“Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects(sciencedirect.com)
sciencedirect.com
“Carbon Bombs” – Mapping key fossil fuel projects
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421522001756
76 comments
I hate to say it, but if energy prices keep rising this perspective is going to be disposed of rapidly.
High energy prices mean rampant inflation and social unrest. With crude and natural gas prices skyrocketing, developing nations will again turn to coal as an energy source. Developed nations will return (see Germany) to coal as a heating source.
Green energy will be thrown to the wayside for the sake of social stability give the tumult we've observed to this point.
For the short run, there is unfortunately no viable alternative without enduring 5-10 years of pain. Over the long run, I hope we get more nuclear reactors online.
High energy prices mean rampant inflation and social unrest. With crude and natural gas prices skyrocketing, developing nations will again turn to coal as an energy source. Developed nations will return (see Germany) to coal as a heating source.
Green energy will be thrown to the wayside for the sake of social stability give the tumult we've observed to this point.
For the short run, there is unfortunately no viable alternative without enduring 5-10 years of pain. Over the long run, I hope we get more nuclear reactors online.
This might have been true 20 years ago, but the economic envelope has changed: solar and wind power are both consistently cheaper than fossil fuels. This holds true even in developing nations[1], which means that countries that are still building out their initial power generation and distribution systems stand to benefit from skipping a costly transition entirely (not to mention eliminating a geopolitical lever.)
[1]: https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majori...
[1]: https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majori...
> solar and wind power are both consistently cheaper than fossil fuels
Solar power is not cheaper than combined-cycle natural gas at midnight. The article that you cited does not contain the words "battery" or "storage", and one really needs to compare the all-in levelized cost of energy (and storage) over the life of the project. It does mention hydrogen, but does not go into the efficiency calculations.
Solar power is not cheaper than combined-cycle natural gas at midnight. The article that you cited does not contain the words "battery" or "storage", and one really needs to compare the all-in levelized cost of energy (and storage) over the life of the project. It does mention hydrogen, but does not go into the efficiency calculations.
There's pretty decent analysis of levelized costs including storage by Lazard[1].
This type of analysis is pretty difficult though. A modern grid with both solar and wind power is pretty resilient and calculating the amount of storage needed depends on the things like if it has long distance transmission lines (increasing reliance by increasing the geography).
I think this is why a lot of places end up having a gas peaker plant. In terms of running costs it's not great, and the climate impact is bad (although I guess hydrogen helps is that is available anywhere yet). But it's cheap to build ($85M gets you 55MW[2]). These days batteries are cost competitive with that though[3]:
> a 250MW, four-hour (1,000MWh) battery system in New South Wales would be a cheaper option for meeting peak demand than a 250MW new-build OCGT from both levelised cost of energy (LCOE) and levelised cost of capacity (LCOC) perspectives.[3]
[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... (scroll down for storage)
[2] https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/04/08/peabody-peaker-natural-...
[3] https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-30-cheaper-t...
This type of analysis is pretty difficult though. A modern grid with both solar and wind power is pretty resilient and calculating the amount of storage needed depends on the things like if it has long distance transmission lines (increasing reliance by increasing the geography).
I think this is why a lot of places end up having a gas peaker plant. In terms of running costs it's not great, and the climate impact is bad (although I guess hydrogen helps is that is available anywhere yet). But it's cheap to build ($85M gets you 55MW[2]). These days batteries are cost competitive with that though[3]:
> a 250MW, four-hour (1,000MWh) battery system in New South Wales would be a cheaper option for meeting peak demand than a 250MW new-build OCGT from both levelised cost of energy (LCOE) and levelised cost of capacity (LCOC) perspectives.[3]
[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... (scroll down for storage)
[2] https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/04/08/peabody-peaker-natural-...
[3] https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-30-cheaper-t...
An important point to be made is that as electric vehicles take off, we'll soon start to find ourselves with an avalanche of worn batteries that no longer adequately support EVs, but work just fine as grid storage.
There are 280 million vehicles in the US. If fifty million of those were electric vehicles, then ten years later we'd have enough already-produced batteries to power the entire United States overnight.
There were 300,000 EVs sold in the US in 2020. There were 600,000 in 2021.
This doesn't help right now, but over time, it's becoming clear there will be a flood of cheap batteries available for grid storage.
As a nice side effect, as the market for these used batteries takes off, this might help to assuage fears about expensive battery pack replacements, fueling more EV adoption.
There are 280 million vehicles in the US. If fifty million of those were electric vehicles, then ten years later we'd have enough already-produced batteries to power the entire United States overnight.
There were 300,000 EVs sold in the US in 2020. There were 600,000 in 2021.
This doesn't help right now, but over time, it's becoming clear there will be a flood of cheap batteries available for grid storage.
As a nice side effect, as the market for these used batteries takes off, this might help to assuage fears about expensive battery pack replacements, fueling more EV adoption.
Do you really believe it is feasible to collect 50 million used car batteries in various states of wear and connect them to the grid while expecting this to be a stable solution to solar power during the night?
In some alternate dimension where wind power didn't exist, yeah, that could easily work.
In this dimension, EVs that charge during the midday solar peak and overnight from wind will make an important contribution to rolling out reneweables, cheaper energy and ditching oil and gas.
