Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?(ourworldindata.org)
ourworldindata.org
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
641 comments
> But, do we really have a plan for the consequences, not only in Saudi Arabia but also every other nation that's dependent on oil? Hint: we do not.
That's kind of sad.
A long time ago (just before the GFC) I looked at trends in climate change (Arctic sea ice specifically, but that's just a canary), demography, China's GDP, and things like PV/Wind learning curves, and said to myself: "things will get interesting in 2023, plus or minus 7 years." Meaning, geopolitically.
Covid seems to have accelerated events, but the trends were all there way back then, visible to anyone who had the time to think about them. I seem to recall reading warnings by internal think tanks in the US Military that were penned in 2005 or so, warning of these very issues.
Still, I have printed and blu-tacked up the quote from Axel Oxenstierna: "Do you not know, my son, with how very little wisdom the world is governed?"[1].
So I shouldn't be surprised.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Oxenstierna#Quotation
That's kind of sad.
A long time ago (just before the GFC) I looked at trends in climate change (Arctic sea ice specifically, but that's just a canary), demography, China's GDP, and things like PV/Wind learning curves, and said to myself: "things will get interesting in 2023, plus or minus 7 years." Meaning, geopolitically.
Covid seems to have accelerated events, but the trends were all there way back then, visible to anyone who had the time to think about them. I seem to recall reading warnings by internal think tanks in the US Military that were penned in 2005 or so, warning of these very issues.
Still, I have printed and blu-tacked up the quote from Axel Oxenstierna: "Do you not know, my son, with how very little wisdom the world is governed?"[1].
So I shouldn't be surprised.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Oxenstierna#Quotation
Saudi seems to be pushing solar and green hydrogen pretty aggrssively. I know that there are several intiatives ongoing in that direction. And having a lot of real estate pretty suitable for solar and green hydrogen, that seems like one alternative. Other countries might have bigger issues, so.
The quote is really profound. Thanks for sharing it. I haven't heard of Axel Oxenstierna before, but I am looking him up right now.
If geopolitics + trends is interesting to you, I highly recommend "Disunited Nations": https://zeihan.com/disunited-nations/
Thanks!
But read his other book first: Accidental Superpower.
Also, he narrates that book but not the new one. Which is too bad because his narration is truly additive to the book.
Also, he narrates that book but not the new one. Which is too bad because his narration is truly additive to the book.
Good point, "The Accidental Superpower" is wondrous in scope and ideas. The "Absent Superpower", the sequel, is OK; had some interesting insights about shale and the coming removal of the USA from the world. But the first book is timeless.
His Twitter feed is high signal as well: https://twitter.com/PeterZeihan/
His Twitter feed is high signal as well: https://twitter.com/PeterZeihan/
Increasingly, I wonder if the Absent Superpower is going to miss a lot of predictions due to the reduced importance of fossil fuels, which is the main driver of his narrative.
I would rate his series of books more historical fantasy than anything else.
Zeihan is Pop Geopolitics, rendering the subject about as accessible and interesting as it could ever be to a wide audience but is as divergent from the real work as you would expect from pop- anything. Most obviously, Zeihan ignites the reader's imagination of apocalyptic futures without ever explicitly predicting or detailing them.
The future will far more likely turn out to be mundanely unpleasant rather than captivatingly apocalyptic. But that wouldn't keep the audience that Zeihan has on the edge of it's seat and so while many others in his field think that way, they're not garnering the same kind of views.
I find his stuff very engaging and there's a lot to be taken from it, but it should be taken with a skeptical mindset of 'what's the most boring way this might play out' to approach some kind of truth.
The future will far more likely turn out to be mundanely unpleasant rather than captivatingly apocalyptic. But that wouldn't keep the audience that Zeihan has on the edge of it's seat and so while many others in his field think that way, they're not garnering the same kind of views.
I find his stuff very engaging and there's a lot to be taken from it, but it should be taken with a skeptical mindset of 'what's the most boring way this might play out' to approach some kind of truth.
I would love recommendations for more serious/less poppy books on the same topics.
"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel" - Saeed Al Maktoum
The quote is actually likely from a member of Dubai Royal Family.
An interesting fact here is that the UAE will never become poor.
The UAE has saved up over 1.3 million USD dollars per citizen[a]. And this is just the government’s savings. Obviously, there’s immense private wealth on top of that as well. Even if with investment returns as low as 4% per year drawn out, that would translate to $52,000 per citizen.
This is 52k of money that you could almost call free money. We’re not counting for the fact that at least half these citizens are not going to simply sit at home. They’re going to work, earn, start companies, etc. And the citizenry is very highly educated. And a lot of them actually have STEM degrees too (which correlates with higher earnings). So realistically, the per capita annual income could be in the over $100k per citizen range, even after the oil has run out.
[a] The UAE has about 1 million citizens (most of the ~9 million who live in the UAE are not citizens), and the UAE’s sovereign wealth funds have total assets exceeding USD $1.3 trillion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_soverei...
An interesting fact here is that the UAE will never become poor.
The UAE has saved up over 1.3 million USD dollars per citizen[a]. And this is just the government’s savings. Obviously, there’s immense private wealth on top of that as well. Even if with investment returns as low as 4% per year drawn out, that would translate to $52,000 per citizen.
This is 52k of money that you could almost call free money. We’re not counting for the fact that at least half these citizens are not going to simply sit at home. They’re going to work, earn, start companies, etc. And the citizenry is very highly educated. And a lot of them actually have STEM degrees too (which correlates with higher earnings). So realistically, the per capita annual income could be in the over $100k per citizen range, even after the oil has run out.
[a] The UAE has about 1 million citizens (most of the ~9 million who live in the UAE are not citizens), and the UAE’s sovereign wealth funds have total assets exceeding USD $1.3 trillion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_soverei...
It’s not impossible (more like highly likely) for that trust to go the same way of the Nauru Phosphate Royalties Trust. Administrative burden and corruption. Mismanagement. Exponential growth can’t go on forever.
It’s interesting that UAE is doing the same thing that Nauru did except on a larger scale with petrochemicals instead of phosphate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Phosphate_Royalties_Trus...
It’s interesting that UAE is doing the same thing that Nauru did except on a larger scale with petrochemicals instead of phosphate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Phosphate_Royalties_Trus...
I've worked with the UAE's SWF, and imo, they'll never collapse. Corruption is nonexistent nearly in the investment authorities, since they are highly regulated and treated essentially as defacto Western companies listed in the NYSE or something. If they collapse, we would have far bigger problems by that time, since they're invested heavily into the modern global economy. This is not oil wealth, but actual invested wealth.
I came to share exactly this. The UAE is the most forward thinking, of any of the Gulf states. Economic planning literally spans 100 years and multiple scenarios. They're using oil wealth to actively invest in finance, tourism, technology, high-yield agri-tech, and medical research. They also have the most vibrant (by far) tech scene of the Arab world, and are working only to hyper-accelerate that.
If they are so rich and forward thinking, why do they use slave labor?
Being rich and forward thinking is independent of morals
First of all, it's not slave labour that's employed in the construction industry or any of the other sectors. I think I can speak for this considering my relatives worked those "slave" jobs as you put it.
The UAE had long been forced by the British and the Americans to abolish slavery before they gained their independence. This, unlike Saudi Arabia, where it was legal long after the 1970s.
About the "slave" jobs, most of them are basically menial jobs with really shit pay and a combined bunk accommodation. But it's far better than what we get back in India or Pakistan or Bangladesh, which is usually the unemployment line. A number of people have improved their station and are part of the local business community from those levels.
The UAE had long been forced by the British and the Americans to abolish slavery before they gained their independence. This, unlike Saudi Arabia, where it was legal long after the 1970s.
About the "slave" jobs, most of them are basically menial jobs with really shit pay and a combined bunk accommodation. But it's far better than what we get back in India or Pakistan or Bangladesh, which is usually the unemployment line. A number of people have improved their station and are part of the local business community from those levels.
Don't they often take their passports and prevent them from leaving?
Who do you mean by “they”? Unscrupulous private companies with criminal managers that break the law?
A company taking a person’s passport is explicitly illegal in the UAE: https://dubaihow.com/holding-passport-employee-uae/
It carries a criminal prison sentence and a fine. And there’s a big push by the UAE government to go after, and prosecute employers who break this law.
I don’t know why people in Western countries, always without fail, mention this whenever the UAE comes up.
Imagine every time the US was mentioned, a person always pointed out how some private companies in the US treated their employees poorly and abusively (which I’m sure happens). It would be absurd.
A company taking a person’s passport is explicitly illegal in the UAE: https://dubaihow.com/holding-passport-employee-uae/
It carries a criminal prison sentence and a fine. And there’s a big push by the UAE government to go after, and prosecute employers who break this law.
I don’t know why people in Western countries, always without fail, mention this whenever the UAE comes up.
Imagine every time the US was mentioned, a person always pointed out how some private companies in the US treated their employees poorly and abusively (which I’m sure happens). It would be absurd.
You're spot on, as an Israeli I wanted to thank you for highlighting this. There are individuals in every country who perform illegal acts, that should not reflect on the country as a whole. Shukran ya habibi.
In Israel we have a lot of love for the UAE. Together, we're already sharing agra-tech, water-tech, and finance. Israel is looking forward to learning about some of the construction methods being pioneered in building up the desert. This is an unbelievably warm peace.
In Israel we have a lot of love for the UAE. Together, we're already sharing agra-tech, water-tech, and finance. Israel is looking forward to learning about some of the construction methods being pioneered in building up the desert. This is an unbelievably warm peace.
What you're referring to happens in Saudi Arabia and Qatar (and used to happen until the mid 2000s in the UAE, when a Federal decree was passed which stated the criminal sentence explicitly).
Saudi Arabia and Qatar haven't abolished the practice.
They get rich because they can exploit slavery, they are forward in a different direction than most people refer to when saying "forward".
... why not?
> imo, they'll never collapse
Things can change surprisingly fast. My grandmother was born close to the peak of the British Empire, within a few years (plus or minus) of Irish independence; by the time my older brother was born the Empire was reduced to about 5 million people outside the UK, and by the time I was born the UK had humiliated itself by managing to lose a naval dispute with Iceland despite the entire population of Iceland country being approximately the same as the number of personnel in the UK armed forces.
Things can change surprisingly fast. My grandmother was born close to the peak of the British Empire, within a few years (plus or minus) of Irish independence; by the time my older brother was born the Empire was reduced to about 5 million people outside the UK, and by the time I was born the UK had humiliated itself by managing to lose a naval dispute with Iceland despite the entire population of Iceland country being approximately the same as the number of personnel in the UK armed forces.
Again, read my last line. The SWF is responsible for all the subsidies in the UAE, and if they collapse, it would mean we have far bigger problems. The SWF invests in all major indices across all major markets, and even in multiple private equity firms (including my old firm, which was one of the biggest in the world). The collapse of $1.1T worth of investments would be the signal of a global collapse. Imagine if Blackrock or Vanguard declared themselves bankrupt one fine morning - that's what you're implying.
Also Norway would collapse too, since both the Norwegian and Abu Dhabi SWF have very similar investment profiles.
Last time I checked, the British Empire hadn't invested a dime into either the US or Chinese stock markets. Or even had a sovereign wealth fund for that matter.
Also Norway would collapse too, since both the Norwegian and Abu Dhabi SWF have very similar investment profiles.
Last time I checked, the British Empire hadn't invested a dime into either the US or Chinese stock markets. Or even had a sovereign wealth fund for that matter.
I read you last line, but “if it collapses we have bigger things to worry about” was essentially the same argument my father used when he advised me to invest in Lloyds bank — those shares lost 95% of their value since I bought them precisely because “something bigger to worry about” did in fact happen.
Now I’m a software dev not an economist, so perhaps you know better, but I have been told that WW2 essentially bankrupted the British Empire, which was 36.54% of global GDP in 1913.
I am happy to assume the SWF is invested wisely, but even if the manager’s kids and grandkids continue to invest wisely and learn the explicit lessons of the mistakes of others without ever falling into the mindset that they’re “too big [for anyone else to allow them to] fail” and therefore take risks that make failure more likely, black swan events are an ever-present risk. Indeed, one reason I referenced British Empire is the phrase “the empire on which the sun never sets” — it set on the British, and one day it will set on all the nations that now exist, including UAE.
Now I’m a software dev not an economist, so perhaps you know better, but I have been told that WW2 essentially bankrupted the British Empire, which was 36.54% of global GDP in 1913.
I am happy to assume the SWF is invested wisely, but even if the manager’s kids and grandkids continue to invest wisely and learn the explicit lessons of the mistakes of others without ever falling into the mindset that they’re “too big [for anyone else to allow them to] fail” and therefore take risks that make failure more likely, black swan events are an ever-present risk. Indeed, one reason I referenced British Empire is the phrase “the empire on which the sun never sets” — it set on the British, and one day it will set on all the nations that now exist, including UAE.
You're willfully ignoring statements. Your father asked you to invest in one company's single security. The UAE, Singaporean and Norwegian wealth funds are invested in everything from real estate to stocks to bonds to private equity. If those funds were to fail, the cause of that would be because the underlying securities failed, which would imply a collapse of the global financial system.
As for the managers' capabilities, it's not some dude sitting in an office managing a trillion dollars - it's a team of highly brilliant investors who either invest directly or outsource the investing to multiple megafund investor firms across multiple risk profiles such as Blackrock or Blackstone or Vanguard or Citadel, all of whom hire really talented folks (unlike the typical investment banking industry). Nowhere near your dad advising you to invest in LBG.
Also the term "The Sun never sets on the British empire" implied geographical dominance across the world, not immortal dominance. Before you guys, it was the Spanish claiming that.
As for the managers' capabilities, it's not some dude sitting in an office managing a trillion dollars - it's a team of highly brilliant investors who either invest directly or outsource the investing to multiple megafund investor firms across multiple risk profiles such as Blackrock or Blackstone or Vanguard or Citadel, all of whom hire really talented folks (unlike the typical investment banking industry). Nowhere near your dad advising you to invest in LBG.
Also the term "The Sun never sets on the British empire" implied geographical dominance across the world, not immortal dominance. Before you guys, it was the Spanish claiming that.
> You're willfully ignoring statements.
There is no need for that kind of language.
I give the example of my father’s advice because, to repeat myself for emphasis, the global financial system did in fact go very very badly wrong (and not for the first time).
The fact that his argument was also your argument is the segue, not the point.
> it's not some dude sitting in an office managing a trillion dollars - it's a team of highly brilliant investors who either invest directly or outsource the investing to multiple megafund investor firms across multiple risk profiles
I did not wish to imply that it was merely “some dude”, and I am disappointed that you chose to interpret my words as such. After all, I would not imply that you think that Lloyds bank lost so much market cap because “some dude” was planning their business strategy.
I wish to imply that (1) things change, and (2) that a current state of competent management is not something that can be assured forever.
This implication was illustrated with one of many historical examples of nations and empires thought indefatigable at their peak which are now no more.
I also illustrated it with the example of the global financial crisis which led to Lloyds losing so much value. I believe that was caused by teams of highly brilliant investors applying a Nobel-prize winning formula.
> Also the term "The Sun never sets on the British empire" implied geographical dominance across the world, not immortal dominance. Before you guys, it was the Spanish claiming that.
I was already aware both that it was previously used by the Spanish and that one usage was geographical, however it was also used by British people in the sense of never ending dominance - https://access-socialstudies.cappelendamm.no/c316302/tekstop...
There is no need for that kind of language.
I give the example of my father’s advice because, to repeat myself for emphasis, the global financial system did in fact go very very badly wrong (and not for the first time).
The fact that his argument was also your argument is the segue, not the point.
> it's not some dude sitting in an office managing a trillion dollars - it's a team of highly brilliant investors who either invest directly or outsource the investing to multiple megafund investor firms across multiple risk profiles
I did not wish to imply that it was merely “some dude”, and I am disappointed that you chose to interpret my words as such. After all, I would not imply that you think that Lloyds bank lost so much market cap because “some dude” was planning their business strategy.
I wish to imply that (1) things change, and (2) that a current state of competent management is not something that can be assured forever.
This implication was illustrated with one of many historical examples of nations and empires thought indefatigable at their peak which are now no more.
I also illustrated it with the example of the global financial crisis which led to Lloyds losing so much value. I believe that was caused by teams of highly brilliant investors applying a Nobel-prize winning formula.
> Also the term "The Sun never sets on the British empire" implied geographical dominance across the world, not immortal dominance. Before you guys, it was the Spanish claiming that.
I was already aware both that it was previously used by the Spanish and that one usage was geographical, however it was also used by British people in the sense of never ending dominance - https://access-socialstudies.cappelendamm.no/c316302/tekstop...
> the global financial system did in fact go very very badly wrong (and not for the first time).
And has since tripled from pre-GFC peaks. Markets are cyclical, you think funds haven't baked that into their models?
> I wish to imply that (1) things change, and (2) that a current state of competent management is not something that can be assured forever.
Competency in management is a passed down skill, not an innate skill that someone alone possesses. From what I've observed by working with them directly, all SWFs hire the best people across the world, without discriminating based on nationality (except for Chairmanship). As long as the global talent pool exists at the same standards or higher, these funds will have the manpower required to manage. In most cases, they even paid better than most private investment firms, and all of them paid more than tech, management consulting or investment banking. A lot of their venture arms were led/advised by former tech entrepreneurs for instance.
> After all, I would not imply that you think that Lloyds bank lost so much market cap because “some dude” was planning their business strategy
LBG lost so much market cap precisely because some dudes, the CEOs, failed in planning their business strategy well. All of the UK banks messed up big time during the GFC, and hence all of them are failures right now. Barclay's is only standing now because the Qataris bought into it. But that's one sector in one country alone.
> This implication was illustrated with one of many historical examples of nations and empires thought indefatigable at their peak which are now no more
None of Norway, the UAE or Singapore are empires. If you want to talk about nations, France, Spain, Norway, Sweden, etc still exist as independent nations even after so many centuries right? In almost all cases, they've even bumped up their GDP, even if not by much, in spite of losing their colonial holdings.
> I believe that was caused by teams of highly brilliant investors applying a Nobel-prize winning formula.
You're talking about Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) collapsing, which happened in 1997. Those Nobel-winning guys failed by betting massively on Russian securities, believing that Russia would open up after USSR dissolution. Again, the focus on one strategy alone.
Point was, you are focusing on one investment alone in all examples. Meanwhile, these SWFs are vastly diversified across various security products. As I said before, if you want to take down any SWF, you would have to take down the global economy. That would mean taking down BOTH USA and China, which these countries are invested into. Even if only one country collapsed, these funds will survive because they are that diversified. While the GFC punished most of the finance industry, these funds survived because they were highly spread out. If the USA AND China were to collapse though, I doubt the free market concept would even exist by then. That would mean no more FAANG, no more tech companies, no more cushy SV jobs, heck, no more HackerNews. I doubt (and they doubt too) that the USA and China would let such a collapse happen though - as we've seen in the GFC era, and currently in the C19 era.
> however it was also used by British people in the sense of never ending dominance
Their mistake, classic British hubris. Not to mention, as I've said before, neither the UAE, Norway, Singapore, etc consider themselves as empires in this day and age. On the contrary, all of these places are extremely cautious about the future - the UAE fund constantly worries about oil drying up and began investing into renewables research around the world since the early 2000s, Singapore worries constantly about global warming and Malaysia cutting them off, Norway's SWF worries too much about being too dependent on oil revenues...
And has since tripled from pre-GFC peaks. Markets are cyclical, you think funds haven't baked that into their models?
> I wish to imply that (1) things change, and (2) that a current state of competent management is not something that can be assured forever.
Competency in management is a passed down skill, not an innate skill that someone alone possesses. From what I've observed by working with them directly, all SWFs hire the best people across the world, without discriminating based on nationality (except for Chairmanship). As long as the global talent pool exists at the same standards or higher, these funds will have the manpower required to manage. In most cases, they even paid better than most private investment firms, and all of them paid more than tech, management consulting or investment banking. A lot of their venture arms were led/advised by former tech entrepreneurs for instance.
> After all, I would not imply that you think that Lloyds bank lost so much market cap because “some dude” was planning their business strategy
LBG lost so much market cap precisely because some dudes, the CEOs, failed in planning their business strategy well. All of the UK banks messed up big time during the GFC, and hence all of them are failures right now. Barclay's is only standing now because the Qataris bought into it. But that's one sector in one country alone.
> This implication was illustrated with one of many historical examples of nations and empires thought indefatigable at their peak which are now no more
None of Norway, the UAE or Singapore are empires. If you want to talk about nations, France, Spain, Norway, Sweden, etc still exist as independent nations even after so many centuries right? In almost all cases, they've even bumped up their GDP, even if not by much, in spite of losing their colonial holdings.
> I believe that was caused by teams of highly brilliant investors applying a Nobel-prize winning formula.
You're talking about Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) collapsing, which happened in 1997. Those Nobel-winning guys failed by betting massively on Russian securities, believing that Russia would open up after USSR dissolution. Again, the focus on one strategy alone.
Point was, you are focusing on one investment alone in all examples. Meanwhile, these SWFs are vastly diversified across various security products. As I said before, if you want to take down any SWF, you would have to take down the global economy. That would mean taking down BOTH USA and China, which these countries are invested into. Even if only one country collapsed, these funds will survive because they are that diversified. While the GFC punished most of the finance industry, these funds survived because they were highly spread out. If the USA AND China were to collapse though, I doubt the free market concept would even exist by then. That would mean no more FAANG, no more tech companies, no more cushy SV jobs, heck, no more HackerNews. I doubt (and they doubt too) that the USA and China would let such a collapse happen though - as we've seen in the GFC era, and currently in the C19 era.
