in the Pacific, based on the same type of tech as floating oil platforms, could provide a hugely beneficial amount of electricity at night and in winter, to balance out solar with less storage and less overbuilding. Meanwhile on land, transmission line are a huge bottleneck towards more solar and wind, and the interconnection queue for the grid is backed out to hell in most places. The technology and economics are there, but the humans and their bureaucracy is not ready to fully jump on board.

dylan604 6mo ago
You seem to be focused on generation and delivery costs. Fossil fuels like coal needs to be mined and then shipped to the power plants.
- epistasis 6mo ago
  I'm including the costs of fossil fuel extraction in the comparison here; in the US fossil gas is super super cheap which makes it more competitive with solar and storage than in most places.
KaiserPro 6mo ago
> is bottlenecked by limited capacity to build new turbines currently. its bottlenecked by price. The reason why the UK's electricity is so fucking expensive is because its pegged to international gas prices
- epistasis 6mo ago
  My comment, like the linked article, was focused entirely on the US's situation, which has abundant fossil gas to the point that many frackers burn it as a waste product. I'd totally agree for UK and continental Europe. The difference between oil and gas is massive on the distribution angle, oil moves easily as long as there's not a naval blockade, but fossil gas requires super super expensive infrastructure either via pipeline or LNG. And with nearly all fossil fuel companies in the last stages of their life, trying to maximize profits on existing capital, it's hard to get investor support to buy infrastructure that costs multiple billions and has limited lifetime. I don't know the details in Europe, but it seems like this phasing out of infrastructure as the transition happens is a major hassle... I'd love any links on that sort of info about Europe.
  - KaiserPro 6mo ago
    You're missing the nuance here, gas is priced internationally, as is oil. The distribution costs for the UK are much less than in the US

colechristensen 6mo ago

Can we stop with this? It's not a helpful line of thinking or a useful argument. This is the batman vs. superman argument of children at a comic convention. Arguing whether federal highway funding factors in to the cost of coal is absurdly useless. "I wonder how good it could be" It's already here, solar is already dramatically cheaper and has none of the risk profile a global energy market produces. You install solar and you have that energy for decades. Solar is here and its cheaper, batteries are good enough for utility scale. Now its simply an adoption curve. Moralizing or bringing up silly arguments about how cost ought to be accounted should be considered harmful to the progress away from fossil fuels. Unless it's your intent to start pointless arguments.

WastedCucumber 6mo ago
It doesn't seem like a silly argument to me, and certainly not moralizing. Rather "I wonder..." seems to be an indirectly phrased request for information, an open invitation for somebody who has seen the numbers to provide a link. But I do think I get your point - the subsidies are there so we should compare the costs as they are.
- itopaloglu83 6mo ago
  I also acknowledge that we need energy for pretty much everything, so finding ways to make it cheaper enables a whole range of industrial activity as well. It’s quite intriguing that we haven’t been able to come up with solid energy policies in the recent decades and it’s all about rent seeking behavior of existing providers that’s holding us back. I don’t understand why we can enable things like Uber/Lyft to disrupt the taxi madalyon system, but become very protective about certain industries, even when it’s in our best interest to explore those areas in detail (regardless of the result).

Jblx2 6mo ago

Is there a good resource for finding out more about fossil fuel subsidies? There are lots of questionable sources out there, like ones that inform you that oil companies only pay taxes on profits, not on revenue, so they consider that a subsidy. But that is just like every other company.

ezst 6mo ago

Or subsidize nuclear because it complements beautifully solar & wind as cheap and clean energy?