In this dimension, EVs that charge during the midday solar peak and overnight from wind will make an important contribution to rolling out reneweables, cheaper energy and ditching oil and gas.
Sorry for the late reply, but you might be interested in this report from the California Lithium-ion Car Battery Recycling Advisory Group [1].
I'll quote a brief section:
> In general, batteries will be retired from use in an EV when the range and performance is no longer acceptable to the driver. The remaining capacity of the battery at the time of retirement will vary depending on consumer preference, but it is generally assumed to be between 70- 80%.
> Given the large capacity and high performance of modern vehicle batteries, retired batteries could still offer significant value in lower-power, secondary applications, such as storing energy from solar panels to be used in off-grid or peak demand-shaving applications.37
> A growing body of research has examined the environmental impacts and technical and economic feasibility of repurposing batteries for use in second-life applications.38–42 Since repurposed batteries are a relatively new phenomenon, data about their performance is uncertain, particularly because of the uneven degradation of battery cells over time. However, it is estimated that battery lifespan can be extended by 10 years or longer depending on the application.38,43,44
[1] https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/12/Fin...
I'll quote a brief section:
> In general, batteries will be retired from use in an EV when the range and performance is no longer acceptable to the driver. The remaining capacity of the battery at the time of retirement will vary depending on consumer preference, but it is generally assumed to be between 70- 80%.
> Given the large capacity and high performance of modern vehicle batteries, retired batteries could still offer significant value in lower-power, secondary applications, such as storing energy from solar panels to be used in off-grid or peak demand-shaving applications.37
> A growing body of research has examined the environmental impacts and technical and economic feasibility of repurposing batteries for use in second-life applications.38–42 Since repurposed batteries are a relatively new phenomenon, data about their performance is uncertain, particularly because of the uneven degradation of battery cells over time. However, it is estimated that battery lifespan can be extended by 10 years or longer depending on the application.38,43,44
[1] https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/12/Fin...
If the power market is fully 'open', then yes, it will happen.
All it takes is for a car scrap dealer to realise that for every EV battery he grabs out and hooks up to the grid he'll earn $200/year. Before long, every scrap dealer will be doing it to every car.
However, I suspect that small players will be barred from the electricity markets via mountains of bureaucracy and certification, so that might not happen.
All it takes is for a car scrap dealer to realise that for every EV battery he grabs out and hooks up to the grid he'll earn $200/year. Before long, every scrap dealer will be doing it to every car.
However, I suspect that small players will be barred from the electricity markets via mountains of bureaucracy and certification, so that might not happen.
That doesn't really scale. The power grid needs to be reliable, and there needs to be some idea of how much capacity you actually have.
If people simply hook up an unknown number of batteries of unknown capacities in unknown spaces, how can you rely on the resulting power grid? How can you plan extensions?
Not to mention high capacity batteries are huge fire risks, especially worn out high capacity batteries. Can you imagine how much water you'd need to put out a 200 car battery lithium fire? Iw would be truly irresponsible to let scrapyards build makeshift power storage stations like this.
If people simply hook up an unknown number of batteries of unknown capacities in unknown spaces, how can you rely on the resulting power grid? How can you plan extensions?
Not to mention high capacity batteries are huge fire risks, especially worn out high capacity batteries. Can you imagine how much water you'd need to put out a 200 car battery lithium fire? Iw would be truly irresponsible to let scrapyards build makeshift power storage stations like this.
There are plenty of grids with wide deployment of community solar, which are also unknown-capacity, unknown-delivery. They work because in aggregate they are predictable. The demand side of most power grids is the same - you don't need to tell anyone that you want to switch on the oven, but if everyone in the world switched on their oven at the same time, the worlds electricity grid would collapse.
At scale, everything becomes more predictable, because individual failures no longer have much impact.
Battery operators also will configure their systems to make money, so they will in fact have a big incentive to buy power when it's cheap and sell when expensive, so they will form a strong stabilising force. (unlike say solar, where operators don't track the price and just inject whatever power they produce, even if the spot price of electricity might occasionally go negative, and when it is negative, there is unconstrained overproduction)
At scale, everything becomes more predictable, because individual failures no longer have much impact.
Battery operators also will configure their systems to make money, so they will in fact have a big incentive to buy power when it's cheap and sell when expensive, so they will form a strong stabilising force. (unlike say solar, where operators don't track the price and just inject whatever power they produce, even if the spot price of electricity might occasionally go negative, and when it is negative, there is unconstrained overproduction)
> There are plenty of grids with wide deployment of community solar, which are also unknown-capacity, unknown-delivery.
There are some important differences. For one, those are using bespoke new batteries, not used car batteries. For another, the battery storage is not concentrated, so much lower risk of fires spreading from battery to battery (which you've ignored).
For a third, if a battery fails, it's most likely going to be the house whose battery has failed that loses power if the grid was at its limit, it won't be a whole neighborhood, nor some industrial plant.
Finally, I would be quite surprised if there is any significant power grid where any industrial consumer would be at a risk of losing power even if all community batteries were to be unplugged from the network (ignoring the effects of a sudden surge, like in the oven example, of course).