> however it was also used by British people in the sense of never ending dominance
Their mistake, classic British hubris. Not to mention, as I've said before, neither the UAE, Norway, Singapore, etc consider themselves as empires in this day and age. On the contrary, all of these places are extremely cautious about the future - the UAE fund constantly worries about oil drying up and began investing into renewables research around the world since the early 2000s, Singapore worries constantly about global warming and Malaysia cutting them off, Norway's SWF worries too much about being too dependent on oil revenues...
You making an assumption UAE will never dip their hand into their golden goose. Money come and go. Just go ask Rothschild and Rockefeller when they had wealth beyond imagination back then. I wouldn't put too much faith in SWF. Nokia gone. Lehman gone. They take along a lot of billionaire money too. So SWF will have to be incredibily lucky like Buffet to keep their wealth. Let just say in 50 years, it will be very different than what you praised about SWF today.
Fun fact, the Rothschild and Rockefeller wealth still exists, although it's heavily fragmented. For the Rockefellers, the US government explicitly stepped in and split their golden goose (Standard Oil - > Exxon + Chevron + Texaco). The Rothschild money permeates Europe throughout. The split is because that's what happens when you get a family spanning more than thousands of members. And each of their branches are massively wealthy.
You mention the UAE dipping into its SWF, except it already does that. The SWF accumulates the oil wealth from exports, which is reinvested into various investments around the world. A fraction (about 50B USD) of the annual returns from that wealth is what is used to run the UAE and all of its welfare programmes, its military, etc. Unlike the Saudis, UAE and Qatar both benefit from really small local populations - there are about 300k Qatari citizens and 1M Emirati citizens worldwide.
And Buffett is not lucky. He made a lot of successful bets everywhere year - I recommend reading his investor letters if you can, where he explains his rationale behind every investment decision, including the ones that turned out to be duds.
Just as you say that SWFs won't exist in 50 years, there are banks in Switzerland that have existed for hundreds of years. Oxford and Cambridge are just as prestigious today as they were 800 years ago. Once a culture is established and buttressed, it will be hard to shake it off.
You mention the UAE dipping into its SWF, except it already does that. The SWF accumulates the oil wealth from exports, which is reinvested into various investments around the world. A fraction (about 50B USD) of the annual returns from that wealth is what is used to run the UAE and all of its welfare programmes, its military, etc. Unlike the Saudis, UAE and Qatar both benefit from really small local populations - there are about 300k Qatari citizens and 1M Emirati citizens worldwide.
And Buffett is not lucky. He made a lot of successful bets everywhere year - I recommend reading his investor letters if you can, where he explains his rationale behind every investment decision, including the ones that turned out to be duds.
Just as you say that SWFs won't exist in 50 years, there are banks in Switzerland that have existed for hundreds of years. Oxford and Cambridge are just as prestigious today as they were 800 years ago. Once a culture is established and buttressed, it will be hard to shake it off.
Idk if a monarchy where citizens are a small minority can be thought of this way.
It's like saying a company has lots of money saved. Doesn't matter much if the operation aren't profitable.
Economic activity ceasing is still what it is.
...in any case, gulf oil will likely be the last well abandoned. It's so cheap to produce that production can continue at very low oil prices. The last half of any adoption curve is long, and people will still consume some oil and gas for several more decades.
It's like saying a company has lots of money saved. Doesn't matter much if the operation aren't profitable.
Economic activity ceasing is still what it is.
...in any case, gulf oil will likely be the last well abandoned. It's so cheap to produce that production can continue at very low oil prices. The last half of any adoption curve is long, and people will still consume some oil and gas for several more decades.
I wouldn't so boldly claim they won't go poor, you trust in good management and no internal misfortune or subterfuge. Though their savings buy them considerable time to figure out an economic path forward, the loss of their profit center will surely affect the weight of their currency and political influence.
Oil won't go away of course, once the huge capital investment no longer makes sense it will become less abundant as fewer companies will be extracting and refining it. So they could see profits from oil as a niche resource in a post oil world.
Oil won't go away of course, once the huge capital investment no longer makes sense it will become less abundant as fewer companies will be extracting and refining it. So they could see profits from oil as a niche resource in a post oil world.
If they are well prepared then they will actually do better after the oil is gone. The resource curse results in countries focusing on a few narrow industries. Resource extraction is easy but it only benefits those who are directly employed by it. Usually governments don't make it easy for other types of businesses to flourish because they can entirely support themselves on resource extraction.
Indeed. That said, what will they diversify to? I wonder if it will be solar energy generation due to natural abundance. Barring that, it will have to be something like high tech, which itself will be dependent on importing talented labour. That will only happen with low tax rates, with Dubai acting as a hub for transient talent looking to save for a few years, then head off.
Meanwhile, given the local Emirati will form a small fraction of the economy, they may effectively act as rent seekers on income and corporate tax from the rest of the economy.
Will this be an ideal egalitarian society? Probably not, at least in terms of my values. But those seem like the underlying dynamics, for better or worse.
Of course, if diversification isn't competitive relative to the rest of the world, things will go the other way.
Meanwhile, given the local Emirati will form a small fraction of the economy, they may effectively act as rent seekers on income and corporate tax from the rest of the economy.
Will this be an ideal egalitarian society? Probably not, at least in terms of my values. But those seem like the underlying dynamics, for better or worse.
Of course, if diversification isn't competitive relative to the rest of the world, things will go the other way.
> I wonder if it will be solar energy generation due to natural abundance.
Yup, it’s happening. Gigawatts of solar power is being constructed. The UAE is getting this solar energy at the cheapest price per watt worldwide as well: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2020/04/28/abu-dh...
> will be dependent on importing talented labour
This is already happening at a massive scale.
> That will only happen with low tax rate
This is also already true. The personal income tax rate is 0%. Most types of companies don’t pay any taxes either. The only tax you directly incur is the VAT of 5%.
> Will this be an ideal egalitarian society?
In the future, it’ll probably transform more and more into a sort of hyper-capitalistic and highly-successful country like Switzerland.
Yup, it’s happening. Gigawatts of solar power is being constructed. The UAE is getting this solar energy at the cheapest price per watt worldwide as well: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2020/04/28/abu-dh...
> will be dependent on importing talented labour
This is already happening at a massive scale.
> That will only happen with low tax rate
This is also already true. The personal income tax rate is 0%. Most types of companies don’t pay any taxes either. The only tax you directly incur is the VAT of 5%.
> Will this be an ideal egalitarian society?
In the future, it’ll probably transform more and more into a sort of hyper-capitalistic and highly-successful country like Switzerland.
I mostly agree with this post, but have to point out that the UAE is not a unitary polity. It's a loose confederacy of seven related Sheikdoms, with a wide range of policy and level of development.
Almost all of that wealth is concentrated in the sovereign wealth fund of the emirate of Abu Dhabi, because Abu Dhabi has by far the largest oil reserves. Next is Dubai, which has much less accumulated in its sovereign wealth fund, because it's nearly run out of oil. However it's done a lot to diversity its economy into finance, services, and tourism.
But as for the other five emirates, the picture is much more bleak. Nor is it like the US, where finances or taxation are co-mingled on the federal level to any serious degree. If California generates a lot of wealth relative to Alabama, you'd expect a lot to be redistributed. But Abu Dhabi will not be sending any of its enormous wealth holdings to Sharjah by any means.
Almost all of that wealth is concentrated in the sovereign wealth fund of the emirate of Abu Dhabi, because Abu Dhabi has by far the largest oil reserves. Next is Dubai, which has much less accumulated in its sovereign wealth fund, because it's nearly run out of oil. However it's done a lot to diversity its economy into finance, services, and tourism.
But as for the other five emirates, the picture is much more bleak. Nor is it like the US, where finances or taxation are co-mingled on the federal level to any serious degree. If California generates a lot of wealth relative to Alabama, you'd expect a lot to be redistributed. But Abu Dhabi will not be sending any of its enormous wealth holdings to Sharjah by any means.
You’re partly right, but there are actually a fairly significant amount of lateral transfers to other emirates (through the federal budget, which is mostly funded by Abu Dhabi). Things like the electricity and water system are run federally (by FEWA - the Federal Water & Electricity Authority) in 4 northern-most emirates. Many other benefit systems are also mostly funded by Abu Dhabi, and primarily for the benefit of the citizens of other emirates — one example might being the Sheikh Zayed Housing Programme. Abu Dhabi actually does help the nationals in all the emirates.
Thanks for pointing this out! I wasn't aware of that.
> Even if with investment returns as low as 4%
That line of reasoning always make me smile.
That's like assuming that once you get a certain threshold of wealth, you can automatically assume you'll be fine forever.
And by the way, that "as low as 4%"... Most people throw percentages all around the table, easy like that... Seems funny.
Call me stupid, but the idea of a whole country being able to piggyback off all other countries seems unlikely to say the least.
That line of reasoning always make me smile.
That's like assuming that once you get a certain threshold of wealth, you can automatically assume you'll be fine forever.
And by the way, that "as low as 4%"... Most people throw percentages all around the table, easy like that... Seems funny.
Call me stupid, but the idea of a whole country being able to piggyback off all other countries seems unlikely to say the least.
Do you realize most 401(k) and IRA accounts in the US are all invested securities (like equities and bonds)? Similarly, most wealthy people invest their money in general?
Also, I didn’t pull the 4% out of a hat. It’s actually the “Safe Withdrawal Rate[a]” recommended by Mr. Money Mustache. See his blog posts on it: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-nee...
Also, see: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/11/29/how-to-retire-for...
[a] Bogleheads article on Safe withdrawal rates: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Safe_withdrawal_rates
Also, I didn’t pull the 4% out of a hat. It’s actually the “Safe Withdrawal Rate[a]” recommended by Mr. Money Mustache. See his blog posts on it: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-nee...
Also, see: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/11/29/how-to-retire-for...
[a] Bogleheads article on Safe withdrawal rates: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Safe_withdrawal_rates
> the UAE will never become poor
But their land might become uninhabitable in a few decades.
But their land might become uninhabitable in a few decades.
It is already almost uninhabitable and has been for a long time. Nevertheless ~10M people live there. Technology is solving this, either the root cause or the symptoms
Air conditioning the outside is almost assuredly not sustainable.
Not sure what you mean “the outside”. Only indoors are air-conditioned (using electricity). And in the UAE, right now, electricity generation is slowly being switched over solar energy (away from natural gas), which is clean / renewable / sustainable. (https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/worlds-largest-...)
It was Qatar that I was thinking of.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/world/climate-e...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/world/climate-e...
They do have in fact one neighbor, Iran, in which in some places temperatures rise above 50°C, with high humidity, which is close to uninhabitable. And this is due to climate change, so it is going to get worse. I think it is possible this has ripple effects.
Rashid bin Saeed al Maktoum actually, his son. And yeah, member of the Dubai royal family.
> ...his son will ride a camel
I wonder if in the future, camels will be owned and/or ridden only by very wealthy individuals.
(like many horses nowadays)
I wonder if in the future, camels will be owned and/or ridden only by very wealthy individuals.
(like many horses nowadays)
That's currently the case in the UAE. Only fancy people who race camels own camels.
Not to be nitpicky, but I'd s/many/a few.
We have boarded horses for years. You'd be surprised at how little money the average horse owner makes. People tend to only think of the expensive racehorses and the wealthy people who own them and not of the person who works, e.g., as a McDonald's manager and paid $700 for her horse and less in monthly upkeep than a car payment.
We have boarded horses for years. You'd be surprised at how little money the average horse owner makes. People tend to only think of the expensive racehorses and the wealthy people who own them and not of the person who works, e.g., as a McDonald's manager and paid $700 for her horse and less in monthly upkeep than a car payment.
Horses and camels were always the playthings of the rich. About 1860-1910 it got to the middle-rich farmer (In the US many farmers had 100 acre farms: the value of that land alone means rich even if it was value you couldn't access), but then tractors took over.
Do androids dream of electric sheep?
Middle-income Americans - their innumeracy, their illiteracy, their armchair-quarterbacking, their habit of seeing the Other one-dimensionally, their racism, their dollars - have always been a greater threat to Saudi Arabia and other people of the world than the price of fucking oil.
So, middle-income Americans are just like the average human being, just luckier in having a few more bucks in their paycheck?
> have always been a greater threat to Saudi Arabia
It all seems to have gone pretty well for Saudi to date.
It all seems to have gone pretty well for Saudi to date.
My apologies if I seemed to be wishing ill tidings for Saudi Arabia. I have no wish for Saudi Arabia to see bad times ahead. However, I think every oil-dependent country is in for a rocky ride in the next decade, as renewables become the dominant energy source, and since Saudi Arabia is the world's leading oil producer, they came first to mind. Not something I want to happen at all, just something I think will happen, which we should prepare to mitigate. My apologies if it sounded otherwise.
Um, suppose you would want take a stab at that, why would specifically comment on middle-income ones?
Are they even the ones in charge of the country?
Are they even the ones in charge of the country?
The House of Saud has a plan. It isn't going quite as well as they had hoped, but it's going. Aramco was IPO'd. They wanted a trillion dollar valuation, and didn't get it.
The next step is to sell that stock before the oil market collapses, preferably leaving themselves with a lot of cash and a minority stake in a much smaller company.
Cash is going into technology stocks, venture funds, and international real estate.
The next step is to sell that stock before the oil market collapses, preferably leaving themselves with a lot of cash and a minority stake in a much smaller company.
Cash is going into technology stocks, venture funds, and international real estate.
Saudi needs to do one of two things before the oil runs out:
1) Diversify their economy
2) Build up enough sovereign wealth to maintain their citizens standard of living after the oil has run out.
The first is very hard, because huge percentages of their population are completely disengaged from the economy. It's estimated that 30-40% of working age adults neither have a job, nor are looking for one. An unusually high percentage of those who have jobs work for the government, and somewhere close to 90% of non-oil jobs are held by foreigners. There is immense social and economic pressure against citizens of KSA getting private sector jobs. The biggest "employer" in the country is the yearly hajj pilgrimage, which isn't a lot.
The latter is incredibly hard because of the former. That 30-40% of the population that don't have jobs need to be fed, or they'll eventually revolt. And all of those government jobs cost a huge amount of money. And the fact that the citizens of KSA neither want jobs (apparently) and aren't properly trained for a lot of those jobs makes reducing the social services bill very, very hard.
If they can outrun the de-carbonization of the world, KSA will do okay. Maybe not as good as it was during the peak (if you were one of the few getting the benefits), but not terrible. If they don't outrun de-carbonization .... well, then I would recommend not being there when whatever happens, happens.
1) Diversify their economy
2) Build up enough sovereign wealth to maintain their citizens standard of living after the oil has run out.
The first is very hard, because huge percentages of their population are completely disengaged from the economy. It's estimated that 30-40% of working age adults neither have a job, nor are looking for one. An unusually high percentage of those who have jobs work for the government, and somewhere close to 90% of non-oil jobs are held by foreigners. There is immense social and economic pressure against citizens of KSA getting private sector jobs. The biggest "employer" in the country is the yearly hajj pilgrimage, which isn't a lot.
The latter is incredibly hard because of the former. That 30-40% of the population that don't have jobs need to be fed, or they'll eventually revolt. And all of those government jobs cost a huge amount of money. And the fact that the citizens of KSA neither want jobs (apparently) and aren't properly trained for a lot of those jobs makes reducing the social services bill very, very hard.
If they can outrun the de-carbonization of the world, KSA will do okay. Maybe not as good as it was during the peak (if you were one of the few getting the benefits), but not terrible. If they don't outrun de-carbonization .... well, then I would recommend not being there when whatever happens, happens.
Why isn't anyone studying the Arabic states as UBI models? Incompatibility with western democracy? They are the closest to a large scale UBI system right now. Much bigger than those toy hundred people sort-of-UBI-but-not-really experiments.
Because they're not UBI, they're featherbedded kleptocracies. Everything keeps running provided they have the income to maintain the corruption and trickle down at every level to the officials who expect a varying scale of bribes and kickbacks.
The system though ultimately is designed to ensure wealth flows upwards to the top, not to actually build a capitalist economy with a guaranteed minimum living standard.
The system though ultimately is designed to ensure wealth flows upwards to the top, not to actually build a capitalist economy with a guaranteed minimum living standard.
But the effect is same. At the end of the day citizens survive on state welfare. Nobody said UBI is contingent on a corruption-free, western democracy.
XorNot(1)
Because the idea of UBI is that it's universal basic income, which keeps you fed and a roof over your head and other such basic things. I heavily doubt that the mentioned 30-40% of the population are okay to live with the bare minimum without having any interest in doing something to change that; that's only possible if your actual income allows for more than that, which seems to be the case in the Saudi States.
> Why isn't anyone studying the Arabic states as UBI models?
Perceived cultural differences, possibly leading to more interesting, uncomfortable parallels than many would like. On the ground in the kingdom, in the field, there is an enormous cultural bias towards status, and low-status jobs are shunned. This is made more complex because of a subtle, more recent cultural bias that emerged from having foreigners perform almost all the work for so long, and foreigners in Wahhabi faith as it is practically practiced (in theory it is different) are considered inferior in an unenlightened sense. A halo effect emerged around private jobs, and now any job at all that used to be performed by foreigners is considered low(er) status.
This is changing rapidly and gaining steam in numbers at the margins with many younger generations. I've met some incredibly brilliant, young KSA native engineers. Many are working hard to reverse the rot the Resource Curse visited upon the kingdom.
However, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that kingdom's experience as unique to it, saying that does not apply to America or many other developed nations. Considering the penchant for superficial solutions, get-rich-quick adulation, and de facto class stratifications in all developed nations, I'm not sanguine a UBI would elicit much better results than a Resource Curse. Norway is an exception that proves the rule, from what I've seen so far.
And I wouldn't point fingers at just nations, either. Even here on HN, where startups with fast 10-1,000X liquidity events receive gallons of ink compared to the inkjet droplets miserly begrudged to to self-funding, slow organic growth companies, we engage in similar dynamics.
Making someone or a nation fabulously wealthy and/or powerful doesn't change them, it only discloses their true character and moral fiber. The uncomfortable truth is a substantial portion of us, whether at the individual or nation-state level, when granted free reign with no one saying "No", are jerks. IMHO UBI is like pure communism or pure capitalism: they only sustainably and consistently work if the vast majority (I'd personally guess around 95%) are truly not jerks, and thus have the means to keep the levers of power away from those who are.
BTW, I'm one of those jerks. Maybe not the biggest douche-canoe you've ever met, but I'm definitely a jerk, though I chip away at that.
Perceived cultural differences, possibly leading to more interesting, uncomfortable parallels than many would like. On the ground in the kingdom, in the field, there is an enormous cultural bias towards status, and low-status jobs are shunned. This is made more complex because of a subtle, more recent cultural bias that emerged from having foreigners perform almost all the work for so long, and foreigners in Wahhabi faith as it is practically practiced (in theory it is different) are considered inferior in an unenlightened sense. A halo effect emerged around private jobs, and now any job at all that used to be performed by foreigners is considered low(er) status.
This is changing rapidly and gaining steam in numbers at the margins with many younger generations. I've met some incredibly brilliant, young KSA native engineers. Many are working hard to reverse the rot the Resource Curse visited upon the kingdom.
However, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that kingdom's experience as unique to it, saying that does not apply to America or many other developed nations. Considering the penchant for superficial solutions, get-rich-quick adulation, and de facto class stratifications in all developed nations, I'm not sanguine a UBI would elicit much better results than a Resource Curse. Norway is an exception that proves the rule, from what I've seen so far.
And I wouldn't point fingers at just nations, either. Even here on HN, where startups with fast 10-1,000X liquidity events receive gallons of ink compared to the inkjet droplets miserly begrudged to to self-funding, slow organic growth companies, we engage in similar dynamics.
Making someone or a nation fabulously wealthy and/or powerful doesn't change them, it only discloses their true character and moral fiber. The uncomfortable truth is a substantial portion of us, whether at the individual or nation-state level, when granted free reign with no one saying "No", are jerks. IMHO UBI is like pure communism or pure capitalism: they only sustainably and consistently work if the vast majority (I'd personally guess around 95%) are truly not jerks, and thus have the means to keep the levers of power away from those who are.
BTW, I'm one of those jerks. Maybe not the biggest douche-canoe you've ever met, but I'm definitely a jerk, though I chip away at that.
Because they’re wildly unstable autocracies?
Oil is not running out in Saudi Arabia anytime soon. They have reserves underneath their desert land equal to over 200 years' worth of current consumption. [0]
What they need to do is stop pumping it, and soon, otherwise climate change will cook us all.
---
[0]: https://www.worldometers.info/oil/saudi-arabia-oil/
What they need to do is stop pumping it, and soon, otherwise climate change will cook us all.
---
[0]: https://www.worldometers.info/oil/saudi-arabia-oil/
It's well-known that there's a lot of oil left. The problem is that it's becoming increasingly less accessible and thus more expensive to extract.
At this point it seems demand for oil will run out before supply
We'll still need oil, not for energy, but as a raw material for production of plastics and many other products.
> We'll still need oil
Sure, but not nearly in as large of quantities.
If the value of saudi arabian oil plummets to 1/4th its value, then they are still screwed, even though "oil is still used as raw materials" and it has non-zero value.
Owning something that is almost worthless isn't really much better than owning something that is literally worthless.
Sure, but not nearly in as large of quantities.
If the value of saudi arabian oil plummets to 1/4th its value, then they are still screwed, even though "oil is still used as raw materials" and it has non-zero value.
Owning something that is almost worthless isn't really much better than owning something that is literally worthless.
Perhaps, but that won’t save KSA.
First, most plastics are now made from natural gas, something KSA doesn’t produce a huge amount of. They’ve got decent reserves, but their production lags. Qatar produced 70% more LNG last year than KSA. LNG is also kind of a pain to transit by sea, which advantages countries that can produce natural gas closer to the factories (e.g. The United States and Russia, among others).