There are some important differences. For one, those are using bespoke new batteries, not used car batteries. For another, the battery storage is not concentrated, so much lower risk of fires spreading from battery to battery (which you've ignored).
For a third, if a battery fails, it's most likely going to be the house whose battery has failed that loses power if the grid was at its limit, it won't be a whole neighborhood, nor some industrial plant.
Finally, I would be quite surprised if there is any significant power grid where any industrial consumer would be at a risk of losing power even if all community batteries were to be unplugged from the network (ignoring the effects of a sudden surge, like in the oven example, of course).
Sell a storage system that allows the batteries to be safely and individually stored and integrated. It could estimate the capacity of each battery and house 20 or so. Such a system could probably pay for itself after using it for less than a year. There are certainly going to be guaranteed minimum capacities that such a system could promise, it doesn't need to be perfect. If enough people invest in such power storage systems, you don't need to have a single system work 100% of the time, just like you don't need every wind turbine to work 100% of the time.
You can come work on the problem of opening up the electricity market to small players today: https://www.arcadia.com/careers
Alas, I see no way they'll be successful, because the 'old players' who need disrupting own all the electricity cables and get to set the rules.
Well, our growing revenue seems to suggest otherwise, but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see!
If you were rich enough to buy a Tesla wouldn't you try to talk the government into buying your battery off of you?
You think that regulatory capture of the government by rich, individual Tesla owners is a key energy policy concern? That seems outlandish.
I don't think Tesla owners are that influential, no. I was merely making a joke that we get solutions codified into law that are driven primarily by rich people, and I don't think anyone would argue buying a $60k car doesn't make you rich.
And the rich people you worry about influencing policy aren't the Saudi Royal family, Vladimir Putin and the giant corporations who profit from fossil fuels and literally started a conspiracy theory that scientists were lying to us in an effort to destroy modern civizilation and so on, but rather 'rich' people who have bought an EV with the same total cost of ownership as a Toyota Camry?
You're really upset about a joke, maybe take some time to cool off after this thread.
Sure, those are rich people too. In fact, so are the handful of Oil tycoons down in Texas. Since we're in super-serious mode, I don't "worry" about rich people. I tolerate their privilege just like everyone else.
When rich EV owners were given the entire first level of my companies parking garage and I had to park my cheap hybrid on the roof because it didn't have a Tesla charger I was a bit annoyed but I tolerated the fact that they were getting free energy (fuel) and a clean car while my car collected pollen.
When rich EV owners were given preferential access to highways despite having better fuel efficiency than ICE cars I was a bit annoyed but I tolerated the fact that they get to work faster and cheaper while sitting in a nicer car than mine.
When rich EV owners were given subsidies on their cars with no salary cap I tolerated the fact that my $20k hybrid had no subsidies and that I paid every cent on my own despite the car not being as fancy.
So yeah, forgive me that I take a mildly humorous approach to giving any more free stuff to EV owners when it almost exclusively benefits the rich.
For the record, I'd love to be an EV owner - I own a hybrid afterall. I can't though, market forces keep rent really high and I can't buy a house when the sale price of the house is actually $100-$300k above the listing price. If I can't afford a simple house to charge a car at, then I certainly won't look at a $60k+ car as an investment.
Edit:
Just to address your "total cost of ownership of a Toyota Camry" line: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g36278968/best-selling...
These were the top sellers of 2021. Not a single car in the $20k range. Many cars that are affordable to the every day person have limited mileage or are slow, and with rent and home prices climbing it makes it difficult for the people who could fit into those cars financially to do so when they're being pushed farther and farther out of the city.
Sure, those are rich people too. In fact, so are the handful of Oil tycoons down in Texas. Since we're in super-serious mode, I don't "worry" about rich people. I tolerate their privilege just like everyone else.
When rich EV owners were given the entire first level of my companies parking garage and I had to park my cheap hybrid on the roof because it didn't have a Tesla charger I was a bit annoyed but I tolerated the fact that they were getting free energy (fuel) and a clean car while my car collected pollen.
When rich EV owners were given preferential access to highways despite having better fuel efficiency than ICE cars I was a bit annoyed but I tolerated the fact that they get to work faster and cheaper while sitting in a nicer car than mine.
When rich EV owners were given subsidies on their cars with no salary cap I tolerated the fact that my $20k hybrid had no subsidies and that I paid every cent on my own despite the car not being as fancy.
So yeah, forgive me that I take a mildly humorous approach to giving any more free stuff to EV owners when it almost exclusively benefits the rich.
For the record, I'd love to be an EV owner - I own a hybrid afterall. I can't though, market forces keep rent really high and I can't buy a house when the sale price of the house is actually $100-$300k above the listing price. If I can't afford a simple house to charge a car at, then I certainly won't look at a $60k+ car as an investment.
Edit:
Just to address your "total cost of ownership of a Toyota Camry" line: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g36278968/best-selling...
These were the top sellers of 2021. Not a single car in the $20k range. Many cars that are affordable to the every day person have limited mileage or are slow, and with rent and home prices climbing it makes it difficult for the people who could fit into those cars financially to do so when they're being pushed farther and farther out of the city.
You might, but that's not the question, it's the other side that's more important.
Will any state be willing to rely on used car batteries as a critical component of their power grid?
Will any state be willing to rely on used car batteries as a critical component of their power grid?
Personally, I think these used car batteries will go straight to the dump and will be just another investigative journalism story about how we're damaging the local ecology. Batteries can be recycled but it's fairly expensive, so someone would have to engineer a process that optimizes for time, cost, and life of the battery. As far as I know, nothing exists in mass production like this today.
What I think is more feasible is us finding a way to store energy outside the means of a typical lithium battery. I could very well be idealistic in this sense though.
What I think is more feasible is us finding a way to store energy outside the means of a typical lithium battery. I could very well be idealistic in this sense though.
You could probably get a couple million in VC money to try it. Somebody probably should!
To me it seems pretty obvious from first principles that it can't work.
It's also not something that you can just try out. I'm sure it will "work" in some sense at small scales - you can probably buy a few worn batteries off a used car and connect them to the grid and perhaps make a profit.
But the problem is that this can't be relied on by a whole country as a solution to ensuring power generation. This type of storage is by definition "best-effort" : you don't know at what rate you'll be able to increase storage capacity (how many car batteries will be retired and with how much remaining capacity?), you don't know how much capacity you actually have (what is the actual remaining capacity of these batteries, and what is the risk each will malfunction in some way in the next charge/discharge cycle?).
Not to mention, the risk of fires while amassing worn-out lithium batteries in close proximity to each other is gigantic, and there is no simple way of putting out a lithium battery fire. It could even be that this alone is enough to make such an operation unprofitable when accounting for insurance costs, even if it were allowed to run and connect to the grid.
It's also not something that you can just try out. I'm sure it will "work" in some sense at small scales - you can probably buy a few worn batteries off a used car and connect them to the grid and perhaps make a profit.
But the problem is that this can't be relied on by a whole country as a solution to ensuring power generation. This type of storage is by definition "best-effort" : you don't know at what rate you'll be able to increase storage capacity (how many car batteries will be retired and with how much remaining capacity?), you don't know how much capacity you actually have (what is the actual remaining capacity of these batteries, and what is the risk each will malfunction in some way in the next charge/discharge cycle?).
Not to mention, the risk of fires while amassing worn-out lithium batteries in close proximity to each other is gigantic, and there is no simple way of putting out a lithium battery fire. It could even be that this alone is enough to make such an operation unprofitable when accounting for insurance costs, even if it were allowed to run and connect to the grid.
You claim you reach this conclusion from first principles but I don't see any calculations that back up your statements?
I have my (qualitative, not quantitative) reasoning in the entire comment. You're free to ignore, agree, disagree, or counter argue.
I'm not going to spend days or weeks researching and coming up with a decent statistical model for something I don't even believe makes sense on intre the face of it for a comment thread.
I'd also note that something being infeasible from first principles explicitly implies that there's no need for calculations or experiments. For example, if someone comes up with a machine whose claimed performance makes it a perpetuum mobile, I don't need to calculate anything: I know from first principles (conservation of energy) that they are wrong or lying. Of course, this is nowhere near as cut and dry, but I did give my reasoning for why this doesn't seem to me to make any sense.
I'm not going to spend days or weeks researching and coming up with a decent statistical model for something I don't even believe makes sense on intre the face of it for a comment thread.
I'd also note that something being infeasible from first principles explicitly implies that there's no need for calculations or experiments. For example, if someone comes up with a machine whose claimed performance makes it a perpetuum mobile, I don't need to calculate anything: I know from first principles (conservation of energy) that they are wrong or lying. Of course, this is nowhere near as cut and dry, but I did give my reasoning for why this doesn't seem to me to make any sense.
I think you missed the fact that what OP said is already happening and even the most highly invested in green (Scandinavia) isn't remotely close to keeping up with this.
What do you mean by "keeping up with this"? Macro trends are what matter. For example, the US (a very not green country) has cut its coal use by over 50% in the last 20 years[1]. A lot of that is being replaced with natural gas generation, but that's partially because the coal-to-natgas transition is much quicker and cheaper due to the US's established power plants. That wouldn't apply to a developing nation, especially not ones where coal is historically imported (e.g. Pakistan).
[1]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
[1]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
This crisis.
> Macro trends are what matter.
No, it's not all that matters to everyone that can't afford to pay these skyrocketing prices because there's no way to keep up with demand other than reverting to coal. The OP is about social unrest and burning coal now not long-term trends. There is no long term if everything collapses before that. Germany is already burning more coal right now because alternatives cannot in fact keep up. Your head seems stuck in the US, apparently ignorant of news from Europe (take a look at electricity prices here and what's coming online.) There's literally not enough physical natural gas, and we'll outbid everyone else into starvation for what there is and fill the gaps with coal. Green cannot compete in this environment, even where it's most heavily invested in. No way does it have a chance elsewhere.
> Macro trends are what matter.