And second, plastic production consumes a relatively small part of the world petroleum production. Here in the US it’s estimated that about 2.7% of our yearly petroleum consumption. World wide only 4% of world petroleum went into plastics (2012 figure).
So even if plastics continue to be made of oil, plastic consumption remains constant, and there is no major shift in who produces the feedstocks for plastic (all wildly optimistic assumptions), then KSA can expect to keep about 2.7-4% of their current oil export budgets. That is catastrophic for a country like KSA, who needs all the oil money they can get.
First, most plastics are now made from natural gas, something KSA doesn’t produce a huge amount of. They’ve got decent reserves, but their production lags. Qatar produced 70% more LNG last year than KSA. LNG is also kind of a pain to transit by sea, which advantages countries that can produce natural gas closer to the factories (e.g. The United States and Russia, among others).
And second, plastic production consumes a relatively small part of the world petroleum production. Here in the US it’s estimated that about 2.7% of our yearly petroleum consumption. World wide only 4% of world petroleum went into plastics (2012 figure).
So even if plastics continue to be made of oil, plastic consumption remains constant, and there is no major shift in who produces the feedstocks for plastic (all wildly optimistic assumptions), then KSA can expect to keep about 2.7-4% of their current oil export budgets. That is catastrophic for a country like KSA, who needs all the oil money they can get.
I hope so, but then I look around at all the less developed countries out there and all I see is a massive demand for oil. :/
As per the article, renewables will be significantly cheaper than oil.
Why would a poor country not purchase the cheaper option?
Why would a poor country not purchase the cheaper option?
You tell me why poor countries wouldn’t invest in solar, wind, hydro, or geothermal. (Hint: you have to build the infrastructure first, and not all of these are even practical everywhere.) Hydrogen isn’t all that practical as a fuel, and biomass just puts CO2 back into the atmosphere.
Can you think of a renewable source of energy that’s both attractive to poor and developing countries, and also practical?
Oil is easy. You put it in a tank, then pump it through an atomizer, and set it on fire. You can transport it easily, it works anywhere, and you can run a car on it. I know, electric cars are a thing, but not in the places I’m talking about here.
Electrical transmission across long distances, and, especially between different countries with different power grids is a nightmare.
What am I missing here?
Can you think of a renewable source of energy that’s both attractive to poor and developing countries, and also practical?
Oil is easy. You put it in a tank, then pump it through an atomizer, and set it on fire. You can transport it easily, it works anywhere, and you can run a car on it. I know, electric cars are a thing, but not in the places I’m talking about here.
Electrical transmission across long distances, and, especially between different countries with different power grids is a nightmare.
What am I missing here?
You’re massively underestimating the infrastructure needed to take oil and put it in the consumers’ hands.
Biomass puts CO2 back in the atmosphere, but at least it’s not increasing the total CO2 in the biosphere.
Biomass puts CO2 back in the atmosphere, but at least it’s not increasing the total CO2 in the biosphere.
Most of that infrastructure is in the extraction and transport to the destination country. Once the oil is there, all you really need is a storage system, and a way for consumers to buy it.
There's no need to pump it around, at all. You can transport it by truck. Growing up, my family had a fuel oil heater. We'd have the tank filled periodically, and that was all there was. Likewise, gas pumps are just storage tanks hooked up to pumps. There's practically nothing to it; it's all basically 19th century technology that's easy to build, and doesn't require any sophisticated engineering.
There's no need to pump it around, at all. You can transport it by truck. Growing up, my family had a fuel oil heater. We'd have the tank filled periodically, and that was all there was. Likewise, gas pumps are just storage tanks hooked up to pumps. There's practically nothing to it; it's all basically 19th century technology that's easy to build, and doesn't require any sophisticated engineering.
That only works for relatively small amounts of fossil fuels for a relatively short distance. Once you start to consume a lot of oil, you really need to start piping it around and only depending on trucks for last mile work. America[0] and Europe[1] are covered in pipelines to move both oil and natural gas. Trucks are only used to cover the distance between where the pipe stops and the gas station is.
0 - https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/n...
1 - https://theodora.com/pipelines/europe_oil_and_gas_pipelines_...
0 - https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/n...
1 - https://theodora.com/pipelines/europe_oil_and_gas_pipelines_...
From everything I have read, it is already the case that building a new PV plant is cheaper in most of the world than building a new coal plant, and soon it will be cheaper than building a new oil power plant.
Similar to how much of the developed world skipped landline phones, and went straight to cellphones, because they didn't have to build as much connection infrastructure.
Similar to how much of the developed world skipped landline phones, and went straight to cellphones, because they didn't have to build as much connection infrastructure.
You are missong that it's the large fossil fuel plants that need long distance transmission.
Wind and solar (the ones getting cheaper) need storage, not transmission.
Wind and solar (the ones getting cheaper) need storage, not transmission.
Fair enough, but then you're just substituting gigantic batteries, such as the Tesla Megapack, for the vast transmission networks necessary to make oil, coal, and nuclear practical. These are also not trivial problems to solve for a poor country, without assistance from more developed nations.
So, the question is: is there the political will in the developed world to help the developing world bootstrap renewable energy? History suggests not, unfortunately, but I would love to be wrong on this.
Edit: I forgot to mention, as well: lithium batteries eventually lose capacity and need to be replaced. So, storage is essentially an ongoing maintenance cost in this scenario. Google tells me that the Megapack costs ~$300/kW, all in, so, add that to the cost of your renewable energy. [0] Once you do that, if you're thinking short term, fossil fuels start looking really, really good.
Not to mention that lithium is a limited resource, and the mining of lithium is absolutely terrible for the local environment.
Google also tells me that the Tesla Megapack comes with a 15 year "energy retention" warranty. [1] So, you need to make this investment every 15 years. And, unless the prices of batteries go way down per kWh, that can add up real quick.
---
[0]: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/05/tesla-megapack-powerpac...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Megapack
So, the question is: is there the political will in the developed world to help the developing world bootstrap renewable energy? History suggests not, unfortunately, but I would love to be wrong on this.
Edit: I forgot to mention, as well: lithium batteries eventually lose capacity and need to be replaced. So, storage is essentially an ongoing maintenance cost in this scenario. Google tells me that the Megapack costs ~$300/kW, all in, so, add that to the cost of your renewable energy. [0] Once you do that, if you're thinking short term, fossil fuels start looking really, really good.
Not to mention that lithium is a limited resource, and the mining of lithium is absolutely terrible for the local environment.
Google also tells me that the Tesla Megapack comes with a 15 year "energy retention" warranty. [1] So, you need to make this investment every 15 years. And, unless the prices of batteries go way down per kWh, that can add up real quick.
---
[0]: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/05/tesla-megapack-powerpac...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Megapack
Here is a commercial installation of solar + storage at $0.04/kWh[1]. And it’s not unique, that article links to the cheapest solar + storage in the US at $0.025/kWh.
Additionally, these are today’s prices, as per this OP article the price for renewables is dropping exponentially every year. And if Elon Musk is to be believed (which I do) the price for storage is also dropping exponentially.
Given these trends it seems a no brainer that the developing world will skip fossil fuel entirely. Barring air travel, the entire worlds air and space travel will likely continue to use fossil fuels for the next decade or two.
[1] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/09/10/los-angeles-commissio...
Additionally, these are today’s prices, as per this OP article the price for renewables is dropping exponentially every year. And if Elon Musk is to be believed (which I do) the price for storage is also dropping exponentially.
Given these trends it seems a no brainer that the developing world will skip fossil fuel entirely. Barring air travel, the entire worlds air and space travel will likely continue to use fossil fuels for the next decade or two.
[1] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/09/10/los-angeles-commissio...
> These are also not trivial problems to solve for a poor country, without assistance from more developed nations.
Hum? You buy some batteries and install them.
You don't need geographic stability, you don't need stable property rights, you don't need widespread law enforcement. One can even solve it one house at a time, at a (not much) larger price.
What kinds of problems do you expect developed countries to go help poor ones with?
Hum? You buy some batteries and install them.
You don't need geographic stability, you don't need stable property rights, you don't need widespread law enforcement. One can even solve it one house at a time, at a (not much) larger price.
What kinds of problems do you expect developed countries to go help poor ones with?
Lithium is vastly abundant though. Lots of lithium in the land itself, and even more in the sea.
But not so much whale oil.
Wow, what do Saudis do all day?
On the other hand, right now the house of Saud needs their lands and citizens because their oil wealth comes from there - but if it runs out, they might as well abandon them and relocate with their wealth (as a monarchy, it's their personal wealth, not the country citizens') anywhere they want and leave the ordinary people in the desert.
Just to preempt the other obvious reply (Okay - so that's good for the House of Saud but what about the rest of the country?). If they're wise and invest that money into education they could just convert their current rather highly skilled resource economy into an economy focused on service, finances or defense.
The issue is that most Saudis don’t work. Most of the work done in that country is done by “lower classes” of non Saudis. So when the tap dries up and they all have to work. What do they do?
> What do they do?
Realistically - they'll get deported to their home countries. There's no government on earth that will tolerate a non-citizen, non-refugee as a public charge with no prospect of being productive in the future. Foreigners are politically convenient scape-goats for all that is wrong with {ECONOMY|JOBS|CRIME|SERVICE DELIVERY}, and politicians will politic.
Realistically - they'll get deported to their home countries. There's no government on earth that will tolerate a non-citizen, non-refugee as a public charge with no prospect of being productive in the future. Foreigners are politically convenient scape-goats for all that is wrong with {ECONOMY|JOBS|CRIME|SERVICE DELIVERY}, and politicians will politic.
By "they all have to work" gp is referring to Saudi citizens, not the migrant workers. They (citizens) won't get deported anywhere.
The migrants will try to migrate somewhere else that has work.
The migrants will try to migrate somewhere else that has work.
The "they" in "what do they do" refers to unproductive Saudi citizens, not productive Saudi immigrants.
Oh, I misunderstood the question. I think if the government can afford to pay about $58,000 p.a. to each citizen based on sovereign fund interest alone, we'll get to witness the biggest UBI experiment the world has ever seen.
The house of Saud crucifies dissidents and murders journalists with a bonesaw. What makes you think they would do what you're saying?
Now, now. That's simply not true. The bonesaw was only for disassembly of the journalist after the murder.
From what I know (and that's not much), they've already spent the past decade or two heavily investing in real estate all over the world, from the opulent vanity projects like the Palm Island, to tons of highrise / office buildings all over the world.
I mean if you own a skyscraper in NY you're basically set for life. Multiple lives.
I mean if you own a skyscraper in NY you're basically set for life. Multiple lives.
> Cash is going into technology stocks, venture funds, and international real estate.
And that's how the situation in SF came to be. Lots of money wanting to be "saved" by tech.
And that's how the situation in SF came to be. Lots of money wanting to be "saved" by tech.
Who is going to buy a trillion dollar stake in a shrinking market?
One of the fascinating observations in Carlota Perez's "Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages" [1] is that outdated technological industries continued to provide superior returns even after they'd been supplanted. You'd have more money today if you'd invested in Exxon in the mid 1970s than if you'd put the money in IBM, even though Exxon has slipped from the top 10 to something like 40th place in the S&P. Meanwhile, railroads peaked at 60% of the US stock market around 1860, shrinking to less 2%, yet continued to beat the market for the next 120 years. Discussed recently on the Rational Reminder [2] podcast.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Technological-Revolutions-Financial-C...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEwwtjDo1dU
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Technological-Revolutions-Financial-C...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEwwtjDo1dU
Growth isn't necessary to make something a good investment. Imagine you are investing in a single mortgage: you get a little income each month, and after 30 years it stops completely. Essentially the value goes to zero! But the stream of income is what you care about. Aramco is similar; it will kick off income every year in dividends and eventually be worth zero.
It’s the opposite of growth. Would you buy a house if you knew it wouldn’t be there in 20 years?
Yes, if I get my money's worth out of that 20 years.
Hell, I'm currently renting an apartment and I don't own shit now, let alone 20 years down the line.
Hell, I'm currently renting an apartment and I don't own shit now, let alone 20 years down the line.
People do this with cars and those depreciate the moment they get off the lot.
Japanese homes have a lifespan of 30 years.
Japanese homes have a lifespan of 30 years.
I agree.
But in the UK people routinely buy houses/apartments on leasehold which means you only "own" it for e.g. 99 years (sometimes less). Crazy if you ask me, "normal" if you ask them.
But in the UK people routinely buy houses/apartments on leasehold which means you only "own" it for e.g. 99 years (sometimes less). Crazy if you ask me, "normal" if you ask them.
A lot of people - this IPO has already happened.
People who get left holding the bag when trading options.
People who think there’s more than a trillion dollars left in that market?
Index funds
Index funds will buy at the market value, no? Is the market still overvaluing oil given knowledge of renewables?
Renewables as a utility power source won't stop our reliance on oil. Fossil fuels like coal and natural gas are on the chopping board, but oil still has considerable permeation through our lives and a very large conversion cost and social inertia to overcome yet.
Plastics, shipping fuels, many manufacturing processes use oil during manufacturing but perhaps not in the final product. Vehicles are still decades away from being replaced by EVs.
The technology is all there and there are some "quick wins" coming around the corner I think. Container shipping switching to nuclear would be a quick change once regulations are in place for one example.
Plastics, shipping fuels, many manufacturing processes use oil during manufacturing but perhaps not in the final product. Vehicles are still decades away from being replaced by EVs.
The technology is all there and there are some "quick wins" coming around the corner I think. Container shipping switching to nuclear would be a quick change once regulations are in place for one example.
> Container shipping switching to nuclear would be a quick change once regulations are in place for one example.
This comment sent me looking, and I didn't see anyone making any kind of move towards installing a regulatory environment that is conducive towards a "quick win" for nuclear-powered container ships. This Flexport article [1] was interesting, but didn't mention any such legislative moves afoot. This article [2] lays some numbers down.
One way I can see to introduce and sustain nuclear-powered container vessels is to expand US naval shipyards that currently handle nuclear carrier and submarine construction to take on the container vessels' commissioning, refueling, maintenance, and decommissioning, design vessels with much longer service lifespans than current container ships to amortize the cost over a much longer period, standardize the power plants on existing designs, and carve out specially-secured multimodal ports with preferential rates for the nuclear-powered container vessels with much faster container moving infrastructure. In the US political-economic landscape, this would spread out the current military expenditures on the power plant R&D, manufacturing capex, and opex costs, into a wider market.
It would be an interesting geopolitical power play a nation, if the nation subsidized from taxpayer funds the regulatory compliance and national flagging expenses, to make a play to dominate and control the global container shipping service market. Nearly half of container ship opex costs are fuel and port costs [3]. Subsidize away the ruinous regulatory and security compliance costs of nuclear, crater the existing bunker-fuel powered shipping market rates, and controlling global shipping could be wielded as a significant geopolitical tool. Certainly cheaper than the trillions spent on the US military, and delivers leverage at the logistical and supply chain level. I can easily see China do this too, especially with their OBOR initiative. If this came to pass by any nation, then I'm sure it would rightly alarm a lot of people and nations.
[1] https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/
[2] https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/28/now-time-nuclear-cargo-...
[3] https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2250
This comment sent me looking, and I didn't see anyone making any kind of move towards installing a regulatory environment that is conducive towards a "quick win" for nuclear-powered container ships. This Flexport article [1] was interesting, but didn't mention any such legislative moves afoot. This article [2] lays some numbers down.
One way I can see to introduce and sustain nuclear-powered container vessels is to expand US naval shipyards that currently handle nuclear carrier and submarine construction to take on the container vessels' commissioning, refueling, maintenance, and decommissioning, design vessels with much longer service lifespans than current container ships to amortize the cost over a much longer period, standardize the power plants on existing designs, and carve out specially-secured multimodal ports with preferential rates for the nuclear-powered container vessels with much faster container moving infrastructure. In the US political-economic landscape, this would spread out the current military expenditures on the power plant R&D, manufacturing capex, and opex costs, into a wider market.
It would be an interesting geopolitical power play a nation, if the nation subsidized from taxpayer funds the regulatory compliance and national flagging expenses, to make a play to dominate and control the global container shipping service market. Nearly half of container ship opex costs are fuel and port costs [3]. Subsidize away the ruinous regulatory and security compliance costs of nuclear, crater the existing bunker-fuel powered shipping market rates, and controlling global shipping could be wielded as a significant geopolitical tool. Certainly cheaper than the trillions spent on the US military, and delivers leverage at the logistical and supply chain level. I can easily see China do this too, especially with their OBOR initiative. If this came to pass by any nation, then I'm sure it would rightly alarm a lot of people and nations.
[1] https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/
[2] https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/28/now-time-nuclear-cargo-...
[3] https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2250
In your research, did you find out that nuclear-powered ships are actually cheaper (i.e. combined cost of fuel, personnel & maintenance connected with the nuclear reactor)?
Because obviously the primary goal of the military isn't cost-saving, it's having subs & aircraft carriers that can stay sea-borne indefinitely. So they'd be using them even if they're actually (much) more expensive
Because obviously the primary goal of the military isn't cost-saving, it's having subs & aircraft carriers that can stay sea-borne indefinitely. So they'd be using them even if they're actually (much) more expensive
> ...did you find out that nuclear-powered ships are actually cheaper...
Heck no. As a new tech platform without volume production, they'll be wildly more expensive until the vessel fabricators and ship operators hit that growth knee where experience and volume combine to deliver innovations and cost scaling of their sourcing where the savings stack up. Except in this case the savings have to come from automating the regulatory compliance and operational security of the power plants, both challenging problem spaces.
This is why I specifically pointed out subsidization of those areas to even out the playing field, like the tax subsidies for renewable power. It is a decades-long play for power if someone makes it a national priority. The US has possibly the most advanced ocean-going nuclear vessel tech base, has a best-in-world operational excellence in rail freight, and arguably one of the best freight logistics industries and infrastructure in the world. The US could have dominated the world through its own OBOR on a global scale in a similar way China is trying to dominate as a mercantilist superpower, through effectively owning commercial sector logistical network effects. But trying to convince the DoD and Congress the trillions that would take over decades means convincing them that is effectively what one part of soft power projection-oriented next generation war in the information age looks like. There are any number of other competing theories about next-gen war with much better-funded research and adherents out there, so it's a non-starter.
The US let a significant fraction of its manufacturing and shipping infrastructure comparatively atrophy over the past few decades, so as long as it has to retool with more automation and physical infrastructure to catch up with the leaders, it might as well implement leaps of efficiency over the current state of the art like using gantry cranes to mass-lift entire multiple layers of containers [1] in a single lift cycle. The load/unload/downtime/travel-time components all need lots more operational automation and innovation for nuclear commercial ships for automated regulatory compliance to be feasible, but many developed nations (especially US and China) have the tech base to combine in novel ways to deliver.
[1] https://supplychaingamechanger.com/is-there-a-faster-way-to-...
Heck no. As a new tech platform without volume production, they'll be wildly more expensive until the vessel fabricators and ship operators hit that growth knee where experience and volume combine to deliver innovations and cost scaling of their sourcing where the savings stack up. Except in this case the savings have to come from automating the regulatory compliance and operational security of the power plants, both challenging problem spaces.
This is why I specifically pointed out subsidization of those areas to even out the playing field, like the tax subsidies for renewable power. It is a decades-long play for power if someone makes it a national priority. The US has possibly the most advanced ocean-going nuclear vessel tech base, has a best-in-world operational excellence in rail freight, and arguably one of the best freight logistics industries and infrastructure in the world. The US could have dominated the world through its own OBOR on a global scale in a similar way China is trying to dominate as a mercantilist superpower, through effectively owning commercial sector logistical network effects. But trying to convince the DoD and Congress the trillions that would take over decades means convincing them that is effectively what one part of soft power projection-oriented next generation war in the information age looks like. There are any number of other competing theories about next-gen war with much better-funded research and adherents out there, so it's a non-starter.
The US let a significant fraction of its manufacturing and shipping infrastructure comparatively atrophy over the past few decades, so as long as it has to retool with more automation and physical infrastructure to catch up with the leaders, it might as well implement leaps of efficiency over the current state of the art like using gantry cranes to mass-lift entire multiple layers of containers [1] in a single lift cycle. The load/unload/downtime/travel-time components all need lots more operational automation and innovation for nuclear commercial ships for automated regulatory compliance to be feasible, but many developed nations (especially US and China) have the tech base to combine in novel ways to deliver.
[1] https://supplychaingamechanger.com/is-there-a-faster-way-to-...
> "Container shipping switching to nuclear would be a quick change once regulations are in place for one example."
This is one of those things that will not take off without government initiative - risky, expensive to invest and develop, regulatorily difficult. The payoff is potentially massove though
Mind you the culture nees to change too, we've had quite a few ships seized by pirates or capsized because the crew was drunk
This is one of those things that will not take off without government initiative - risky, expensive to invest and develop, regulatorily difficult. The payoff is potentially massove though
Mind you the culture nees to change too, we've had quite a few ships seized by pirates or capsized because the crew was drunk
Most common plastics, that is, polyethylene, PVC, and polypropylene, can and often are produced from natural gas feedstock: many natural gas fields have abundant ethane, ethylene, and propane.
The vast majority of index funds don't buy IPOs
Right now, Saudi Aramco is worth $1.9 trillion.
[deleted]
They should’ve bought TSLA at $420/share ($84/share adjusted for split).
Wood didn't give way to coal that gave way to oil. This is a terrible fallacy (albeit very commmon, even Vaclav Smil fell into it in his "Oil" book). The world currently consumes more coal than it ever did. Wood consumption is also record high. We simply stacked up energy sources. Check this page: https://ourworldindata.org/energy
So far, fossil fuels still represent about 85% of our energy consumption, and about 99% for transportation.
We had a world 100% on renewable, back in the 18th century, but we were 600 millions and lived 35 years. OTOH we have no credible way to replace 85% of our energy by renewables in the next 10 years (if we want to keep climate change at reasonable levels).