No, it's not all that matters to everyone that can't afford to pay these skyrocketing prices because there's no way to keep up with demand other than reverting to coal. The OP is about social unrest and burning coal now not long-term trends. There is no long term if everything collapses before that. Germany is already burning more coal right now because alternatives cannot in fact keep up. Your head seems stuck in the US, apparently ignorant of news from Europe (take a look at electricity prices here and what's coming online.) There's literally not enough physical natural gas, and we'll outbid everyone else into starvation for what there is and fill the gaps with coal. Green cannot compete in this environment, even where it's most heavily invested in. No way does it have a chance elsewhere.
Is burning coal now even an option?
Unless there's some significant strategic coal reserves that I'm unaware of, you'll be dealing with the issue that a lot of the coal extraction infrastructure has been decommissioned over the past decades due to market implosion. There's a lot more to extract and coal from a mine than putting a pick in the wall.
> and we'll outbid everyone else into starvation for what there is... Green cannot compete in this environment, even where it's most heavily invested in.
If you're saying that developed countries will outbid developing ones for natural gas, that seems to indicate that green technologies are no longer merely an investment decision for developing nations... They're the only option that protects their survival. If you're facing a market where you'll be consistently outbid, what choice do you have but to exit that market?
Unless there's some significant strategic coal reserves that I'm unaware of, you'll be dealing with the issue that a lot of the coal extraction infrastructure has been decommissioned over the past decades due to market implosion. There's a lot more to extract and coal from a mine than putting a pick in the wall.
> and we'll outbid everyone else into starvation for what there is... Green cannot compete in this environment, even where it's most heavily invested in.
If you're saying that developed countries will outbid developing ones for natural gas, that seems to indicate that green technologies are no longer merely an investment decision for developing nations... They're the only option that protects their survival. If you're facing a market where you'll be consistently outbid, what choice do you have but to exit that market?
Coal extraction infrastructure hasn't been shut down in Germany. The open pit lignite strip mines are still swallowing up new towns and forests.
An option for what is the question. To keep these people in power long enough for their patrons to rearrange their bets and suck out a bit more on the way out? Sure. To hold over until something else can come online? I don't know.
Poland has huge infrastructure for coal extraction though by the way. Germany itself has only been down since 2018. Then there's players like Greece (75% o their demand is satisfied by their own coal) who can be trivially outbid. There was Ukraine too, but, you know...
Poland has huge infrastructure for coal extraction though by the way. Germany itself has only been down since 2018. Then there's players like Greece (75% o their demand is satisfied by their own coal) who can be trivially outbid. There was Ukraine too, but, you know...
I really hate this take because it ignores so much nuance. Yeah per kw.hr you make cheaper power with wind but guess what? Most population centers are far enough from windy and sunny areas that transmission is very expensive. Is not like utility companies and regulators are idiots in love with coal. Maybe they are but they like money more.
> Most population centers are far enough from windy and sunny areas that transmission is very expensive.
This isn't true, at least in the US: we have abundant offshore wind locations, nearly all of which are underutilized. NY alone is working on a 9,000MW offshore wind installation that'll be capable of powering 2.4 million homes (i.e., over 25% of the state.) Other regions where this holds: the entire Eastern seaboard (wind), the southeast (wind + solar), the entire Pacific seaboard (mostly solar, some wind), the gulf coast (wind + solar), and the Midwest (wind).
Besides, we're already paying the transmission cost in most places: it turns out that most people don't want to live near coal- or oil-fired power plants, which means that they need to be built away from population centers. The same goes for public fears around nuclear power.
I don't think regulators are idiots. They're paying institutional costs that aren't part of the renewable calculations, including inertia that makes changing the power grid inherently expensive. That, combined with the storage problem, are the actual reasons for slower-than-economical uptake.
This isn't true, at least in the US: we have abundant offshore wind locations, nearly all of which are underutilized. NY alone is working on a 9,000MW offshore wind installation that'll be capable of powering 2.4 million homes (i.e., over 25% of the state.) Other regions where this holds: the entire Eastern seaboard (wind), the southeast (wind + solar), the entire Pacific seaboard (mostly solar, some wind), the gulf coast (wind + solar), and the Midwest (wind).
Besides, we're already paying the transmission cost in most places: it turns out that most people don't want to live near coal- or oil-fired power plants, which means that they need to be built away from population centers. The same goes for public fears around nuclear power.
I don't think regulators are idiots. They're paying institutional costs that aren't part of the renewable calculations, including inertia that makes changing the power grid inherently expensive. That, combined with the storage problem, are the actual reasons for slower-than-economical uptake.
Unfortunately, solar and wind and even nuclear do almost nothing to alleviate the impact that oil price has on the price of goods.
BEVs are far from being ready to be a part of the goods distribution market, even by land - power/weight is still far too low. Electrical trains are useful, but building up new rail infrastructure has been neglected and takes a long time. Even if BEVs were viable, battery production is limited, and electrifying the transportation industry would directly compete with increasing renewables on the power grid and the need to expand storage capacity to do so. The price of batteries would sky-rocket and cause inflation this way.
Secondly, oil and other fossil fuels are used for their chemical properties in a large amount of industries - plastics and fertilizer being the most obvious. The cost of oil going up significantly directly impacts all of these industries. Some uses could be replaced with cheap power generation (e.g. H2 production through electrolysis instead of natural gas breakdown), but that requires a massive expansion of the power grid.
So even if we were able to keep power from the grid cheap through renewables, fossil fuel prices exploding would still rapidly increase inflation, probably to unacceptable levels.
Of course, that still doesn't mean we should drill more. The right answer, given the unprecedented threat of global warming, is neither to increase oil supply nor to hope that increasing renewable will be enough. The right answer is to decrease demand - stop producing many unnecessary goods and burying them in plastic then shipping them halfway across the world. Ration the existing oil supply to the highest impact industries, and let other industries replace it.
Don't allow industry to keep using expensive oil while shunting the price off on consumers.
BEVs are far from being ready to be a part of the goods distribution market, even by land - power/weight is still far too low. Electrical trains are useful, but building up new rail infrastructure has been neglected and takes a long time. Even if BEVs were viable, battery production is limited, and electrifying the transportation industry would directly compete with increasing renewables on the power grid and the need to expand storage capacity to do so. The price of batteries would sky-rocket and cause inflation this way.
Secondly, oil and other fossil fuels are used for their chemical properties in a large amount of industries - plastics and fertilizer being the most obvious. The cost of oil going up significantly directly impacts all of these industries. Some uses could be replaced with cheap power generation (e.g. H2 production through electrolysis instead of natural gas breakdown), but that requires a massive expansion of the power grid.
So even if we were able to keep power from the grid cheap through renewables, fossil fuel prices exploding would still rapidly increase inflation, probably to unacceptable levels.
Of course, that still doesn't mean we should drill more. The right answer, given the unprecedented threat of global warming, is neither to increase oil supply nor to hope that increasing renewable will be enough. The right answer is to decrease demand - stop producing many unnecessary goods and burying them in plastic then shipping them halfway across the world. Ration the existing oil supply to the highest impact industries, and let other industries replace it.
Don't allow industry to keep using expensive oil while shunting the price off on consumers.
Solar and wind are strategically untenable. I can harden, concentrate and layer my defenses around dense energy production facilities. I can also concentrate my remedial assets to bring them back online asap.
With the solar in particular it's one cluster munition away from massive degradation.
With the solar in particular it's one cluster munition away from massive degradation.
In times of scarcity and uncertainty, strategy becomes a lesser focus than just survival.
It works the same with money: when you barely have what’s necessary to live, you don’t have the reserve to invest/save strategically to improve your situation, and you don’t necessarily have the peace of mind required to think about it.
It works the same with money: when you barely have what’s necessary to live, you don’t have the reserve to invest/save strategically to improve your situation, and you don’t necessarily have the peace of mind required to think about it.
This seems ridiculous to me. Are you suggesting it'd be easier to disrupt at scale thousands and thousands of turbines, rather than one nuclear plant?
Solar and battery backup for a home should make it more resilient to disruption of the local power infrastructure.
You know what else causes social unrest? Starvation induced by crop failure. We’re already seeing the first signs with recent extreme weather and the megadrought. Wait just a short few years until it really gets moving.
Natural gas is an incredible important input in the development of fertilizers. This is part of the reason cereal prices have skyrocketed so far.
Unfortunately, everything is interlinked. Carbon is certainly an issue, but we've clearly put the cart before the horse.
Unfortunately, everything is interlinked. Carbon is certainly an issue, but we've clearly put the cart before the horse.
That too will cause social unrest, indeed. But we won’t suffer social unrest today just to make tomorrow easier, however wise that might be. We’ll kick the can.
It's already happening. https://archive.ph/pDvLA
Syria collapsed due to crop failure (3 or 4 years in a row). Thats a decade ago now.
Why would the world turn to a more expensive fuel source?
Even in Germany, coal is more expensive than wind and mostly more expensive than PV: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-o...
Even in Germany, coal is more expensive than wind and mostly more expensive than PV: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-o...
It is not valid to compare the levelized cost of non-dispatchable sources of generation like wind and solar and dispatachable sources of generation like coal and nuclear. It’s an apples to oranges comparison, unless you some storage costs to the wind and solar.
In that study you see there is overlap between coal and PV systems and batteries.
In that study you see there is overlap between coal and PV systems and batteries.
Only for rooftop batteries. The estimate for utility scale batteries is entirely lower than coal.
A few weeks ago there was a link paper by an green energy investment advisor firm posted on HN. It displayed the economics pretty clear. Depending on location, a battery with capacity up to 6 hours can be economical viable as long they get a full discharge (ie they sell all the energy) each day at peak price and can charge when the price is at the bottom. It depend in location, how big the difference is between bottom and peak price, and how long that the price sits at each price point.
For wind all those assumptions are wrong and thus won't work. You do not get a daily discharge where you can sell all the energy, you don't get a significant price change each day where you can utilize the price difference, and the capacity needed is a few orders of magnitude greater. Green hydrogen is one of the bigger bets people are hoping on, and right now it only cost several times more than nuclear. Except rather than using nuclear countries are burning fossil fuels because that is cheaper, and thus coal.
For wind all those assumptions are wrong and thus won't work. You do not get a daily discharge where you can sell all the energy, you don't get a significant price change each day where you can utilize the price difference, and the capacity needed is a few orders of magnitude greater. Green hydrogen is one of the bigger bets people are hoping on, and right now it only cost several times more than nuclear. Except rather than using nuclear countries are burning fossil fuels because that is cheaper, and thus coal.