So far, fossil fuels still represent about 85% of our energy consumption, and about 99% for transportation.
We had a world 100% on renewable, back in the 18th century, but we were 600 millions and lived 35 years. OTOH we have no credible way to replace 85% of our energy by renewables in the next 10 years (if we want to keep climate change at reasonable levels).
I agree on renewables and they are certainly part of the solution, but we can meet our energy without fossil fuels if we really leaned into nuclear the way the French did.
It's simply a matter of political will.
Musk looked at the regulatory tape around nuclear and said "I guess it has to be solar then" and I think that was a mistake. If we'd applied his economics of scale, and first principles thinking to nuclear we'd be far, far more along than we are right now and we'd probably have more medical isotopes to boot.
It's simply a matter of political will.
Musk looked at the regulatory tape around nuclear and said "I guess it has to be solar then" and I think that was a mistake. If we'd applied his economics of scale, and first principles thinking to nuclear we'd be far, far more along than we are right now and we'd probably have more medical isotopes to boot.
The french did this and ended up with nuclear costing more than current renewable. That said, it has served them well for the last decades and will probably still serve well for a decade or two.
We can relatively easily solve the problem of electricity production using nuclear, renewables and therefore make carbon-free electricity. But electricity is only 30% of our energy consumption.
Cars, Heating, and cooking can be replaced with electricity just fine even if their not currently part of that 30%.
Also, solar power overwhelmingly our largest energy source. It’s generally ignored in these calculations but farms for example are very dependent on sunlight.
Also, solar power overwhelmingly our largest energy source. It’s generally ignored in these calculations but farms for example are very dependent on sunlight.
Heating and cooling, OK. Cars require batteries, and there's not enough lithium to support as many electric cars as there exist combustion engine cars now. A breaktrhough will be needed, either in battery tech or shared transportation (either public transport, car-sharing, or generalized telecommuting).
There is plenty of lithium for EV’s. Existing mines are enough for ~1 billion cars, however raw lithium is currently well under 1% of the cost of a new Tesla so vastly more expensive mining options don’t really effect the economics much. The minimal amount of recycling would change dramatically as lithium prices increase.
PS: “battery grade” lithium is more expensive, but what changes isn’t the amount of lithium but removal of minor impurities.
PS: “battery grade” lithium is more expensive, but what changes isn’t the amount of lithium but removal of minor impurities.
> We had a world 100% on renewable, back in the 18th century
There's nothing renewable about using wood if you're not replanting the forest.
There's nothing renewable about using wood if you're not replanting the forest.
With 600 million people it was likely filling in naturally as people shuffle about.
Maybe in other places, but certainly not in 18th century Europe.
>back in the 18th century, but we were 600 millions and lived 35 years.
I'm not sure if this changes your point but many people lived to their 70s and 80s in the 18th century as they have for recorded history.
I'm not sure if this changes your point but many people lived to their 70s and 80s in the 18th century as they have for recorded history.
What do you mean with many people? A large part of aristocracy/bourgeoisie or most mundane people? What are good sources on that topic?
It's about all the mundane people who didn't die as babies. In earlier centuries, the life expectancy at birth (which is the metric that's about 35 years for that period) is dominated by the relatively high childhood mortality, all the many babies dying within the first days or weeks, and is very different from the expected lifespan of adults.
For example, here's a dataset on USA historical life expectancy https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expecta... - if we look at the 1850 data, then the average life expectancy at birth is 38 years but that does not mean that people live until 38, as a the life expectancy for a random 20 year old man is 40 more years, so people (who didn't die in early childhood) lived (on average) to the age of 60, not 38.
There's data from Roman Empire where life expectancy was 25 years at birth, but life expectancy is average 53 years upon reaching age 25 - so the intuitive metric "how long do adults live" is twice as large as the technical life expectancy at birth.
Here's an archived resource that goes into more detail https://web.archive.org/web/20070713083310/http://www.plimot...
For example, here's a dataset on USA historical life expectancy https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expecta... - if we look at the 1850 data, then the average life expectancy at birth is 38 years but that does not mean that people live until 38, as a the life expectancy for a random 20 year old man is 40 more years, so people (who didn't die in early childhood) lived (on average) to the age of 60, not 38.
There's data from Roman Empire where life expectancy was 25 years at birth, but life expectancy is average 53 years upon reaching age 25 - so the intuitive metric "how long do adults live" is twice as large as the technical life expectancy at birth.
Here's an archived resource that goes into more detail https://web.archive.org/web/20070713083310/http://www.plimot...
Coal use was common throughout all of recorded history. In Europe it picked up significantly in the 13th century.
As to abandoning energy sources, total amount of wood burned is actually down significantly as agriculture has dominated land usage age. In the Middle Ages for example large tracts of land where devoted to having little forests as a replenishing source of wood, various useful plant species, and wild game.
Less well known energy sources like whale oil and animal dung are also down in absolute terms.
As to abandoning energy sources, total amount of wood burned is actually down significantly as agriculture has dominated land usage age. In the Middle Ages for example large tracts of land where devoted to having little forests as a replenishing source of wood, various useful plant species, and wild game.
Less well known energy sources like whale oil and animal dung are also down in absolute terms.
Have you used any whale oil candles recently?
Energy sources do get replaced. Just not every time.
Energy sources do get replaced. Just not every time.
For reference, list of large power plants and their output:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations
The largest solar plant is at about 2000 MW and requires a lot of land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park
The largest wind farm is not being used as efficiently as it could: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansu_Wind_Farm
The largest solar plant is at about 2000 MW and requires a lot of land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park
The largest wind farm is not being used as efficiently as it could: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansu_Wind_Farm
Land area used for renewables always sounds like a lot, but it's not that much if you compare it to agriculture. For example, in Germany we use 2.4 million hectares for "energy crops". Just replacing those monocultures with solar panels would cover most of Germany's energy demand and leave some room for biodiversity under the panels.
In addition, solar panels can be put on top of existing infrastructure like houses so it takes no additional land.
... provided that you can store a sizeable amount of energy (what do you do when there's no sun for a whole week, which is absolutely not uncommon in Germany?). There isn't any technology up to snuff, unless maybe flooding a very large Alpine valley to build a STEP.
Batteries for overnight storage, Hydrogen or Methane for seasonal variations, various types of heat storage for heating and cooling. And demand shaping of course. It's mostly a matter of cost as far as I know.
Of course you'd want to rely on wind power more than just going all in for solar in Germany. It's not a particularly sunny country.
Of course you'd want to rely on wind power more than just going all in for solar in Germany. It's not a particularly sunny country.
The largest power stations at the moment are always going to be stored hydro - they take up a lot of land. Those large coal burners also take up a lot of land when you consider the mines, transport infra, tailings dams, coal piles not to mention the clean air they "take up"
Thats why we should be exclusively nuclear.
Hear hear. We need a massive pro-nuclear public campaign. When people think of "nuclear power", they just think of Chernobyl.
In hindsight, Chernobyl might have done more harm to the planet than we thought - it single handedly turned public opinion against nuclear power, and all the clean energy it provides.
One wonders if we would have any of our current climate issues if we had adopted nuclear power en masse in the 80s and 90s.
In hindsight, Chernobyl might have done more harm to the planet than we thought - it single handedly turned public opinion against nuclear power, and all the clean energy it provides.
One wonders if we would have any of our current climate issues if we had adopted nuclear power en masse in the 80s and 90s.
When political decision makers and investors think of "nuclear power", they just think of overdue and over budget projects that may be finished in a decade.
In a decade renewables will be so far ahead that it would be plain stupid to push nuclear. This is why it's not happening outside a lobby group from the industry who try to push shady people like Michael Shellenberger.
In a decade renewables will be so far ahead that it would be plain stupid to push nuclear. This is why it's not happening outside a lobby group from the industry who try to push shady people like Michael Shellenberger.
I think 2-5x the cost, 10-1000x the capital intensity, and the industry's demand of a $200 million liability cap to make plants insurable.
Maybe if we had adopted nuclear en masse in the 80s we could have avoided current climate issues, but we didn't. I don't see why anybody thinks there's any point subsidizing this industry to hell and back now given the cost and the cheaper, less capital intensive options available that don't need subsidies.
Maybe if we had adopted nuclear en masse in the 80s we could have avoided current climate issues, but we didn't. I don't see why anybody thinks there's any point subsidizing this industry to hell and back now given the cost and the cheaper, less capital intensive options available that don't need subsidies.
Easy to have that opinion but the market is building wind/solar + battery + pumped hydro
The very article clearly explains why the world moves in the opposite direction.
>What do you suppose happens when, for example, Saudi Arabia can no longer feed itself? It just peacefully and gently starves to death?
Saudi Arabia has a sovereign wealth fund with trillions of dollars. The obvious answer is that they'll build a ton of renewables and build a ton of [hydroponic/aquaponic/aeroponic/etc] farms to make food locally.
Indoor farming is expensive but very water-efficient, which suits Saudi Arabia as their water comes from expensive desalination plants.
Saudi Arabia has a sovereign wealth fund with trillions of dollars. The obvious answer is that they'll build a ton of renewables and build a ton of [hydroponic/aquaponic/aeroponic/etc] farms to make food locally.
Indoor farming is expensive but very water-efficient, which suits Saudi Arabia as their water comes from expensive desalination plants.
They have a lot of money to invest and they could also export solar if they want to stay in the energy business. Lots of sunlight there.
> they could also export solar
I remember an old discussion about this. The main problem is that transmission lines to potential customers would have to traverse unfriendly countries.
I remember an old discussion about this. The main problem is that transmission lines to potential customers would have to traverse unfriendly countries.
There are already plans for massive investment in a hydrogen production plant - though obviously there are still lots of issues to be solved with that energy pipeline.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201112-the-green-hydrog...
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201112-the-green-hydrog...
Power-to-gas* might become their salvation.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
Export to whom? Everybody else in the vicinity also has a lot of sunlight. Why wouldn't they make their own power at home and save on transmission costs?
To Europe. In the form of hydrogen, ammonia or other chemical energy storages.
Europe will need lots of those. It can very likely not be produced in Europe alone.
Europe will need lots of those. It can very likely not be produced in Europe alone.
I don't see why not. Renewables already means periodic negative power prices for most countries that have them. They will likely use this electricity to make these chemicals closer to where they are needed. This is already happening with aluminum in, e.g. Germany.
Even if they don't, 1/3 of the countries in the world are drenched in sunlight. The competition will make margins on these industries pretty pitiful.
Even if they don't, 1/3 of the countries in the world are drenched in sunlight. The competition will make margins on these industries pretty pitiful.
Negative power prices are only possible because there are other resources to provide the production baseline. As there exists no system to store power at scale, production must match exactly consumption at any time; so when the wind blows or the sun shines and there is no demand, the generated power is basically worthless.
But this is only possible because renewables represent only a small fraction of all power in most places. They can at peak generate a significant amount of power, but overall most produced TWh come from other sources.
But this is only possible because renewables represent only a small fraction of all power in most places. They can at peak generate a significant amount of power, but overall most produced TWh come from other sources.
I foresee -ve prices becoming more common. Overproduction is a cheap way of dealing with the variability of a source that is 2-3x cheaper than others even if it ends up not being used or if some is wasted (e.g. wind turbines that are left turned off when it's very windy and grid demand is low).
If that overproduction can be channeled into e.g. hydrogen production which can be used for airline fuel or heating homes or for topping up the grid when it's not windy or sunny all the better.
If that overproduction can be channeled into e.g. hydrogen production which can be used for airline fuel or heating homes or for topping up the grid when it's not windy or sunny all the better.
> It means that countries which rely on fossil fuels for their economy, are going to see the same kind of crushing economic decline that, say, the UK coal industry has.
> What do you suppose happens when, for example, Saudi Arabia can no longer feed itself? It just peacefully and gently starves to death?
First, I think you have to segregate between different kinds of fossil fuels.
Coal is the worst. From what I understand, it's mostly used in industry, power generation and heating. The main problem is: it's really dirty.
Natural gas probably has a much longer period of future usability. Tesla has shown quite readily that batteries are probably better than peaker plants for most cases. But for home heating and cooking, natural gas will probably have utility for quite some time. Yes - it does release greenhouse glasses, but the immediate health concerns in terms of the pm2.5 released by burning it are relatively minor.
Petroleum is in a similar boat. The main use for petroleum - automotive transport will probably be gradually phased out over the next 20 years (a reasonable approximation of how long used cars last), but it's used for more than just that. Plastic production and aviation fuel are probably two of the uses that will probably have some real longevity to them. In theory, naval propulsion is more amenable to electrification than aviation, but that'll be tricky to do economically; that is another area that petroleum could have a long useful life in.
In short, while there will be a dramatic drop in the consumption of fossil fuels, I have serious doubts that it will get anywhere close to zero in less than 40 years. I do think it is likely that coal burning will probably go away completely and both natural gas and petroleum use will decrease by over 90%. What that will do to the price is hard to say.
> What do you suppose happens when, for example, Saudi Arabia can no longer feed itself? It just peacefully and gently starves to death?
First, I think you have to segregate between different kinds of fossil fuels.
Coal is the worst. From what I understand, it's mostly used in industry, power generation and heating. The main problem is: it's really dirty.
Natural gas probably has a much longer period of future usability. Tesla has shown quite readily that batteries are probably better than peaker plants for most cases. But for home heating and cooking, natural gas will probably have utility for quite some time. Yes - it does release greenhouse glasses, but the immediate health concerns in terms of the pm2.5 released by burning it are relatively minor.
Petroleum is in a similar boat. The main use for petroleum - automotive transport will probably be gradually phased out over the next 20 years (a reasonable approximation of how long used cars last), but it's used for more than just that. Plastic production and aviation fuel are probably two of the uses that will probably have some real longevity to them. In theory, naval propulsion is more amenable to electrification than aviation, but that'll be tricky to do economically; that is another area that petroleum could have a long useful life in.
In short, while there will be a dramatic drop in the consumption of fossil fuels, I have serious doubts that it will get anywhere close to zero in less than 40 years. I do think it is likely that coal burning will probably go away completely and both natural gas and petroleum use will decrease by over 90%. What that will do to the price is hard to say.
> In theory, naval propulsion is more amenable to electrification than aviation, but that'll be tricky to do economically; that is another area that petroleum could have a long useful life in.
Over the last couple years / decades, ships went slower and slower on average as to save fuel (fuel became more expensive as well as environmental regulation on how much a ship may emit, which correlates to fuel intake).
So some people in the naval industry propose going back to using wind power, either via traditional sailing or more elaborate schemes (via electricity generation as an intermediary).
Over the last couple years / decades, ships went slower and slower on average as to save fuel (fuel became more expensive as well as environmental regulation on how much a ship may emit, which correlates to fuel intake).
So some people in the naval industry propose going back to using wind power, either via traditional sailing or more elaborate schemes (via electricity generation as an intermediary).
Couldn't you use the rocking of the boat as a means to generate electricity? Seems maybe easier than wind, which I can only imagine as putting some type of turbine on the deck, except in calm seas where you would need to make sure you had enough battery capacity.
> So some people in the naval industry propose going back to using wind power, either via traditional sailing or more elaborate schemes (via electricity generation as an intermediary).
I've seen proposals to use wind power as an auxiliary source. I have yet to see serious proposals to convert to solely wind power.
I've seen proposals to use wind power as an auxiliary source. I have yet to see serious proposals to convert to solely wind power.
I think as battery technology keeps getting better. Building batteries in the shape of 40 foot or 20 foot shipping containers would be the way to go. Container ships can then replace battery containers on every port call just like they do the shipping containers. As worldwide we already have networks for the movement and storage of these containers the cost of implementing this system would not be very high apart from the charging stations for the containers but that would be another source for revenue for the ports.
Here's a real engineering youtube video about this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiX2edcBoA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiX2edcBoA
Agree, except for I think natural gas for homes (cooling and heating) should be phased out sooner. Letting gas companies build new pipe infrastructure to new homes in warmer climates where induction cooking and heat pumps will do the job just fine is crazy. They are an easy, painless way to reduce carbon emissions and much cheaper for society now. Also likely cheaper for the home owner of the future as gas prices get more expensive.
San Jose, CA is phasing out gas in new homes.
> In theory, naval propulsion is more amenable to electrification than aviation, but that'll be tricky to do economically
Unless batteries get a lot lighter, ships are more likely to be powered by liquid hydrogen or ammonia, which are relatively straightforward to produce from renewable energy.
Unless batteries get a lot lighter, ships are more likely to be powered by liquid hydrogen or ammonia, which are relatively straightforward to produce from renewable energy.
If there is one transport that doesn't care about weight, it's ships. The real problem is cost.
There's two sides to it. For peak loads and shorter routes measured in minutes or hours with easy charging possibilities batteries have been coming for 5-7 years now. The issue is charging since no regen is possible except load smoothing due to operating current engines at a higher thermal efficiency. It's an industry that only looks at cost and barely makes money, efficiency and low-cost workers has been the name of the game for decades.
The hard thing is the sustained loads over weeks. It's not like a car where it gets rolling and then keeps rolling with some air resistance, you need to constantly force yourself through the water, even though it is efficient on a per ton basis.
Consumption on larger vessels can be 150-300 tons per day, say 40 MJ/kg of energy content. Say you only need 50% due to earlier thermal efficiency losses. For a 3 week range from China to the US west coast you still need 30 GWh, or 300 000 Tesla 100 kWh batteries. Which is actually quite similar to the battery capacity of all Teslas delivered in a year. Using 246 Wh/kg we get that the ship needs about 120 000 tons of batteries. A 400m container ship has 140 000 tons of usable capacity, i.e. just the steel excluding all cargo and provision, so it really doesn't add up yet. Need a magnitude improvement before it can start making sense, and this is a calculation without even margins or considering for example China to US East Coast.
It's just incredible how energy dense fossil fuels are. Shipping and aviation will probably end up as the last industries to go green, because they actually use the energy density.
The hard thing is the sustained loads over weeks. It's not like a car where it gets rolling and then keeps rolling with some air resistance, you need to constantly force yourself through the water, even though it is efficient on a per ton basis.
Consumption on larger vessels can be 150-300 tons per day, say 40 MJ/kg of energy content. Say you only need 50% due to earlier thermal efficiency losses. For a 3 week range from China to the US west coast you still need 30 GWh, or 300 000 Tesla 100 kWh batteries. Which is actually quite similar to the battery capacity of all Teslas delivered in a year. Using 246 Wh/kg we get that the ship needs about 120 000 tons of batteries. A 400m container ship has 140 000 tons of usable capacity, i.e. just the steel excluding all cargo and provision, so it really doesn't add up yet. Need a magnitude improvement before it can start making sense, and this is a calculation without even margins or considering for example China to US East Coast.
It's just incredible how energy dense fossil fuels are. Shipping and aviation will probably end up as the last industries to go green, because they actually use the energy density.
This is very interesting, and if those numbers are right, straight up batteries do not appear very practical for that route. but lets consider that one does not have to complete the longest journey in the world on a single battery charge.
Any of the pacific islands could be built out with infrastructure to recharge them - afterall, sea-based wind turbines are one of the cheapest sources of power, while ontermittent, they are perfect for charging. You coupd even place something akin to an oil platform, but for charging ships.
However maybe something like hydrogen makes more sense.
Any of the pacific islands could be built out with infrastructure to recharge them - afterall, sea-based wind turbines are one of the cheapest sources of power, while ontermittent, they are perfect for charging. You coupd even place something akin to an oil platform, but for charging ships.
However maybe something like hydrogen makes more sense.
For short haul (think ferries) the same calculations will make electric ships feasible when distance travelled is 1 or 2 order of magnitude less. Such ships already exist.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50233206
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50233206
Yep, that is feasible today. Coastal ferries and routes counted in hours.
Here's a larger ferry connecting Sweden and Denmark that was converted to hybrid with the goal to not use any diesels in regular service. Has 4 160 kWh battery capacity, one trip takes 20 minutes and uses 1 175 kWh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyWcY4bTdl8
A company specializing in it is https://corvusenergy.com/
Here's a larger ferry connecting Sweden and Denmark that was converted to hybrid with the goal to not use any diesels in regular service. Has 4 160 kWh battery capacity, one trip takes 20 minutes and uses 1 175 kWh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyWcY4bTdl8
A company specializing in it is https://corvusenergy.com/
Does plastic production necessarily emit co2?
> Does plastic production necessarily emit co2?
I don't think so. But it currently uses petroleum/natural gas as feedstock.
I don't think so. But it currently uses petroleum/natural gas as feedstock.
So I don’t think that is actually a problem wrt climate change. Then it is more comparable to other mined minerals.
Energy is required to produce anything, thus consuming and producing CO2.
Well that energy could be from renewable — we can continue the plastic age into the zero carbon emission age.
I hope coal burning goes away; but that will have a pretty outsized impact on my country (Australia), and the fact that we don’t tax the mining companies enough means our government could end up lacking the means to invest in things to help us transition away from being a mining focused country. It worries me.
Australia will probably end 2020 as the largest natural gas exporter in the world. It's also a country that is very well positioned to take advantage of renewables and export energy via lithium, ammonia, aluminium, hydrogen, electricity (See the sun cable project to Singapore)
This _more_ than makes up for the coal industry
This _more_ than makes up for the coal industry
[deleted]
A powerful Saudi Arabia has not been a force for good in the world so I don't know why I'm supposed to worry about it.
The land itself isn't going anywhere. The sands of Saudi Arabia won't sink below the sea. The physical country will still exist. But what kind of government, what kind of state, can afford to govern that space and provide for its people, without oil revenue?
From certain perspectives it hasn't been that great of a state even with massive oil incomes. It will probably continue to be a state with massive wealth inequality and repressive government theocracy. It'll just have more social unrest to possibly change the status quo. Maybe people will really start to demand change there.