(Wind + batteries) wasn’t something I saw in what I linked to, so in this sub-thread I’m focussed on (PV + batteries) even though the link said the LCOE of onshore wind (by itself) was lower than that of coal.
Afaik thats one of the challenges: there is no such thing as utility scale batteries. Nothing that stores a summers worth of PV and releases it in winter.
That’s kinda why Tesla is doing what it’s doing. I’m not sure the exact production, but it looks like nearly 4 GWh in fixed storage last year, and at least 50 GWh (0.93 megacars * 54 kWh smallest battery) in their cars required the ability to rapidly make factories that can make batteries that could also be used in grid storage (I’m assuming making the batteries is the hard part of both electric cars and grid storage, if I’m wrong about that it breaks my argument).
(And inter-season storage is too high a threshold: not many people are living in the artic/antarctic circles away from grids connecting them to places that still get some sun even in winter).
(And inter-season storage is too high a threshold: not many people are living in the artic/antarctic circles away from grids connecting them to places that still get some sun even in winter).
Its a decent effort, but to put 4GWh in perspective: my small house requires about 10MWh in heating over the winter. I can reduce that with a heat pump by a factor 4, but that till means the storage is only enough for about 1800 homes.
We need a PWh+ of storage, and we need it in the next decade, and we are nowhere near on schedule.
We need a PWh+ of storage, and we need it in the next decade, and we are nowhere near on schedule.
Very few people need seasonal storage, most people are on a grid connected to somewhere closer to the equator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_area_synchronous_grid
All of Europese, far starters.
Or you sell the excess power to other countries like France does with excess nuclear.
I wonder how much their power would cost if they were forced (for no reason at all) to store all that excess nuclear power and use it themselves rather than sell it to willing buyers. It would make nuclear look really uneconomic. Even more so than it already is.
I wonder how much their power would cost if they were forced (for no reason at all) to store all that excess nuclear power and use it themselves rather than sell it to willing buyers. It would make nuclear look really uneconomic. Even more so than it already is.
Neither coal nor nuclear are dispatchable. Dispatchable means you can turn them on and off on demand.
So grid storage batteries, hydro and gas turbine (in order of fastest to slowest).
So grid storage batteries, hydro and gas turbine (in order of fastest to slowest).
While I agree with you that this is what will most likely happen, I don't think it's the only possible alternative.
The best solution to keep both short and long term in mind is to regulate prices on basic goods to prevent the worse social impacts, while allowing commodities to explode in price. This should greatly encoyrage all industries that can get rid of fossil fuels from their supply chains to do so, but also reduce overall consumption of unnecessary items and thus of fossil fuels. If the plastic toy you were importing from China suddenly costs 50$ instead of 5$, perhaps you simply won't buy it, so it won't get produced and wrapped in even more plastic and shipped halfway across the world.
The best solution to keep both short and long term in mind is to regulate prices on basic goods to prevent the worse social impacts, while allowing commodities to explode in price. This should greatly encoyrage all industries that can get rid of fossil fuels from their supply chains to do so, but also reduce overall consumption of unnecessary items and thus of fossil fuels. If the plastic toy you were importing from China suddenly costs 50$ instead of 5$, perhaps you simply won't buy it, so it won't get produced and wrapped in even more plastic and shipped halfway across the world.
Rising energy prices are good for renewables, not bad. A rise makes renewable infrastructure more profitable just as it makes non-renewable infrastructure more profitable. Thus, renewables get even more competitive to non-renewable alternatives.
It won't be as easy to go back to coal for heating, at least short term. In Poland for example, one of the criteria to get a subsidy for switching away from coal for heating was to dispose of the old coal oven. I did that few months ago and switched to gas heating instead. If the prices of gas go up dramatically (and given the current situation that's likely), we don't really have an alternative at the moment.
Why would you spend more money on coal than you can spend on other options?
Power companies aren’t building Wind/PV because it’s green they are building it because it’s cheap. Yes, higher inflation means higher interest rates, but it also means higher payments from customers over time.
Power companies aren’t building Wind/PV because it’s green they are building it because it’s cheap. Yes, higher inflation means higher interest rates, but it also means higher payments from customers over time.
It's cheap and it's liberating. Once you go with solar or wind, you're actually harvesting the "fuel" at point of consumption, which completely changes your transportation story.
They still need a transportation grid for repair and replacement parts, but that need is worlds away from the need of a coal plant supplied with continuous burnable fuel, or a natural gas plant at the end of a pipe. Renewables are a more flexible technology for a world of more change.
They still need a transportation grid for repair and replacement parts, but that need is worlds away from the need of a coal plant supplied with continuous burnable fuel, or a natural gas plant at the end of a pipe. Renewables are a more flexible technology for a world of more change.
Three of four home states for my extended family are under continuous threat of burnining down, and air quality has been unacceptably low (due to fires) for years. Also, at least one is running out of water, to the point that is has been causing food shortages elsewhere for years.
I honestly think the US will end up in a civil war if it ends up being necessary to force action on climate change.
As an aside, I own a pickup. I honestly don't give a shit if gas goes to $20. We already drive it as little as possible.