It will be like any other country in the world. We should hardly feel sorry that they’ll no longer be ridiculously pampered and looked after by an underclass of mistreated immigrants. They have enormous opportunities, both in other available resources and in a capital overhang, to make their way.
Indeed. Can you imagine the alternate reality if the Saudi branch of Islam was something more like Sufism instead of Wahhabism, given the number of mosques the Saudis have funded all around the world with petrodollars?
Violence and instability in the middle east has caused problems in western countries. Of particular note are 9/11 and Europe's refugee crisis.
Here's an article worth your time on this topic:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/05/climate-geopolitics-pet...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/05/climate-geopolitics-pet...
That’s a surprisingly short term article about the future. The question isn’t really about what happens in 15 years but rather the next 50. The inertia of existing infrastructure is going to have a massive impact in the short term, but change is only accelerating.
Saudi Arabia reached their Hubbert curve apotheosis probably in the 80's (their proven reserve is a state secret). They've been desperately trying to handle this fallout ever since.
Russia, OTOH, is the real the mother of all petrostates. Any problem you might imagine facing Saudi is tiny compared to the impact on Russia. They've already suffered so much as a result of the oil crash in the late 90's by becoming a mafia state.
Russia, OTOH, is the real the mother of all petrostates. Any problem you might imagine facing Saudi is tiny compared to the impact on Russia. They've already suffered so much as a result of the oil crash in the late 90's by becoming a mafia state.
I mean, fossil fuels still have their uses even in a world of plenty of renewable energy: tanks, planes, etc. will still need oil, and the strategic importance of ensuring an oil supply will still be hugely relevant to major powers for that reason, and they will in turn have an interest in supporting a stable Saudi Arabia.
"What does that mean, besides lower carbon?"
It also means fresh air in the cities and much less noise.
Not a small point.
Smaller points would be less enviroment damage with oil drills, potential groundwater poisening or earthquakes with fracking, not oil tanker crashes and oceanic catastrophic events.
And about Saudia Arabia: I don't see, why "we" need to have a plan for them.
I see less money for various fanatic groups, if the arabic oil nations have to be a bit more conservative about money spending.
But what they could do (and some people there see this, too) is invest heavily in solarenergy, too and basically do solarfarming. And then use that energy to produce big time, or directly export the energy. Processed in form of hydrogen/methanol/.. or with high voltage direct current transmissiom directly to europe for example.
It also means fresh air in the cities and much less noise.
Not a small point.
Smaller points would be less enviroment damage with oil drills, potential groundwater poisening or earthquakes with fracking, not oil tanker crashes and oceanic catastrophic events.
And about Saudia Arabia: I don't see, why "we" need to have a plan for them.
I see less money for various fanatic groups, if the arabic oil nations have to be a bit more conservative about money spending.
But what they could do (and some people there see this, too) is invest heavily in solarenergy, too and basically do solarfarming. And then use that energy to produce big time, or directly export the energy. Processed in form of hydrogen/methanol/.. or with high voltage direct current transmissiom directly to europe for example.
Saudi Arabia sees the writing on the wall and that is why they are investing heavily into renewables. They're aiming to inject some $30 billion into renewables over the next five years. They're also looking to diversify into other businesses besides renewables.
> But, do we really have a plan for the consequences, not only in Saudi Arabia but also every other nation that's dependent on oil?
Those countries have had plenty of time to diversify their economies, but instead of funneling some of that oil money into uplifting their nation, it went into the pockets of the elite few and dick-waving contests of tall buildings and tacky tourist traps.
They chose to not even provide basic human freedoms to many of their citizens, or allowed women to pursue higher education and jobs in their lives beyond marriage. Fostering free thinking among their populace would have produced at least some individuals with enough ideas to prepare for a post-oil world.
Those countries have had plenty of time to diversify their economies, but instead of funneling some of that oil money into uplifting their nation, it went into the pockets of the elite few and dick-waving contests of tall buildings and tacky tourist traps.
They chose to not even provide basic human freedoms to many of their citizens, or allowed women to pursue higher education and jobs in their lives beyond marriage. Fostering free thinking among their populace would have produced at least some individuals with enough ideas to prepare for a post-oil world.
Saudi Arabia has a decent plan, to IPO Saudi Aramco and reinvest the proceeds to hedge against a decline in the oil industry. It seems like a good idea, but a political question if they can stick to it. Similar idea to Norway’s sovereign wealth fund.
Why do you think Saudi Arabia is slowly allowing women to participate? They need them in the workforce for an economically sustainable future. They know they are heading for crisis rapidly and investing hard to get out of there. However, they are ridiculously dependent on oil. Oil money is basically the whole country's sugar daddy (not for the slaves and foreign workers...). People don't really work there, they all just live off the oil money. Literally every aspect of their lives need to change.
I really doubt the rest of the world needs to be too concerned about them. They are pretty uniquely fucked and not that many people anyway.
I really doubt the rest of the world needs to be too concerned about them. They are pretty uniquely fucked and not that many people anyway.
> Why do you think Saudi Arabia is slowly allowing women to participate? They need them in the workforce for an economically sustainable future.
Do they? Has doubling the work-force helped Western economies? I think that Elizabeth Warren & others have questioned that idea - i.e. that the wages were reduced to compensate for the increased labour supply - although even if not beneficial for individual families it could still be beneficial for the economy as a whole (and especially for the capitalist class).
Do they? Has doubling the work-force helped Western economies? I think that Elizabeth Warren & others have questioned that idea - i.e. that the wages were reduced to compensate for the increased labour supply - although even if not beneficial for individual families it could still be beneficial for the economy as a whole (and especially for the capitalist class).
You make a good point. More workers are just good for the capitalists, unless there is actual work to be done.
Regarding Saudi Arabia: They should sit on a huge pile of money and the end of fossil fuels is not a big bang event. I would have expected them to use that money for R&D to shape the post oil world to stay relevant.
> What do you suppose happens when, for example, Saudi Arabia can no longer feed itself? It just peacefully and gently starves to death?
Won't somebody think of the poor Saudi family?!
Won't somebody think of the poor Saudi family?!
There are, in case you didn’t know, other people in that country.
Yes, I'm aware the Saudi family has a whole population to serve them.
Interestingly there are signs that Saudi Arabia has this on the radar more than others.
E.g. they're building the larges green ammonia plant in the world. You may not hear a lot about ammonia production and green ammonia, but this is really huge (not just because ammonia is important for fertilizers, but also because ammonia is a promising future shipping fuel).
But yeah, there are other oil countries where you barely see any such signs (e.g. Russia).
E.g. they're building the larges green ammonia plant in the world. You may not hear a lot about ammonia production and green ammonia, but this is really huge (not just because ammonia is important for fertilizers, but also because ammonia is a promising future shipping fuel).
But yeah, there are other oil countries where you barely see any such signs (e.g. Russia).
What is the problem? This is great for Saudi Arabia and great for the world.
Saudi Arabia has a lot of sun and they have a lot of cash. If they invest it in producing electricity using solar they can still be an exporter of energy.
Secondly, most wars in the Arabic regions and all the meddling from the USA and other countries in this region is due to the oil. Without the rest of the world's need for oil we would get peace in this region.
Saudi Arabia has a lot of sun and they have a lot of cash. If they invest it in producing electricity using solar they can still be an exporter of energy.
Secondly, most wars in the Arabic regions and all the meddling from the USA and other countries in this region is due to the oil. Without the rest of the world's need for oil we would get peace in this region.
People do tend to forget that we make a lot of stuff with oil: plastics, fertilizers, lubricants, etc.
I am happy to hear where I am behind the curve, but we don't yet have above-surface replacements for the whole of the petrochemical industry, outside of just synthetically producing our own light crude via thermal depolymerization.
It'll change the game to be sure, but there's a lot more going on than just burning gasoline.
I am happy to hear where I am behind the curve, but we don't yet have above-surface replacements for the whole of the petrochemical industry, outside of just synthetically producing our own light crude via thermal depolymerization.
It'll change the game to be sure, but there's a lot more going on than just burning gasoline.
> What do you suppose happens when, for example, Saudi Arabia can no longer feed itself? It just peacefully and gently starves to death?
As a Ukrainian, I’m very optimistic about the future of democracy in Russia that would have a chance once it stops being a big gas station. We then might see a better, open Russia, without military aggression and disinformation campaigns.
As a Ukrainian, I’m very optimistic about the future of democracy in Russia that would have a chance once it stops being a big gas station. We then might see a better, open Russia, without military aggression and disinformation campaigns.
Things might get worse before they get better though. Their leaders may ramp up militaristic tendencies to distract the population from internal problems and shift their attention to fighting "western imperialists" in Russian "sphere of influence", etc.
Carbon will not be completely phased out. It’s still used in chemistry and lower prices may help finding another use of it. The countries which manage their carbon income well will be fine. The others usually go bust no matter how big or low price is - see Venesuela. Saudi Arabia is somewhere in between, but they already adjust.
As an interesting addendum to what you said, how many countries are ready for the internal turmoil that the collapse of fossil fuel prices will cause? Consider the coal mining areas of the Eastern United States, and how badly the collapse of the coal mining industry has damaged those towns.
> It just peacefully and gently starves to death?
they know damn well and are already diversifying their portfolio; beside, even if we stop burning these fuels, fossil based carbon polymer will be with us for a while until vegetable alternative can be mass produce in matching qualities.
they know damn well and are already diversifying their portfolio; beside, even if we stop burning these fuels, fossil based carbon polymer will be with us for a while until vegetable alternative can be mass produce in matching qualities.
Middle eastern countries are a bad example. They have a very small population and were mostly supported by immigrant workers. A lot of the elites might've squandered the wealth but sovereign funds seem to have locked a fair bit of it in futuristic investments.
Why would us HN readers (or perhaps you just meant is Americans?) need to have a plan for what happens to KSA if oil exports drop? They have their own plan for that, which is why they’ve invested so much into diversifying their economy.
Because we live on Earth. Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally in the Middle East. We need to have a plan for the future when the geopolitical landscape shifts and incentives change. Nobody exists in a vacuum, our interests are intertwined with everyone else's.
Well I’m sure that the people of Saudi Arabia don’t care that you want to plan their future for them, because as I mentioned, it’s something they’ve already taken care of for themselves.
It’s really a rather imperialistic perspective tbh. To presume all of these countries need us to be making decisions for them, or that we would have any right to do so in the first place.
It’s really a rather imperialistic perspective tbh. To presume all of these countries need us to be making decisions for them, or that we would have any right to do so in the first place.
[deleted]
Is there any reason why energy nations like Saudi Arabia could not compete in green energy?
Sure, they can supply fossil fuels from a bounty more plentiful than other countries. But Asia does not lack lithium or silicon.
Sure, they can supply fossil fuels from a bounty more plentiful than other countries. But Asia does not lack lithium or silicon.
There will be no consequence for Saudi Arabia disintegrating. Most of the world (hint: their neighbors and their own population) will welcome it. S.A. has lots of lands and other resources (religious tourism is big, they are the center of the Islamic world). They are only poor because of their own mismanagement.
The Emirates will be largely fine since they have diversified a lot. They might need to cut a bit of spending but otherwise they'll keep as a wealthy nation. Qatar will also probably be fine. They have lots of money and built lots of infrastructure which they can open to the world.
Actually, I think post-oil, we'll finally have peace in the region. Nothing to fight over any more.
The Emirates will be largely fine since they have diversified a lot. They might need to cut a bit of spending but otherwise they'll keep as a wealthy nation. Qatar will also probably be fine. They have lots of money and built lots of infrastructure which they can open to the world.
Actually, I think post-oil, we'll finally have peace in the region. Nothing to fight over any more.
[deleted]
Fossil fuels also creates petrochemicals used to create plastics and other products. Does anyone see plastics disappearing?
Saudi Arabia's plan was to share the risk by taking Saudi Aramco public, right? Or at least that was part of the plan.
SA has been dumping all their oil money on investments for a long time now. They know what's coming.
[deleted]
Maybe they should (I have no idea if they are already doing so) invest in renewables
We don't - but society didn't feel obligated to carry the ferriers when the car eclipsed the horse and we (again, abstract society) have generally been pretty okay with not specifically planning for those disenfranchised populations. This is brutal and it's capitalism - if you're a staunch libretarian you probably don't mind that those who didn't adapt are outed as losers but... these sorts of technological revolutions have a lot of spare efficiency that's brought along with them. That spare efficiency can be taxed and used to help fund education and small business loans to try and preserve prosperity.
When it comes to the international scene I think it's pretty clear that the "haves" coming will have strong reasons to make sure that the "have-nots" aren't devolving into anarchy since that causes global problems. Whether they act intelligently isn't something I can comment on - but there are clear benefits to everyone involved.
When it comes to the international scene I think it's pretty clear that the "haves" coming will have strong reasons to make sure that the "have-nots" aren't devolving into anarchy since that causes global problems. Whether they act intelligently isn't something I can comment on - but there are clear benefits to everyone involved.
> "sure that the "have-nots" aren't devolving into anarchy since that causes global problems"
Yeah, because we've done a great job of stewarding middle-east so far.
Even with the best intentions, it's not clear this " statebuilding" is even remotely realistic
Yeah, because we've done a great job of stewarding middle-east so far.
Even with the best intentions, it's not clear this " statebuilding" is even remotely realistic
I think it's possible to supply resources to help a state become more stable. But I also think that that is almost never the actual goal due to greed.
A whole lot of sun in Saudi Arabia....means a whole lot of energy to use.
Nations that depend on oil for their economy are already almost universally terrible states.
Reducing their oil income will mean they are terrible states with less money to fund their terrible activities across the entire world.
If Saudi Arabia runs out of oil money, the only things that will happen is their population will shrink dramatically as the vast majority of the population, who are immigrants from the rest of the world go back to the far more populous countries they come from, and they will have less money to fund Islamic terrorism across the world, and especially in Asia, probably greatly reducing whatever efficacy these organizations currently have.
Reducing their oil income will mean they are terrible states with less money to fund their terrible activities across the entire world.
If Saudi Arabia runs out of oil money, the only things that will happen is their population will shrink dramatically as the vast majority of the population, who are immigrants from the rest of the world go back to the far more populous countries they come from, and they will have less money to fund Islamic terrorism across the world, and especially in Asia, probably greatly reducing whatever efficacy these organizations currently have.
It’s always better to force us to make that plan sooner than later. The later we get, the worse the consequences are. Nobody’s going to prepare for any of this.
Well, not just countries but whole industries/sectors are going to collapse. It's not like we're going to retrain an oil driller to be software engineer.
Yes, the ecological benefits shine. But we need to prepare for the sociopolitical and socioeconomic fallout. Given how prepared we've (not) been for addressing climate change, it's difficult to imagine we'll be prepared for the unintended consequences of renewables. What leader or elected official is going to be that messenger?
Yes, the ecological benefits shine. But we need to prepare for the sociopolitical and socioeconomic fallout. Given how prepared we've (not) been for addressing climate change, it's difficult to imagine we'll be prepared for the unintended consequences of renewables. What leader or elected official is going to be that messenger?
> It's not like we're going to retrain an oil driller to be software engineer.
Why not? Equipment at that scale is complicated, and requires a lot of skill and experience to operate.
Not to mention responsibility. When you screw up, people die. Very likely including you.
Why not? Equipment at that scale is complicated, and requires a lot of skill and experience to operate.
Not to mention responsibility. When you screw up, people die. Very likely including you.
You're discounting a key variable in the equation: You can't teach people who are not motivated to learn; who don't have enough desire to learn; who literally can't afford a "life changing" transition.
Given the pay rate of oil workers, few are going to plan ahead and switch careers to something paying less. Keep in mind, that new pay drops further as the supply (of devs) increases.
In theory, I agree with you. However, the reality is inertia is a key force in life. My life. Your life. All our lives. And a magic wand - Poof! You're a software developer - has little proof of effectiveness to date under such circumstances. Yes, some success stories, but none the less limited. More software bootcamps are the answer? I'd like to see evidence of that.
We're not going to solve real problems with fantasy based on disconnected from reality. If we could this conversation would not be necessary.
Given the pay rate of oil workers, few are going to plan ahead and switch careers to something paying less. Keep in mind, that new pay drops further as the supply (of devs) increases.
In theory, I agree with you. However, the reality is inertia is a key force in life. My life. Your life. All our lives. And a magic wand - Poof! You're a software developer - has little proof of effectiveness to date under such circumstances. Yes, some success stories, but none the less limited. More software bootcamps are the answer? I'd like to see evidence of that.
We're not going to solve real problems with fantasy based on disconnected from reality. If we could this conversation would not be necessary.
I think there's a lot of underlying assumptions here we need to unpack.
First, you are correct, not everybody is just going to "learn to code", and that's not where I was going.
The industrial revolution replaced, to a large degree, muscles with machines, but still required human minds to work those machines.
This enabled an explosion of wealth across the entire world, giving everybody, in essence, access to the economic equivalence of an entire village's worth of labor. Goods which were once difficult to produce, and thus available only to the wealthy, became commonplace.
You see this in design trends: ornate designs were favored until mass manufacturing rendered them trivial to reproduce, and then the world embraced Futurism and Bauhaus.
In the information revolution, we are replacing minds with machines.
We don't need as many muscles, nor do we need as many minds, and where we seem to be headed is a sort of neo-feudalism, as those that control the machines have all the power, and our societies are ill adapted for all the muscles and minds that find themselves no longer economically necessary.
Nobody has a good answer to this. UBI, if implemented properly, may solve part of the problem, but human beings derive a great portion of their psychological nourishment from being valuable to their tribes.
Just as how not everybody is going to learn to code, not everybody wants to be an artist or a musician, either.
That's not even the ugliest problem.
Two: There tends to be a very common assumption amongst the technorati, of which I suppose I am a member, that "lesser" folks, those who learned a trade instead of getting a computer science degree, can't learn how to code.
I personally hate this attitude, and push back against it wherever I can. Yes, not everybody can be even a mediocre programmer; but, a great programmer can come from anywhere.
First, you are correct, not everybody is just going to "learn to code", and that's not where I was going.
The industrial revolution replaced, to a large degree, muscles with machines, but still required human minds to work those machines.
This enabled an explosion of wealth across the entire world, giving everybody, in essence, access to the economic equivalence of an entire village's worth of labor. Goods which were once difficult to produce, and thus available only to the wealthy, became commonplace.
You see this in design trends: ornate designs were favored until mass manufacturing rendered them trivial to reproduce, and then the world embraced Futurism and Bauhaus.
In the information revolution, we are replacing minds with machines.
We don't need as many muscles, nor do we need as many minds, and where we seem to be headed is a sort of neo-feudalism, as those that control the machines have all the power, and our societies are ill adapted for all the muscles and minds that find themselves no longer economically necessary.
Nobody has a good answer to this. UBI, if implemented properly, may solve part of the problem, but human beings derive a great portion of their psychological nourishment from being valuable to their tribes.
Just as how not everybody is going to learn to code, not everybody wants to be an artist or a musician, either.
That's not even the ugliest problem.
Two: There tends to be a very common assumption amongst the technorati, of which I suppose I am a member, that "lesser" folks, those who learned a trade instead of getting a computer science degree, can't learn how to code.
I personally hate this attitude, and push back against it wherever I can. Yes, not everybody can be even a mediocre programmer; but, a great programmer can come from anywhere.
It is a mistake to think that modern corporate software development is much different than building pickup trucks. This is a software manufacturing industry. The skills are trainable.
Also other practical consequences of solar and wind: what about land usage? How much land do we need to power our huge appetite for energy? What impact does that have on the environment? Mining for rare Earth minerals? How do we recycle these systems at the end of life?
People keep talking about the cost of renewables, but in fact, money is the one renewable resource that we do have.
All of the above are majorly important questions. Maybe renewables aren't so renewable after all.
People keep talking about the cost of renewables, but in fact, money is the one renewable resource that we do have.
All of the above are majorly important questions. Maybe renewables aren't so renewable after all.
> It's inevitable; fossil fuels are on the way out.
It's not on the way out. Fossil fuel use is increasing and projected to increase for the next 3 decades at least.
solar/wind/etc account for pretty much nothing today.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio...
And the 2050 projection shows that petroleum and natural gas use will increase and that even coal will rebound by 2050.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433
Also, that huge spike for "renewables" is mostly dams. Not wind or solar.
It's not on the way out. Fossil fuel use is increasing and projected to increase for the next 3 decades at least.
solar/wind/etc account for pretty much nothing today.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio...
And the 2050 projection shows that petroleum and natural gas use will increase and that even coal will rebound by 2050.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433
Also, that huge spike for "renewables" is mostly dams. Not wind or solar.
EIA projections are garbage and have been for years, go look at their own old projections if you want to verify this.
World coal consumption peaked in 2013, not sure why you believe it is coming back in 2050?!
Most of the new global energy production brought online is renewables, and has been for the last 4 years...The renewable fraction is also increasing. Not sure why you believe fossil fuel use will increase for the next 3 decades?!
World coal consumption peaked in 2013, not sure why you believe it is coming back in 2050?!
Most of the new global energy production brought online is renewables, and has been for the last 4 years...The renewable fraction is also increasing. Not sure why you believe fossil fuel use will increase for the next 3 decades?!
> EIA projections are garbage and have been for years, go look at their own old projections if you want to verify this.
Okay.
> World coal consumption peaked in 2013, not sure why you believe it is coming back in 2050?!
Because more than half the world's population has yet to industrialize.
> Most of the new global energy production brought online is renewables, and has been for the last 4 years..
Okay.
> Not sure why you believe fossil fuel use will increase for the next 3 decades?!
Firstly, because they are increasing. Secondly, more than half the world's population has yet to industrialize. Thirdly, tons of investment in natural gas.
Fossil fuel use is increasing in the US. Do you really think it'll slow in poor developing countries in south asia, south east asia and africa? I believe fossil fuel use will increase for the same reason EIA and every other major energy agency believes it will increase. Reality.
Okay.
> World coal consumption peaked in 2013, not sure why you believe it is coming back in 2050?!
Because more than half the world's population has yet to industrialize.
> Most of the new global energy production brought online is renewables, and has been for the last 4 years..
Okay.
> Not sure why you believe fossil fuel use will increase for the next 3 decades?!
Firstly, because they are increasing. Secondly, more than half the world's population has yet to industrialize. Thirdly, tons of investment in natural gas.
Fossil fuel use is increasing in the US. Do you really think it'll slow in poor developing countries in south asia, south east asia and africa? I believe fossil fuel use will increase for the same reason EIA and every other major energy agency believes it will increase. Reality.
> Because more than half the world's population has yet to industrialize.
This was true when the projections were that renewables would be more expensive than fossil fuels, but “developed” countries would invest in CO2 reduction “for the greater good”.
However, as per the article, renewables (including batteries) are going to become significantly cheaper than fossil fuels.
Any reason to believe countries “looking to industrialize” will opt for the more expensive fossil fuel option?
This was true when the projections were that renewables would be more expensive than fossil fuels, but “developed” countries would invest in CO2 reduction “for the greater good”.
However, as per the article, renewables (including batteries) are going to become significantly cheaper than fossil fuels.
Any reason to believe countries “looking to industrialize” will opt for the more expensive fossil fuel option?
> Any reason to believe countries “looking to industrialize” will opt for the more expensive fossil fuel option?
Sure, it isn't cheaper or more economical. You are not going to industrialize with rooftop solar panels. Or wind farms which only produce electricity when its windy. For the same reason batteries or gas is cheaper than jet fuel but you can't power a plane on double a batteries.
There are major geopolitical "wars" happening right now over gas/oil pipelines.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-29/nord-stre...
If "renewables" were cheaper or going to be cheaper, why would europe, russia, US, middle east, etc waste their time?
Or fight horrific wars over pipelines.
https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-...
Here is the US oil production. Notice that huge spike the last 10 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Crude_Oil_Production_a...
Here is US gas production. Notice the huge spike the last 10 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Natural_Gas_Production...
The "renewables" are cheap and going to save the world are for naive children who don't know how the world works. The kind of naive people who think veganism is good for the environment/animals or that we can solve our landfill issues by flying garbage into the sun. Or the naive people who think renewables are actually good for the environment.
Renewable energy production is going to rise for sure, but much of that will be hydroelectric power via dams. Those cause their share of environmental problems.
If wealthy developed nations are opting for "more expensive fossil fuel", even to the point of going through costly wars, what do you think poor undeveloped countries are going to do? It's not rocket science.
The ony solution to our fossil fuel problem is a revolutionary breakthrough like fusion. That's it. Until then the world is going to burn fossil fuel for many more decades at the very least.
Sure, it isn't cheaper or more economical. You are not going to industrialize with rooftop solar panels. Or wind farms which only produce electricity when its windy. For the same reason batteries or gas is cheaper than jet fuel but you can't power a plane on double a batteries.
There are major geopolitical "wars" happening right now over gas/oil pipelines.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-29/nord-stre...
If "renewables" were cheaper or going to be cheaper, why would europe, russia, US, middle east, etc waste their time?
Or fight horrific wars over pipelines.
https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-...
Here is the US oil production. Notice that huge spike the last 10 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Crude_Oil_Production_a...
Here is US gas production. Notice the huge spike the last 10 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Natural_Gas_Production...
The "renewables" are cheap and going to save the world are for naive children who don't know how the world works. The kind of naive people who think veganism is good for the environment/animals or that we can solve our landfill issues by flying garbage into the sun. Or the naive people who think renewables are actually good for the environment.
Renewable energy production is going to rise for sure, but much of that will be hydroelectric power via dams. Those cause their share of environmental problems.
If wealthy developed nations are opting for "more expensive fossil fuel", even to the point of going through costly wars, what do you think poor undeveloped countries are going to do? It's not rocket science.
The ony solution to our fossil fuel problem is a revolutionary breakthrough like fusion. That's it. Until then the world is going to burn fossil fuel for many more decades at the very least.
I hope they (EIA) are off the mark. If the predictions from the EIA a will materialize, we’re going to have a huge carbon problem.
However, I think there also are reasons to believe things will be better:
1) the EIA forecasts linear growth of renewables, while its been behaving exponentially over the last 5-10 years. That gives me hope they’ve underestimated the long term growth rate. (It would be interesting to compare their older predictions vs actual)
2) nearly all of the energy consumption growth is non-OECD and will require newly built generation. If cost of renewables continues to drop, it might just be economic sense that pushes renewables over coal
3) at least on the EU side, fossil fuels are increasingly getting a negative connotation. On top of the financial comparison, I expect this could dampen new fossil growth as well.
However, I think there also are reasons to believe things will be better:
1) the EIA forecasts linear growth of renewables, while its been behaving exponentially over the last 5-10 years. That gives me hope they’ve underestimated the long term growth rate. (It would be interesting to compare their older predictions vs actual)
2) nearly all of the energy consumption growth is non-OECD and will require newly built generation. If cost of renewables continues to drop, it might just be economic sense that pushes renewables over coal
3) at least on the EU side, fossil fuels are increasingly getting a negative connotation. On top of the financial comparison, I expect this could dampen new fossil growth as well.
> I hope they (EIA) are off the mark. If the predictions from the EIA a will materialize, we’re going to have a huge carbon problem.
The only way EIA will be off the mark is if we get something like fusion. Currently the major geopolitical issue is natural gas pipelines. Major nations wouldn't be fighting over gas pipelines if people believed fossil fuels were over.
> 1) the EIA forecasts linear growth of renewables, while its been behaving exponentially over the last 5-10 years.
And it still amounts to nothing. Solar/winds accounts for 1% of energy. And that's after 10 years of subsidies in the biggest economies around the world.
> 2) nearly all of the energy consumption growth is non-OECD and will require newly built generation. If cost of renewables continues to drop, it might just be economic sense that pushes renewables over coal
That will be all fossil fuels. The developing nations aren't going industrialize on solar/wind. Even developed nations can't do that.
> 3) at least on the EU side, fossil fuels are increasingly getting a negative connotation. On top of the financial comparison, I expect this could dampen new fossil growth as well.
Right... One of the biggest per capita producer of oil is norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...
The 2nd largest oil company in the world is a anglo-dutch company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell
And of course europe just invaded and took over libya for their oil. The EU is trying to take over venezuela for their oil. Etc.
The EU is one of the biggest direct consumers of fossil fuels ( and the largest consumer directly+indirectly ).
Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. That's just physical reality. It's physics. Sure renewables may slow the rate of growth, but growing more slowly is still growing.
The only thing that will cause a decline in fossil fuels is economic collapse or a genuine scientific breakthrough like fusion energy.
The only way EIA will be off the mark is if we get something like fusion. Currently the major geopolitical issue is natural gas pipelines. Major nations wouldn't be fighting over gas pipelines if people believed fossil fuels were over.
> 1) the EIA forecasts linear growth of renewables, while its been behaving exponentially over the last 5-10 years.
And it still amounts to nothing. Solar/winds accounts for 1% of energy. And that's after 10 years of subsidies in the biggest economies around the world.
> 2) nearly all of the energy consumption growth is non-OECD and will require newly built generation. If cost of renewables continues to drop, it might just be economic sense that pushes renewables over coal
That will be all fossil fuels. The developing nations aren't going industrialize on solar/wind. Even developed nations can't do that.
> 3) at least on the EU side, fossil fuels are increasingly getting a negative connotation. On top of the financial comparison, I expect this could dampen new fossil growth as well.
Right... One of the biggest per capita producer of oil is norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...
The 2nd largest oil company in the world is a anglo-dutch company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell
And of course europe just invaded and took over libya for their oil. The EU is trying to take over venezuela for their oil. Etc.
The EU is one of the biggest direct consumers of fossil fuels ( and the largest consumer directly+indirectly ).
Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. That's just physical reality. It's physics. Sure renewables may slow the rate of growth, but growing more slowly is still growing.
The only thing that will cause a decline in fossil fuels is economic collapse or a genuine scientific breakthrough like fusion energy.
> The only way EIA will be off the mark is if we get something like fusion. Currently the major geopolitical issue is natural gas pipelines. Major nations wouldn't be fighting over gas pipelines if people believed fossil fuels were over.
I'll point out that the EIA has been off the mark wrt renewables in the past. For example: in 2010 [1], the EIA predicted renewables to grow by 30 Quadrillion BTUs in the next 20 years (2010-2030), that took only 8 years instead of 20. In their latest report they had to update that to a growth of 120 Quadrillion BTOs over the same timespan (2010-2030) (i.e. they were off by a factor of 4x).
As a thought experiment: The world doubled renewables in the last 10 years. If we maintain that CAGR until 2050, that would mean growth from ±100 Quadrillion BTU in 2020 to 200 in 2030, 400 in 2040 and 800 in 2050. If the totals from the EIA in 2050 are correct (±900 Qd BTU), then that would cover almost 90% of primary energy consumption globally.
Note: I realise this is oversimplified. We'd run into dampening factors (e.g. intermittency of solar/wind) far before we reach 90%. Nonetheless, based on the current growth I'm happy to argue that the EIA is underestimating growth potential of renewables.
> Right... One of the biggest per capita producer of oil is norway. > The 2nd largest oil company in the world is a anglo-dutch company.
The present doesn't have to describe the future:
- Shell is still huge company. Yet, had you invested in Shell 5 years ago, your stocks would be 33% lower today (-47% for Exxon). Had you invested in some of the established renewable energy players e.g. Orsted, Vesta, or Iberdrola, you'd be up between 75 and 350%.
- Same in the US: Nextera (US Wind and Solar player) is currently valued higher than BP, Total or Shell. ($147 bln), and doubled market cap in the last 5 years.
The Dutch version of the FT ran an article yesterday on how investors are increasingly wary of investing in fossil fuels, and moving more into renewables. They made the comparison to how it suddenly became undesirable to invest in e.g. Tobacco. [2]
[1]: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/riley2/docs/EIA...
[2]: https://fd.nl/ondernemen/1366175/beleggers-draaien-van-fossi...
I'll point out that the EIA has been off the mark wrt renewables in the past. For example: in 2010 [1], the EIA predicted renewables to grow by 30 Quadrillion BTUs in the next 20 years (2010-2030), that took only 8 years instead of 20. In their latest report they had to update that to a growth of 120 Quadrillion BTOs over the same timespan (2010-2030) (i.e. they were off by a factor of 4x).
As a thought experiment: The world doubled renewables in the last 10 years. If we maintain that CAGR until 2050, that would mean growth from ±100 Quadrillion BTU in 2020 to 200 in 2030, 400 in 2040 and 800 in 2050. If the totals from the EIA in 2050 are correct (±900 Qd BTU), then that would cover almost 90% of primary energy consumption globally.
Note: I realise this is oversimplified. We'd run into dampening factors (e.g. intermittency of solar/wind) far before we reach 90%. Nonetheless, based on the current growth I'm happy to argue that the EIA is underestimating growth potential of renewables.
> Right... One of the biggest per capita producer of oil is norway. > The 2nd largest oil company in the world is a anglo-dutch company.
The present doesn't have to describe the future:
- Shell is still huge company. Yet, had you invested in Shell 5 years ago, your stocks would be 33% lower today (-47% for Exxon). Had you invested in some of the established renewable energy players e.g. Orsted, Vesta, or Iberdrola, you'd be up between 75 and 350%.
- Same in the US: Nextera (US Wind and Solar player) is currently valued higher than BP, Total or Shell. ($147 bln), and doubled market cap in the last 5 years.
The Dutch version of the FT ran an article yesterday on how investors are increasingly wary of investing in fossil fuels, and moving more into renewables. They made the comparison to how it suddenly became undesirable to invest in e.g. Tobacco. [2]
[1]: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/riley2/docs/EIA...
[2]: https://fd.nl/ondernemen/1366175/beleggers-draaien-van-fossi...
You know what's amazing? Farmers in rural Pakistan choosing to prefer solar to irrigate their crops (panels + VFD/inverter + 10 HP 3-phase motor):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfNgF0WTeCM
Or grinding wheat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G2evJOiU9I
The comments in these video are all about how much does it cost, what is your contact number, etc. Clearly this is a sea-change.
Also amazing that they all have cell phones :-)
The old system included 80+ year old hand-started diesel engines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZuqT7dgM08
These are very cool, but solar requires less man-power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfNgF0WTeCM
Or grinding wheat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G2evJOiU9I
The comments in these video are all about how much does it cost, what is your contact number, etc. Clearly this is a sea-change.
Also amazing that they all have cell phones :-)
The old system included 80+ year old hand-started diesel engines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZuqT7dgM08
These are very cool, but solar requires less man-power.
Definitely a sea change happening. I’ve noticed a proliferation of “village life” YouTube channels from Pakistan... it seems that cheap solar power, cellular internet, and cheap smartphones is bringing a whole new class of people online and enriching their lives both materially and culturally.
Unfortunately, it also sometimes results in lynch mobs: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910
That article is about WhatsApp being used to coordinate a lynch mob in India (a villager suspected them of being kidnappers). Tragic, but not relevant
It is absolutely relevant to the claim that "cellular internet, and cheap smartphones is bringing a whole new class of people online and enriching their lives both materially and culturally".
Given that it's not at all a singular incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings) it seems pretty clear that this "enriching" is a decidedly mixed blessing.
Given that it's not at all a singular incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings) it seems pretty clear that this "enriching" is a decidedly mixed blessing.
That reminds me of an article linked few months back about opium farming:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53450688
A good cash crop unfortunately...
To complete the picture, here is how you can drill the well in the first place:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn7twImE2ug
To complete the picture, here is how you can drill the well in the first place:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn7twImE2ug
Thank you for the link. Satistying to watch tradition meet modernish equipment. Would you know how long does a tube well like this yield water? Do the farmers regularly deepen the drill or just find a new location?
I don't know, but one thing occurs to me: those ponds the opium growers make are essentially batteries.
I'll admit to not knowing anything about Pakistan, let alone rural Pakistan, but do they have a national power grid there? At least with solar, you own and control the power production yourself, and (in theory) there's no hidden costs.
Meanwhile, I live in a country where on the one side they're pushing for and subsidizing solar energy, but at the same side they're forcing people to change their meters so that the energy companies can pay you less for power you feed back to the grid; with a 'dumb' meter, it was an even exchange, meaning that you only paid for the power you did not produce yourself. With the new system, you (I think?) only get 25% of the amount you sell, compared to the amount you pay.
Meanwhile, I live in a country where on the one side they're pushing for and subsidizing solar energy, but at the same side they're forcing people to change their meters so that the energy companies can pay you less for power you feed back to the grid; with a 'dumb' meter, it was an even exchange, meaning that you only paid for the power you did not produce yourself. With the new system, you (I think?) only get 25% of the amount you sell, compared to the amount you pay.
I think it's fair to assume the price of the energy you buy not only account for the price at generation, but also for all the services a grid provides: transport, reliability, variability of load etc.
When it's bought back from you, they only pay for the generation part which makes sense in my opinion. Now where that price point is, I don't know! (25%? 50%? no idea)
It seems the smart meter issue is almost unrelated though. Where I am (UK, potentially where you are too as it looks like a similar issue), the old feed-in tariff subsidised the energy _generated_ by a system, regardless of if you used the energy yourself or exported the energy. That's great to kick-start an economy but doesn't scale at a national level.
I understand they are trying to push to pay for what is exported by houses only. I'm a bit sad to see the old subvention gone as it made solar panel uneconomical in lots of situations, and there's a lot to say about timing, but in principle I think it's sound reasoning.
When it's bought back from you, they only pay for the generation part which makes sense in my opinion. Now where that price point is, I don't know! (25%? 50%? no idea)
It seems the smart meter issue is almost unrelated though. Where I am (UK, potentially where you are too as it looks like a similar issue), the old feed-in tariff subsidised the energy _generated_ by a system, regardless of if you used the energy yourself or exported the energy. That's great to kick-start an economy but doesn't scale at a national level.
I understand they are trying to push to pay for what is exported by houses only. I'm a bit sad to see the old subvention gone as it made solar panel uneconomical in lots of situations, and there's a lot to say about timing, but in principle I think it's sound reasoning.
In Poland you can redeem 80% of what you contribute to grid, so if you have excess in summer you can use it in winter. I think it's quite good and demand is there from houseowners.
Please help me with maths in the first video. The motor is 10 HP which is approx 7.5 kW powered by 18 x 320 W = 5760 W solar panels. Inverter and cable loss are not even accounted.
How its gonna run on a cloudy day?
You don't have to run it at full power, and you run it when the sun shines.
I really appreciate the practical engineering of that first video. Winding a stick to tighten the belt is the sort of elegant solution that I wouldn't have thought of
I hate the argument that we’re just waiting for batteries now.
I think if we had variable pricing that matched the availability of renewables, consumers would shift quickly.
Say something like power costs .02/kWh while the sun is shining and .30 when it’s not.
I’d charge my car at work. I’d put a timer on my dryer to turn on at 10am. They probably come out with a hot water heater that goes really hot during the day and coasts through the night. Same idea for your freezer.
Heck I’d even blast my AC to ten degrees below where I want it during the day and then ride out the night.
I think if we had variable pricing that matched the availability of renewables, consumers would shift quickly.
Say something like power costs .02/kWh while the sun is shining and .30 when it’s not.
I’d charge my car at work. I’d put a timer on my dryer to turn on at 10am. They probably come out with a hot water heater that goes really hot during the day and coasts through the night. Same idea for your freezer.
Heck I’d even blast my AC to ten degrees below where I want it during the day and then ride out the night.
In certain parts of the US with retail choice this is already a reality, check out Griddy[0] in Texas. They'll give you wholesale electricity prices which is all sweet and dandy until there's a shortage of supply (generally on the hottest days of the summer) and the price shoots up to $9000 per MWh. Honestly it's a great deal if you're willing to accept the risk associated with it (or work from home and can quickly race to your circuit breaker and shut off the power when the price spikes).
[0] https://www.griddy.com
[0] https://www.griddy.com
In the UK, Octopus Energy[0] have a tariff like this. They have a 35p / kWh price cap to limit that risk. With the average price of electricity around 15p / kWh here, it means the risk isn't too great as long as the shortages don't go on too long.
[0] https://octopus.energy/agile/
[0] https://octopus.energy/agile/
> I think if we had variable pricing that matched the availability of renewables, consumers would shift quickly.
If you dig around enough, you'll find plenty of stories of variable electricity costs. From what I understand, it's more common for business customers instead of residential. (Apparently chillers that freeze water overnight with cheap electricity to run daytime air conditioning is a thing.)
But anyway, I have a fancy powerwall and solar, but I only use it for backup. Why? There's no incentive to use the battery. It's 95% efficient, so if I use the battery at night, I get less net metering credits than if I just use it as backup.
If you dig around enough, you'll find plenty of stories of variable electricity costs. From what I understand, it's more common for business customers instead of residential. (Apparently chillers that freeze water overnight with cheap electricity to run daytime air conditioning is a thing.)
But anyway, I have a fancy powerwall and solar, but I only use it for backup. Why? There's no incentive to use the battery. It's 95% efficient, so if I use the battery at night, I get less net metering credits than if I just use it as backup.
A coworker recently showed me that they have a non commercial power plan/contract where they get hourly prices based on market rate. In South Australia where the sun is pretty intense, his power prices literally go negative for a few hours.
Now if you had variable loads or a battery you could schedule them to buy and sell power based on the market rate. Since very few people have the ability to do this, you can constantly beat the market on an almost daily basis. Tesla in fact already does this. Not only do they profit from this buying and selling, the grid becomes stabilized because the high and low demand periods become smoothed.
Now if you had variable loads or a battery you could schedule them to buy and sell power based on the market rate. Since very few people have the ability to do this, you can constantly beat the market on an almost daily basis. Tesla in fact already does this. Not only do they profit from this buying and selling, the grid becomes stabilized because the high and low demand periods become smoothed.
>Since very few people have the ability to do this, you can constantly beat the market on an almost daily basis.
That's incorrect usage of terminology because energy is not an investment. Nobody buys a kWh of energy expecting it to net a return year over year. It's used as a consumable like food or water. If you buy low and sell high you are engaging in trading, not investment.
Trading is about providing liquidity and the maximum liquidity a market needs depends on its size, not the number of traders. Those traders basically have to share a market and if there are too many traders then the profit per trader will go down. This is the biggest reason why trading (not investment) is zero sum. At some point enough is enough but this isn't necessarily as bad as many people portray.
A lot of industries are like this. Once everyone got a smartphone or PC the only way to grow faster is to displace a competitor. Trading in the stock market is usually a poor choice because there are plenty of professional businesses that are already providing enough liquidity.
Trading in the energy market can be a good choice precisely because the market isn't crowded as you said.
That's incorrect usage of terminology because energy is not an investment. Nobody buys a kWh of energy expecting it to net a return year over year. It's used as a consumable like food or water. If you buy low and sell high you are engaging in trading, not investment.
Trading is about providing liquidity and the maximum liquidity a market needs depends on its size, not the number of traders. Those traders basically have to share a market and if there are too many traders then the profit per trader will go down. This is the biggest reason why trading (not investment) is zero sum. At some point enough is enough but this isn't necessarily as bad as many people portray.
A lot of industries are like this. Once everyone got a smartphone or PC the only way to grow faster is to displace a competitor. Trading in the stock market is usually a poor choice because there are plenty of professional businesses that are already providing enough liquidity.
Trading in the energy market can be a good choice precisely because the market isn't crowded as you said.
The scale of the required liquidity of the energy market is growing constantly. Every time a solar panel or wind turbine is installed, the need for variable power sources goes up. If we're going to go anywhere near the net zero target that many western nations have set, we're going to need _a lot_ of liquidity.