However, there's no reason that would have to happen. It would cost about a dollar per gallon of gasoline-equivalent for existing prototype atmospheric carbon capture technologies to start drawing down CO2.
That's much cheaper than societal collapse. Heck, it is less than Putin's war is costing US consumers.
The excuses need to end, and action needs to start ramping up.
I honestly think the US will end up in a civil war if it ends up being necessary to force action on climate change.
As an aside, I own a pickup. I honestly don't give a shit if gas goes to $20. We already drive it as little as possible.
However, there's no reason that would have to happen. It would cost about a dollar per gallon of gasoline-equivalent for existing prototype atmospheric carbon capture technologies to start drawing down CO2.
That's much cheaper than societal collapse. Heck, it is less than Putin's war is costing US consumers.
The excuses need to end, and action needs to start ramping up.
The book “American war” is an interesting fiction take on the idea of a civil war based on climate change policies
Is there a web accessible way to query projects by state / district? I'd like to reach out to local politicians about any local carbon bombs.
I was interested in knowing the reason for Saudi Arabia's high emissions and found a site [0] which has information which could explain it a bit. Some information, like the one from Saudi Arabia, is relatively outdated (2018), but informative nonetheless.
[0] https://www.climate-transparency.org/countries/africa/saudi-...
[0] https://www.climate-transparency.org/countries/africa/saudi-...
Funny how all these studies completely ignore methane emissions from abandoned wells.
Everybody seems to willfully ignore every kind of methane leakage on the fossil fuels production chain.
But this one study is about projected growth, so old wells are really not the point.
But this one study is about projected growth, so old wells are really not the point.
Of course that the West would label everything as a "carbon bomb" right now, i.e. everything that doesn't fit its socio-political biases. Labelling nuclear power-plants the same would be met with derision, even though in our day and age the price of energy and the price of "stuff" is pretty well correlated, and seeing as nuclear power-plants are pretty damn expensive then it means that's lots and lots of energy that has been "incorporated" into them. But because there's no black smoke getting out of those nuclear power-plants then it means it's all "in our heads" or something. The same goes for most of the subsidised "green" energy.
If I understand correctly, what you're describing is often called 'embodied carbon' or 'embedded emissions' [0].
Many people spend their lives estimating embedded emissions and, more importantly, the time it will take for any emission-reducing technology (e.g. electric cars) to amortise away the CO2e emissions required to produce it.
For instance, it's been estimated that a Tesla Model 3 "needs to be driven for 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before it does less harm to the environment than a Toyota Corolla" [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_emissions [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifeti...
Many people spend their lives estimating embedded emissions and, more importantly, the time it will take for any emission-reducing technology (e.g. electric cars) to amortise away the CO2e emissions required to produce it.
For instance, it's been estimated that a Tesla Model 3 "needs to be driven for 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before it does less harm to the environment than a Toyota Corolla" [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_emissions [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifeti...
> it's been estimated that a Tesla Model 3 "needs to be driven for 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before it does less harm to the environment than a Toyota Corolla"
Huh, that’s a factor of 5-10 less miles than I was expecting. Good to know.
Huh, that’s a factor of 5-10 less miles than I was expecting. Good to know.
This also depends a lot on the electricity source mix that you're powering your car with today and in the next 10 years.
As a matter of fact, electric cars would be more efficient than ICE cars even with a very high-carbon electricity mix, because thermal power plants are much more efficient than ICE engines (due to size + available cooling source), and the power transmission/battery/electric engines are optimized enough that they don't gobble all the efficiency gains.
Electric cars are better CO2-wise, no question. But it will not reduce emissions enough. People who can afford not having a car should do so, and public authorities should develop public transportation. Of course, people who can't do so will be better off with an electric car, but environmentalists are worried that a push to full-electric will undermine needed efforts to reshape society towards a less energy-hungry world.
As a matter of fact, electric cars would be more efficient than ICE cars even with a very high-carbon electricity mix, because thermal power plants are much more efficient than ICE engines (due to size + available cooling source), and the power transmission/battery/electric engines are optimized enough that they don't gobble all the efficiency gains.
Electric cars are better CO2-wise, no question. But it will not reduce emissions enough. People who can afford not having a car should do so, and public authorities should develop public transportation. Of course, people who can't do so will be better off with an electric car, but environmentalists are worried that a push to full-electric will undermine needed efforts to reshape society towards a less energy-hungry world.
...is the argument you're making here that somehow a nuclear plant or solar farm is somehow equally polluting as a coal-fired power plant? Everything costs time, materials, and money to produce, but only coal plants continue to actively pollute after construction...
And regarding the type of pollution created, more radioactive material has been released into the atmosphere from the world's fleet of coal plants than the world's fleet of nuclear plants. That includes the two with significant containment breaching meltdowns.
It turns out, when you burn a bunch of rocks, You release as gas all the stuff in those rocks.
It turns out, when you burn a bunch of rocks, You release as gas all the stuff in those rocks.
The study is linked at around the middle of the article.
It has a few supporting articles at the bottom under "More on this story", for example one headlined "Climate chaos certain if oil and gas mega-projects go ahead, warns IEA chief"