I believe that Tesla could hook my power wall into such a system if my local utilities offered it. Hopefully they do soon, because there's going to be major offshore windmills near my house soon.
It's going to be both. Tesla is working hard on mass-producing more affordable batteries. At the level of individuals it's already worthwhile. For 20K you can have enough Powerwall batteries to power your home when the sun isn't shining. 20K isn't that much on a 300-500K house. Competition will come and the price will come down more.
Couple that with automated buying/selling of renewable power at different times of the day, more efficient home insulation and... I'd say we're nearly there.
Couple that with automated buying/selling of renewable power at different times of the day, more efficient home insulation and... I'd say we're nearly there.
> For 20K you can have enough Powerwall batteries to power your home when the sun isn't shining
Huge amount of money to get off the grid - how many years of bills is that?
I have a 4kW system up here at 56 degrees north, and there's no way I could go off grid with it because the seasonality is huge; I can't store power all the way through the winter. I get it from the big offshore windfarms instead.
Huge amount of money to get off the grid - how many years of bills is that?
I have a 4kW system up here at 56 degrees north, and there's no way I could go off grid with it because the seasonality is huge; I can't store power all the way through the winter. I get it from the big offshore windfarms instead.
Renewable power and everyone being off-grid are not the same. I think we'd all like to be off-grid, but it won't be possible for everyone (eg: people living in apartments).
Curious to know, how much power do you get during the winter vs summer?
Curious to know, how much power do you get during the winter vs summer?
CATL, BYD, LG Chem , Panasonic and numerous new entrants stepping up their game due to Tesla competition. Hope there is cooperation too.
India without any Li ion manufacturer is trying very hard to get at least 1 or 2 off the ground with production linked incentives and a few business houses have entered.
India without any Li ion manufacturer is trying very hard to get at least 1 or 2 off the ground with production linked incentives and a few business houses have entered.
I think the best thing we could do if we went to pricing like that is to have a meter next to your thermostat that tells you have much you're paying for electricity right now. That would make the mental equation much less abstract and immediate, further push people towards the behaviors you mention. But on those specifics:
1) Unfortunately most workplaces don't have a place to charge your car. That should change
2) Laundry is problematic for households with 2 adults & a few kids. Multiple loads can't be automated that way, so not running laundry after 5:00 pm isn't an option many days.
3) You can can have a high-efficiency on-demand hot water heater with an external tank to hold X amount of hot water for use throughout the day. Heating your home is more problematic: the hot water loses about 5-10 degrees per cycle through the house & back to the boiler, so you'd still need to run the unit on cold nights.
4) Fridge/Freezer: I like the idea, but it could be a food safety risk... I'd rather see units designed with that particular use case & required insulation in mind to ensure food was always kept at safe temperatures, even if it meant paying the .30 for short spurts over night.
5) AC: I wish everyone would do this sort of thing already with thermostat timers. If you have a small apartment with window units, timers at outlets should automatically shutoff living/dining units. Bedroom should have a high temp (though comfortable enough to sleep through) set for the cutoff since you're sleeping anyway. If your home needs more than 3 window units, it's generally more energy efficient to get central air (though upfront costs are high) and you can get multi-zones to only cool the areas needed, further improving efficiency.
Basically, I think a lot of the things we'd do to deal with variable pricing could already be done to reduce usage.
1) Unfortunately most workplaces don't have a place to charge your car. That should change
2) Laundry is problematic for households with 2 adults & a few kids. Multiple loads can't be automated that way, so not running laundry after 5:00 pm isn't an option many days.
3) You can can have a high-efficiency on-demand hot water heater with an external tank to hold X amount of hot water for use throughout the day. Heating your home is more problematic: the hot water loses about 5-10 degrees per cycle through the house & back to the boiler, so you'd still need to run the unit on cold nights.
4) Fridge/Freezer: I like the idea, but it could be a food safety risk... I'd rather see units designed with that particular use case & required insulation in mind to ensure food was always kept at safe temperatures, even if it meant paying the .30 for short spurts over night.
5) AC: I wish everyone would do this sort of thing already with thermostat timers. If you have a small apartment with window units, timers at outlets should automatically shutoff living/dining units. Bedroom should have a high temp (though comfortable enough to sleep through) set for the cutoff since you're sleeping anyway. If your home needs more than 3 window units, it's generally more energy efficient to get central air (though upfront costs are high) and you can get multi-zones to only cool the areas needed, further improving efficiency.
Basically, I think a lot of the things we'd do to deal with variable pricing could already be done to reduce usage.
There are two big issues with just having residential consumers pay the spot market price.
1: not all if the costs are energy related. In fact, the cost to build and maintain the transmission and distribution systems is quite substantial. But that cost is for an average amount of energy over a number of years so it’s hard to turn that into a floating market value
2: There are socioeconomic factors that need to be resolved. Someone who works nights can’t avoid using power during high price times as it may be the only time to do chores. Or someone who works two jobs who can’t afford any fancy equipment to time shift use.
1: not all if the costs are energy related. In fact, the cost to build and maintain the transmission and distribution systems is quite substantial. But that cost is for an average amount of energy over a number of years so it’s hard to turn that into a floating market value
2: There are socioeconomic factors that need to be resolved. Someone who works nights can’t avoid using power during high price times as it may be the only time to do chores. Or someone who works two jobs who can’t afford any fancy equipment to time shift use.
> 1) Unfortunately most workplaces don't have a place to charge your car. That should change
I think this correlates with EV sales. In the places that have lots of EVs you will find employers that have chargers.
Elon Musk said it in one of his presentations, something like "we sell cars whereever we put in superchargers".
I think this correlates with EV sales. In the places that have lots of EVs you will find employers that have chargers.
Elon Musk said it in one of his presentations, something like "we sell cars whereever we put in superchargers".
The water heater thing has existed in the UK for years, it's called a storage heater.
The current market operate by people bidding to supply demand in the future. The market say "I want to buy power a certain amount between specific hours at a specific date" and the power operation can say "I will obligate to supply that energy at that time and date at this price". Batteries could at any time jump in and bid below that of any current bidders.
In that aspect we already have variable pricing. Individual customers usually don't see this, but I suspect the primary reason has more to do with averaging out the cost over time and not exposing individuals to the internal details of the energy market.
In that aspect we already have variable pricing. Individual customers usually don't see this, but I suspect the primary reason has more to do with averaging out the cost over time and not exposing individuals to the internal details of the energy market.
If you install your own panels, you can of course simply sell back to the electricity company.
In South Australia, a few roof panels, gets you enough credits to essentially run the AC without needing to consider the power cost.
In South Australia, a few roof panels, gets you enough credits to essentially run the AC without needing to consider the power cost.
That depends, full AC draws 5kw for me, so you'd need probably a 10kw system to get coverage for most of the day, and that's a big one, I think requiring a 3 phase connection. I dare say unless you have a fortunate roof shape (all flat or pointing all the right way) you wont be able to fit that on either..
Ah yes, I was being too loose in my language. I should have said:
"gets my father enough credits, so HE does not worry about the costs of running the AC", which upon reflection might only be during and and the evenings"
> I hate the argument that we’re just waiting for batteries now.
Hopefully it’s not that simple. If the existing renewables output of an area is high, is it a good idea for me to build more capacity? I could just saturate the market and be stuck with low margins.
But if storage is coming, that could tilt the playing field a bit. I’d I do decide to gamble on it, now there’s even more reason to build storage, whether I build it or someone else does. In fact if I do both, I may be able to buy someone else’s surplus at a discount to resell and as a hedge against outages in my farm.
Hopefully it’s not that simple. If the existing renewables output of an area is high, is it a good idea for me to build more capacity? I could just saturate the market and be stuck with low margins.
But if storage is coming, that could tilt the playing field a bit. I’d I do decide to gamble on it, now there’s even more reason to build storage, whether I build it or someone else does. In fact if I do both, I may be able to buy someone else’s surplus at a discount to resell and as a hedge against outages in my farm.
In theory that's nice, but in practice, you need power when you need it, and the energy companies / pricing will adapt. My parents had variable rates for a while, so electricity was cheaper at night, so they'd do things like the laundry at night. But in practice, the difference was negligible, especially as we started to add more and more daytime technology (like PC's) to the house.
There are a lot of creative implementations of demand response and time of use rates, but the price curve is crazy (see slide 7 [1]). To achieve a 10% reduction in electricity usage in the evening, you have to give people a 80-90% discount on their electricity at other times. BUT, "smart" water heaters, thermostats, etc. improve these numbers dramatically.
Designing these programs/prices/policies is a huge industry, and I happen to know a good bit about it because we work on helping utilities design these programs at Kevala (shameless plug: we are hiring [2])
[1] http://files.brattle.com/files/7390_price-enabled_demand_res... [2] https://kevalaanalytics.com/positions/
Designing these programs/prices/policies is a huge industry, and I happen to know a good bit about it because we work on helping utilities design these programs at Kevala (shameless plug: we are hiring [2])
[1] http://files.brattle.com/files/7390_price-enabled_demand_res... [2] https://kevalaanalytics.com/positions/
Octopus energy in the UK has something like this https://twitter.com/energystatsuk would be great if you could push energy back to the grid and get paid for it too
This already exist in some places (for example Amber and Powerclub in Australia).
The issue is it's more effort than most people are happy to exert. They are used to flicking a switch having the appliance on whenever they want it. To change that will either involve much higher prices, a substantial shift in the way we think about energy, or an improvement in technology to allow the load shifting to happen in the background without the user noticing.
We turn to batteries instead because it's easier to build something than it is to change behaviour.
The issue is it's more effort than most people are happy to exert. They are used to flicking a switch having the appliance on whenever they want it. To change that will either involve much higher prices, a substantial shift in the way we think about energy, or an improvement in technology to allow the load shifting to happen in the background without the user noticing.
We turn to batteries instead because it's easier to build something than it is to change behaviour.
For low level residential use batteries might be cheaper. For industrial and commercial use where the scales are higher, demand shifting is probably cheaper.
If spot pricing for residential consumers was universal instead of niche, I suspect the technology would rapidly develop to meet this requirement.
That water heater idea is interesting. You could put a thermostatic valve on the output that mixes in cold water so the output was always the same temp no matter what the inside is. Usually people turn the temp down to save money, but if you can heat it way up when energy is cheap, that might change completely.
At least in Germany that's already the standard plumbing practice: a mixing valve on the tank outlet ensures the tap temperatures are safe. This is important because the tank is required to periodically heat to 65C to kill legionella bacteria, and with solar input can heat to as much as 85C, so without such a valve the tap temperature would be unpredictable and sometimes dangerous.
What may be easier is to move the heating element to the top, and add a pump to move water to the top when heating.
Hot water will stay at the top of the tank, so that means you can use most of the hot water without a significant drop in temperature.
There's a company making tanks like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Z4JCoPAGc
Hot water will stay at the top of the tank, so that means you can use most of the hot water without a significant drop in temperature.
There's a company making tanks like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Z4JCoPAGc
We don't need batteries we just need a massive change in lifestyle including self-managed power cuts and making our houses freezing cold so they're tolerable at night when we can't run the AC. Sounds... not ideal
We used to have things called storage heaters in the UK which were electrical heaters (and so were expensive) designed to use the slightly less expensive night-time electricity to heat up big bits of concrete contained within them, which then leaked (not enough) heat during the day. They were not good at all
Some states have this. I remember a friend in new york had a timer on his electric water heater to heat it at night when power was cheap.
But you are right - market forces are extremely powerful in their ability to optimize things.
But you are right - market forces are extremely powerful in their ability to optimize things.
I think it's pretty common to have time-of-use pricing (that's what my provider calls it, and I am on the plan), but it's relatively fixed. Ours switches schedule twice a year. So you can get used to it, I only charge our EVs after 10pm for example. But if it changed dynamically, I'd need to have a lot of automation in place to react, because it would get tiring to personally pay attention to price all the time.
>Some states have this. I remember a friend in new york had a timer on his electric water heater to heat it at night when power was cheap.
This has been a thing in Australia too, under the decades-old assumption that midnight coal is the cheapest period of power. There have been projects to change the boiler systems to 1) heat at midday instead of midnight, to reflect the changed cost-curve caused by solar, and 2) randomise the exact period of heating, to spread the demand over a range rather than causing a huge spike at 12:00 exactly.
This has been a thing in Australia too, under the decades-old assumption that midnight coal is the cheapest period of power. There have been projects to change the boiler systems to 1) heat at midday instead of midnight, to reflect the changed cost-curve caused by solar, and 2) randomise the exact period of heating, to spread the demand over a range rather than causing a huge spike at 12:00 exactly.
As an upper midwesterner, that would be an incredibly hard sell. You could whip up support for coal again in heartbeat.
Renewables are a great idea in theory, but in reality don't jive well with people in the non-windy, non-sunny areas that also get really damn cold. It's sad to say it but nothing can beat what natural gas and coal can do already. They're cheap and can be used to generate electricity at an extraordinarily affordable rate. At the end of the day, that's the #1 thing most people are going to care about. If you told people here their electricity bills would double, they'd actively go out and demand the current politician step down.
Renewables are a great idea in theory, but in reality don't jive well with people in the non-windy, non-sunny areas that also get really damn cold. It's sad to say it but nothing can beat what natural gas and coal can do already. They're cheap and can be used to generate electricity at an extraordinarily affordable rate. At the end of the day, that's the #1 thing most people are going to care about. If you told people here their electricity bills would double, they'd actively go out and demand the current politician step down.
If I understand what you're saying, it is that there's little wind, not much sun and it's extremely cold in say, North Dakota, so fossil fuels are cheaper there? Seems to be about a 10 mph avg wind speed [1] and sunny about half the time in daylight hours in winter [2]
[1] https://www.ndsu.edu/climate/North%20Dakota%20Data/Yearly%20...
[2] http://www.bismarck.climatemps.com/sunlight.php
[1] https://www.ndsu.edu/climate/North%20Dakota%20Data/Yearly%20...
[2] http://www.bismarck.climatemps.com/sunlight.php
So how do you handle peak periods but it happens to only be a low wind generation day? Just tell everybody brownouts are in effect? The only reason that happens in enormous cities like LA, SF, and Austin TX is because they have way too many people drawing power. The grid can't be built faster than people can move in.
In terms of electricity generation, this is why batteries are a monumental step towards making green energy feasible. It accounts for these peak periods, capitalizes off of them, then reuses the stored energy when energy generation is low.
In terms of electricity generation, this is why batteries are a monumental step towards making green energy feasible. It accounts for these peak periods, capitalizes off of them, then reuses the stored energy when energy generation is low.
I'd burn fossil fuels too huddled around the furnace in the upper midwest in the winter. To hell with the greens.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have green energy. I'm saying it's not feasible yet. You're damn well sure it's not feasible for {insert major metropolitan area here}.
You'd have thought that high demand would increase fossil prices? No, they're cheap in North Dakota because of all the fracking there.
I grew up on the beach in California. North Dakota in the winter sounds like a frigid, dark, petroleum smelling hell hole to me.
The upper midwest has comparable climate to Russia. You know, the Russia both Napolean and Hitler invaded. It's not bad right now, but on occasion we get -10F weather. I know southerners think it's the worst but it's really not. Snow and ice is a bigger bitch to deal with than the temp.
The Germans paid for it creating the market/industry. Vast amounts. Then the Chinese thought it looked like a good industry to be in and threw unbelievable money at developing manufacturing capacity. If the Germans keep voting green and being parsimonious savers then we may yet get cheap batteries and survive.
That’s rather inaccurate.
German electricity prices are so high because renewables need backup power plants and German law mandates that these plants (mostly coal and gas) are not allowed to operate unless wind and solar are unable to provide sufficient electricity.
Also, Germany‘s energy sector still accounts to 350 million tons CO2 emissions annually while France only accounts for 50 million tons CO2 p.a.
That’s the result of phasing out nuclear in Germany and over 70% nuclear in France in the electricity sector.
Unless you‘re Norway or Austria or any country with lots of hydropower, renewables are neither cheap nor do they significantly help to decarbonize the electricity sector.
German electricity prices are so high because renewables need backup power plants and German law mandates that these plants (mostly coal and gas) are not allowed to operate unless wind and solar are unable to provide sufficient electricity.
Also, Germany‘s energy sector still accounts to 350 million tons CO2 emissions annually while France only accounts for 50 million tons CO2 p.a.
That’s the result of phasing out nuclear in Germany and over 70% nuclear in France in the electricity sector.
Unless you‘re Norway or Austria or any country with lots of hydropower, renewables are neither cheap nor do they significantly help to decarbonize the electricity sector.
Original comment:
> The Germans paid for it creating the market/industry. Vast amounts. [...] If the Germans keep voting green [...]
Your reply:
> That’s rather inaccurate. [...] German electricity prices are so high because [...] German law mandates that these plants are not allowed to operate unless wind and solar are unable to provide sufficient electricity
So what you're saying is, German lawmakers mandated the Germans pay for it...
Your comment seems to be making some odd argument about the expense, as if it should be cheap? The original commenter was pointing out exactly that: it costs. "The Germans paid..."
> .
> The Germans paid for it creating the market/industry. Vast amounts. [...] If the Germans keep voting green [...]
Your reply:
> That’s rather inaccurate. [...] German electricity prices are so high because [...] German law mandates that these plants are not allowed to operate unless wind and solar are unable to provide sufficient electricity
So what you're saying is, German lawmakers mandated the Germans pay for it...
Your comment seems to be making some odd argument about the expense, as if it should be cheap? The original commenter was pointing out exactly that: it costs. "The Germans paid..."
> .
Germany spent a lot of money on renewables and they still ended up as one of the countries with the highest levels of CO2 in Europe. That said, it's not for nothing because while this is was a combination of a lot of mistakes, everyone else gets to learn from these mistakes. Other countries could simply cut emissions by replacing coal with gas, cheaply. Now they can switch to renewables at a much better price too since they've waited while Germany did a lot of the learning the hard way.
That is because renewables are cheap to make now and in the future. In the past they were not, and as a result we do not have the capacity to make them at the moment (and might not before it collapses).
I agree that currently nuclear makes sense as if there is political will it could be scaled up quickly and at the very least provide base power.
I agree that currently nuclear makes sense as if there is political will it could be scaled up quickly and at the very least provide base power.
I don’t see where the comment you replied to said that it was cheap. You’re putting words in their mouth.
You can't directly compare Germany to France, as Germany largely privatised their grid whereas France's grid is largely government-run and -subsidised.
Is Germany's experience a success or failure?
What is the counter to this article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05...
What is the counter to this article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05...
Great question!
Here's what Germany did: They invested a vast amount in local renewables, at above market prices, that had the effect of dramatically driving down the global price of wind and solar. Because they radically expanded production capacity. Effectively, Germany gave the world a 'gift'!
This had the long-term affect of dramatically increasing global solar + wind deployments (b/c prices fell) and transferring a huge economic boom to China, who actually made the solar panels and who's government subsidized production.
Unfortunately, for domestics political reasons, Germany also shut down their nuclear plants and kept burning coal. So their total CO2 emissions have been roughly constant and about 10x higher, per person, than France or Sweden.
The article is correct in that vastly more electrical transmission is needed to effectively integrate renewables. The article is misleading in describing price spikes. Yes, there are 2-45 days a year of price spikes for a few hours, but on average price is lower b/c of renewables outside of Germany. (Again, Germany did everyone the favor of buying renewables before they were economic.) Texas average prices are some of the lowest in the world. CA wholesale power prices are very low globally, while retail prices are sky high b/c PG&E is a monopoly combined with an inadvertent domestic terrorist organization.
Something the article only eludes to, the energy transition covers many more areas than just power production. Germany has done a bad job in both transportation and building emissions. They're overly reliant on Russian natural gas for heating and have been slow to embrace electric cars (VW is doing 'ok' but not great). Both issues are separate to renewables but major failings of German policy to either reduce emissions or increase energy security.
Overall, the German investment in renewables electricity production is a massive success and global gift. Completely underrecognized. Everything else sits in the category between "failure" and "didn't even try."
Here's what Germany did: They invested a vast amount in local renewables, at above market prices, that had the effect of dramatically driving down the global price of wind and solar. Because they radically expanded production capacity. Effectively, Germany gave the world a 'gift'!
This had the long-term affect of dramatically increasing global solar + wind deployments (b/c prices fell) and transferring a huge economic boom to China, who actually made the solar panels and who's government subsidized production.
Unfortunately, for domestics political reasons, Germany also shut down their nuclear plants and kept burning coal. So their total CO2 emissions have been roughly constant and about 10x higher, per person, than France or Sweden.
The article is correct in that vastly more electrical transmission is needed to effectively integrate renewables. The article is misleading in describing price spikes. Yes, there are 2-45 days a year of price spikes for a few hours, but on average price is lower b/c of renewables outside of Germany. (Again, Germany did everyone the favor of buying renewables before they were economic.) Texas average prices are some of the lowest in the world. CA wholesale power prices are very low globally, while retail prices are sky high b/c PG&E is a monopoly combined with an inadvertent domestic terrorist organization.
Something the article only eludes to, the energy transition covers many more areas than just power production. Germany has done a bad job in both transportation and building emissions. They're overly reliant on Russian natural gas for heating and have been slow to embrace electric cars (VW is doing 'ok' but not great). Both issues are separate to renewables but major failings of German policy to either reduce emissions or increase energy security.
Overall, the German investment in renewables electricity production is a massive success and global gift. Completely underrecognized. Everything else sits in the category between "failure" and "didn't even try."
Looking at the data on rolled out photovoltaics from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
It looks like Europe as a whole is only a fraction of global spending from 2012 onwards. Germany is only a part of that.
How do you discount the counterfactual that Solar power costs were going down anyway as there was global demand anyway for solar panels at reasonable scale?
Also, do you have any reference for anyone at the start of the Energiewende saying that the aim was to reduce the cost of solar power rather than reduce emissions?
It seems that the goals are being shifted to avoid people looking at Germany spending hundreds of billions of dollars and, as you point out, achieving a result that is substantially worse than that of France, that did something similar in the 1970s with different technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
It looks like Europe as a whole is only a fraction of global spending from 2012 onwards. Germany is only a part of that.
How do you discount the counterfactual that Solar power costs were going down anyway as there was global demand anyway for solar panels at reasonable scale?
Also, do you have any reference for anyone at the start of the Energiewende saying that the aim was to reduce the cost of solar power rather than reduce emissions?
It seems that the goals are being shifted to avoid people looking at Germany spending hundreds of billions of dollars and, as you point out, achieving a result that is substantially worse than that of France, that did something similar in the 1970s with different technology.
All great questions.
When I look at the "Worldwide growth of photovoltaics" plot at the top of the page you linked, I see the "Green" (European) color dominate from 2008-2013 (maybe 80%+ of installs). Germany purchases, peaking in 2011, where in the heart of when solar price declines occurred. By the same chart, deployments in the rest of the world explode post 2014, after the big price declines.
Here's an article from 2011 (concurrent with German deployments) showing the immense price falls at that time: https://rameznaam.com/2011/03/17/expis-moores-law-really-a-f...
Yes, there's a huge 'chicken' v 'egg' question here: deployment vs. price declines from tech learning rates. Someone had to kick-start this process by for huge deployments when it was uneconomical, to then drive scaling in production. Germany footed the bill. Global deployments then soured after those purchases and price declines.
Perhaps someone else would have done this later, but I don't really care about the historical counterfactual, I care about who's balance sheet the uneconomic debt, to kickstart the virtuous cycle, sits on. So I credit Germany.
Yes, I am attributing a success to the Energiewende that was not part of the initial plan. But I do think it's an important success. Here's reference: https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-4-energiewende/
My understanding of the Energiewende, is that it was never focused on climate. Rather is was a plan to create economic energy independence at a time of very high and rising oil prices (e.g. 2008-2014).
So from 2020, the plan looks like a failure b/c 1) the twin tech. breakthroughs of low priced renewables and fracking have "slayed" the monster of rising high hydrocarbon prices 2) we now view climate change as a far bigger issue. If energy prices had stayed high, I think we'd view the Energiewende as achieving it's stated goals. The situation has changed.
Though, I'll be the first person to say the CO2 goals of the energy transition are more important than what the Energiewende focused on.
When I look at the "Worldwide growth of photovoltaics" plot at the top of the page you linked, I see the "Green" (European) color dominate from 2008-2013 (maybe 80%+ of installs). Germany purchases, peaking in 2011, where in the heart of when solar price declines occurred. By the same chart, deployments in the rest of the world explode post 2014, after the big price declines.
Here's an article from 2011 (concurrent with German deployments) showing the immense price falls at that time: https://rameznaam.com/2011/03/17/expis-moores-law-really-a-f...
Yes, there's a huge 'chicken' v 'egg' question here: deployment vs. price declines from tech learning rates. Someone had to kick-start this process by for huge deployments when it was uneconomical, to then drive scaling in production. Germany footed the bill. Global deployments then soured after those purchases and price declines.
Perhaps someone else would have done this later, but I don't really care about the historical counterfactual, I care about who's balance sheet the uneconomic debt, to kickstart the virtuous cycle, sits on. So I credit Germany.
Yes, I am attributing a success to the Energiewende that was not part of the initial plan. But I do think it's an important success. Here's reference: https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-4-energiewende/
My understanding of the Energiewende, is that it was never focused on climate. Rather is was a plan to create economic energy independence at a time of very high and rising oil prices (e.g. 2008-2014).
So from 2020, the plan looks like a failure b/c 1) the twin tech. breakthroughs of low priced renewables and fracking have "slayed" the monster of rising high hydrocarbon prices 2) we now view climate change as a far bigger issue. If energy prices had stayed high, I think we'd view the Energiewende as achieving it's stated goals. The situation has changed.
Though, I'll be the first person to say the CO2 goals of the energy transition are more important than what the Energiewende focused on.
I'm not sure that graph contradicts OP's narrative. It clearly shows European PV capacity rapidly growing from almost nothing to near-present levels from 2006 to 2012, with the rest of the world accounting for only a tiny fraction. This corresponds to a time period when solar prices dropped dramatically: https://samsetproject.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/fall-in-so...
Then, once PV prices were cheap, the rest of the world bought a ton of cheap PV capacity.
Now, this doesn't prove that the reduction in price was caused by European PV spending, but the data certainly is strongly compatible with that claim.
Then, once PV prices were cheap, the rest of the world bought a ton of cheap PV capacity.
Now, this doesn't prove that the reduction in price was caused by European PV spending, but the data certainly is strongly compatible with that claim.
Didn’t the 2009 Recovery Act that Obama spearheaded also have a heavily invest in renewables? [1] Over 10 years it averaged to about 9 billion per year. I seem to recall that this investment push was twofold: investment in American renewable tech and rebates to spur demand. China heavily cut solar prices to undercut those solar investments (leading to Solyndra’s bankruptcy) but that had the effect of lowering prices further spurring demand worldwide.
I don’t have a sense of Germany’s impact in this space as I haven’t kept abreast of their investment nor about the specifics of renewable investments more broadly.
[1] https://grist.org/energy/obamas-recovery-act-breathed-life-i...
I don’t have a sense of Germany’s impact in this space as I haven’t kept abreast of their investment nor about the specifics of renewable investments more broadly.
[1] https://grist.org/energy/obamas-recovery-act-breathed-life-i...
Germany started in the year 2000 with guaranteed, high prices to providers of solar/wind energy and that their feeding into the electrical grid has preference over other providers. Additionally they employed grants for citizens deploying solar on their roofs.
That massively raised the electricity prices, resulting in the world's costliest electricity.
Around 24% (!) of the German electricity price is a Renewable Surcharge[1]. With a >$350 billion/year power industry revenue it is easy to see that Germany's contribution to kickstart large scale solar and wind power generation can hardly be overstated.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_German...
That massively raised the electricity prices, resulting in the world's costliest electricity.
Around 24% (!) of the German electricity price is a Renewable Surcharge[1]. With a >$350 billion/year power industry revenue it is easy to see that Germany's contribution to kickstart large scale solar and wind power generation can hardly be overstated.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_German...
So smart! Things are cheaper on the past, best time to plant a tree. They absolutely did the right thing for themselves and the whole world.
Thank you Germany!
Thank you Germany!
Apparently the first German law was introduced in 2000 [0]. I see the argument that is made, Germany pushing the sector and I remember a lot of folks investing into solar in the 2000s.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Sour...
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Sour...
> CA wholesale power prices are very low globally, while retail prices are sky high b/c PG&E is a monopoly combined with an inadvertent domestic terrorist organization.
What "inadvertent domestic terrorist organization"? BTW, PG&E prices are set by California government.
What "inadvertent domestic terrorist organization"? BTW, PG&E prices are set by California government.
PG&E practices the time honored tradition of stochastic terrorism through incompetence (avoiding maintenance commitments) and regulatory capture (to avoid the penalties).
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/18/business/pge-...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/18/business/pge-...
Look at PG&E's recent accident and incident record.
So basically German "failure", but global success?
And everyone else who tries it will do better because Germans ate the costs?
And everyone else who tries it will do better because Germans ate the costs?
As a German, I don't consider this a failure. Yes, it was expensive, and probably it was more expensive than it needed to because execution wasn't perfect, but this year up today, Germany has produced 51% of the electricity via renewable sources. And of course Germany gets the same cost savings as anyone else when moving further forward with renewables. Also the guaranteed high prices for solar and wind from the early years are currently slowly running out, so currently those costs are falling quickly and the true cost saving of more renewables will be effective in the electricity prices in Germany.
"everyone else who tries it will do better because Germans ate the costs?"
Yes on both your points. Sadly, German industry didn't get the benefit. Which makes it harder to convince the country to do stuff like this again.
Very different from Tesla, where a bunch of silicon valley people ate the cost (e.g. VCs, roadster, 2012 model-S) and then many benefitted as they own stock.
Yes on both your points. Sadly, German industry didn't get the benefit. Which makes it harder to convince the country to do stuff like this again.
Very different from Tesla, where a bunch of silicon valley people ate the cost (e.g. VCs, roadster, 2012 model-S) and then many benefitted as they own stock.
They may have prevented a far larger wave of climate refugees than the current batch of migrants and refugees that have proved so politically costly for the ruling party in Germany.
> PG&E is a monopoly combined with an inadvertent domestic terrorist organization.
You can't be an inadvertent terrorist organization. Not everyone who is responsible for multiple lethal felonies is a terrorist.
You can't be an inadvertent terrorist organization. Not everyone who is responsible for multiple lethal felonies is a terrorist.
Yes, "inadvertent terrorist" would normally be a contradiction in terms, as 'terrorism is the act of killing innocent people to spread terror and extort a body politic to make a political change'. So this can't be inadvertent.
Yet, PG&E 1) kills innocent people 2) demands more money from the population it kills 3) is unable to stop killing people 4) covers up their malfeasance in court 5) repeatedly sets my state on fire.
Agreed that PG&E is "responsible for multiple lethal felonies."
But, in your comment, I'll note you only identified the problem instead of proposed a solution! So what English language phrase do you suggest to describe the above behavior?
Does 'Functionally equivalent to a violent Mafioso organization that doesn't actually want to kill but does wants all your money and can't stop killing you?' satisfy your standards for the use of the English language? I reserve the right to be hyperbolic in my frustration as long as PG&E keeps this up.
Politely, I ask you to resolve the problem you identified. As by the use of the word 'inadvertent', I demonstrated that I know the definition in my initial comment :)
Finally, does "Substantially more evil than Comcast" work here?
Yet, PG&E 1) kills innocent people 2) demands more money from the population it kills 3) is unable to stop killing people 4) covers up their malfeasance in court 5) repeatedly sets my state on fire.
Agreed that PG&E is "responsible for multiple lethal felonies."
But, in your comment, I'll note you only identified the problem instead of proposed a solution! So what English language phrase do you suggest to describe the above behavior?
Does 'Functionally equivalent to a violent Mafioso organization that doesn't actually want to kill but does wants all your money and can't stop killing you?' satisfy your standards for the use of the English language? I reserve the right to be hyperbolic in my frustration as long as PG&E keeps this up.
Politely, I ask you to resolve the problem you identified. As by the use of the word 'inadvertent', I demonstrated that I know the definition in my initial comment :)
Finally, does "Substantially more evil than Comcast" work here?
You need your own animated show. Brilliant stuff.
A charitable reply would be advances (real and predicted) in energy storage- I dont think anyone is deluded into thinking that wind or solar alone form a good baseline.
That said, Germany's investments are clearly a failure, IF you go by the desired carbon reduction goals for 2020-2030.
I also don't know anyone who genuinely believes any of those carbon goals are feasible, or that we have high odds of hitting them... but that might just be that I tend to have cynical friends.
That said, Germany's investments are clearly a failure, IF you go by the desired carbon reduction goals for 2020-2030.
I also don't know anyone who genuinely believes any of those carbon goals are feasible, or that we have high odds of hitting them... but that might just be that I tend to have cynical friends.
I honestly think the goals are technically feasible. I would even go so far as to say easily so.
But ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
I put my money on the world failing horribly and plan accordingly.
But ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
I put my money on the world failing horribly and plan accordingly.
What’s that plan look like?
Anecdotally, where I currently live in an apartment in Australia. We have occasional brownouts/blackouts in summer when everyone is running their aircon. Not often, but likely to happen more with higher temperatures. I am keeping an eye on things like Tesla's Powerwall as a luxury item for that concern. Especially for when I am over 60 years old... (20 years away but still a thought.)
I plan to visit the Great Barrier Reef now, while it is living.
Operating temperatures for outdoor mechanicals. For me, small aircon, cars. But big building infrastructure, factories, farmers etc buying and building for the future will have to expand their operational parameters, if only slowly and only a comparatively small amount.
Highly underrated though is more energy in the system will mean more extreme weather events more often.
Floods, heat waves, hail storms, but also with large shifting air cycles it often surprises people to realise that blizzards or cold snaps will happen differently too. They may be "warmer" but with faster moving air they will travel more to areas that didn't experience them. Or they may be colder as the air travels faster carrying air from the poles. Weather is not an easy thing to predict. But I think it will be even less predictable.
In the US it may mean that hurricanes or tornados are a thing more often. Here in Australia Queensland will get hit more often. Insurance premiums will adjust accordingly.
I suspect international migration will also be a thing. People moving away from the equator and to the poles more.
TL;DR: Plan for slightly more hot, windy and extreme weather events. :-P
NB: rereading this almost casts a picture of drastic disasters every day. But I want to clarify that it will be incrementally more than now over time and only a bit more by the end of my lifetime. But who wants "a bit more" hurricanes in their life? And where does it stop for the future?
PS: maybe this question should be asked of an insurance company quant?
I plan to visit the Great Barrier Reef now, while it is living.
Operating temperatures for outdoor mechanicals. For me, small aircon, cars. But big building infrastructure, factories, farmers etc buying and building for the future will have to expand their operational parameters, if only slowly and only a comparatively small amount.
Highly underrated though is more energy in the system will mean more extreme weather events more often.
Floods, heat waves, hail storms, but also with large shifting air cycles it often surprises people to realise that blizzards or cold snaps will happen differently too. They may be "warmer" but with faster moving air they will travel more to areas that didn't experience them. Or they may be colder as the air travels faster carrying air from the poles. Weather is not an easy thing to predict. But I think it will be even less predictable.
In the US it may mean that hurricanes or tornados are a thing more often. Here in Australia Queensland will get hit more often. Insurance premiums will adjust accordingly.
I suspect international migration will also be a thing. People moving away from the equator and to the poles more.
TL;DR: Plan for slightly more hot, windy and extreme weather events. :-P
NB: rereading this almost casts a picture of drastic disasters every day. But I want to clarify that it will be incrementally more than now over time and only a bit more by the end of my lifetime. But who wants "a bit more" hurricanes in their life? And where does it stop for the future?
PS: maybe this question should be asked of an insurance company quant?
"What is the counter to this article?" does not deserve downvotes.
well the problem in our grid is mostly coal. it's cheap (in germany since it's subsidized for the next x years) but it generates exactly the problems in the article.
basically mckinsey study is not against green energy, it's more of a "politics do way too less" i.e. mckinsey analyzes the co2 targets for germany and it critizes it for doing way too less and having unrealistic expectations. news article basically love such studies besides that the studies in question want to show that we need to do even more.
tbf between '19 and '20 we atleast reduced lots of lignite/hard coal in favor of wind (onshore) but 2019 (year of the article) it was really really bad for renweable in germany, we actually only talked about green energy, but internally we were really dirty... but we are still behind norway, sweden, denmark and lots of other countries.
basically mckinsey study is not against green energy, it's more of a "politics do way too less" i.e. mckinsey analyzes the co2 targets for germany and it critizes it for doing way too less and having unrealistic expectations. news article basically love such studies besides that the studies in question want to show that we need to do even more.
tbf between '19 and '20 we atleast reduced lots of lignite/hard coal in favor of wind (onshore) but 2019 (year of the article) it was really really bad for renweable in germany, we actually only talked about green energy, but internally we were really dirty... but we are still behind norway, sweden, denmark and lots of other countries.
The Germans had this really clever scheme where they tied the price they pay for solar power to the price from fossil fueled power. That really incentivized people to create more efficient solar and thus increase their profit margins.
Isn't that very close to how a normal electricity marketplace would work? The consumer mostly doesn't care if they got their electricity from renewables or not, so they pay the same price.
A lot of renewables are connected into the distribution grid and the markets in general run on the transmission grid. Every jurisdiction is different, but in general the transmission system is run by a neutral party who is usually known as an "Independent System Operator". In contrast, the distribution system is run by the local distribution company (LDC) that supplies power to consumers. The LDCs have traditionally not run their own markets but that is starting to change. At my day job I built a distribution level market that is being deployed in California [0]. We've developed a method of pricing the energy from DERs to account for the local benefits they can provide to the grid at a micro level.
Shameless plug, but if anyone is interested in these topics we are hiring for a number of roles [1].
0. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/opus-one-tests-... 1. https://www.opusonesolutions.com/careers/
Shameless plug, but if anyone is interested in these topics we are hiring for a number of roles [1].
0. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/opus-one-tests-... 1. https://www.opusonesolutions.com/careers/
No, a normal electricity marketplace would eat up the profits from getting more efficient renewables.
e.g. If fossil is $4/kW and wind is $2/kW then normal market buys all the wind at $2/kW. Here, government will pay $2/kW premium on the wind. That means every cost gain on wind goes to the provider.
e.g. If fossil is $4/kW and wind is $2/kW then normal market buys all the wind at $2/kW. Here, government will pay $2/kW premium on the wind. That means every cost gain on wind goes to the provider.
Unfortunately you can't instantly turn off fossil fuel plants. Those coal plants will still get their $4/kW and the turned off renewables also get their $2/kW because we want to subsidize them. It would be foolish to punish renewables for the failures of fossil fuels. So in the end you pay $6/kW.
A carbon tax would turn off the coal plants for good and replace them with something that can throttle faster. Ironically this means carbon taxes make energy cheaper.
In a competitive market, the surplus resulting from reduction in wholesale cost of electricity would fall mostly on consumer side: market would buy wind at $2/kWh, but the retail consumer prices would also fall correspondingly. Alas, utilities are rarely competitive markets, so the electricity retailers have more ability to capture some of the surplus.
Right, but here you don't want it to fall to $2. That's your mechanism of a subsidy to the generating side. It is intentionally non-competitive.
Personally I think (hope) that huge imports from foreign countries of energy-generation hardware (thinking especially about solar panels, not sure about the rest) won't last forever and internal production of such components will be somehow in/directly promoted, which might lead at some point to a stabilization of prices (because of less competitivity / more protectionism), at least for a while.
This thought being based on "energy" being a strategic resource for all nations, and no nation willingly wanting to become dependant on any other one in this context.
This thought being based on "energy" being a strategic resource for all nations, and no nation willingly wanting to become dependant on any other one in this context.
At least in Europe prices for European vs Chinese panels are not that different. In my country I've seen Chinese panels for €80/ea and locally manufactured for €140/ea (for a ~300w panel).
Most people prefer the European panels because the overall price isn't that much different, and they know if they ever need to make a warranty claim it'll be a lot easier from a European manufacturer.
These are retail prices for home installation - of course for utility scale it's a different story.
Most people prefer the European panels because the overall price isn't that much different, and they know if they ever need to make a warranty claim it'll be a lot easier from a European manufacturer.
These are retail prices for home installation - of course for utility scale it's a different story.
It's basically inevitable at this point, regardless of what Germany does.
Personal anecdote - my house has two sets of solar panels on the roof - the first was installed in 2017, the second was just installed last month.
In 2017 my 6kw system cost $24,000 before any incentives (by SolarCity).
In 2020 my 7.8kw system cost $15,000 before any incentives (by Tesla).
Of that $15k, $4.3k was for the panels themselves, $2k for the inverter, $1k for mounting hardware, and $8k for installation.
It's pretty shocking to me that in just 3 years the price per watt was basically halved, all in. Because looking at the breakdown, half the cost is in installation and presumably marketing and sales costs. Even if the panels themselves cost half as much, it would be a relatively small decrease in the total cost of the system.
I wonder what the practical bottom is - even if the panels were free, there's a floor on the labor cost.
In 2017 my 6kw system cost $24,000 before any incentives (by SolarCity).
In 2020 my 7.8kw system cost $15,000 before any incentives (by Tesla).
Of that $15k, $4.3k was for the panels themselves, $2k for the inverter, $1k for mounting hardware, and $8k for installation.
It's pretty shocking to me that in just 3 years the price per watt was basically halved, all in. Because looking at the breakdown, half the cost is in installation and presumably marketing and sales costs. Even if the panels themselves cost half as much, it would be a relatively small decrease in the total cost of the system.
I wonder what the practical bottom is - even if the panels were free, there's a floor on the labor cost.
From my perspective those costs are massive. I'm considering building a whole house from bricks which will cost $30-$40k. I probably won't spend $15k for electricity for all of my life. I don't understand western economy. You've got extremely costly electricity and you're claiming that solar power is good. It might be true for you, but it won't ever come to me at those prices. I'm paying $0.03 for kW⋅h. I'm spending around 200 kW⋅h per month, so that's $6 per month. I would need to live 208 years to save $15k.
Solar panels might be fine in some distant places where you're forced to use diesel generators. Diesel is not cheap. But where electrical grid is already in place, I just don't see it working.
Solar panels might be fine in some distant places where you're forced to use diesel generators. Diesel is not cheap. But where electrical grid is already in place, I just don't see it working.
The installation cost is probably cheaper in your country so I will ignore it.
Assuming a 16% capacity factor that system will generate $328 worth of electricity a year at $0.03 per kWh. It would break even after 22 years. That's incredibly far away from the 208 years you have quoted.
The flaw in your thinking is that this setup wasn't chosen for you. It wasn't build in your country nor was it built by you so why would you compare it to your own needs? If you had to build your own solar system you would get a smaller one (which would decrease the breakeven duration according to your weird criteria despite not meaningfully changing the system) and you would probably install it yourself.
The reality is that wherever that solar system was built electricity costs more than $0.03 and the person needs more energy or feeds the the energy into the grid.
It's like complaining about a family of five getting a Volkswagen Sharan when you are just fine in your Citroen Ami. It's not about you.
Assuming a 16% capacity factor that system will generate $328 worth of electricity a year at $0.03 per kWh. It would break even after 22 years. That's incredibly far away from the 208 years you have quoted.
The flaw in your thinking is that this setup wasn't chosen for you. It wasn't build in your country nor was it built by you so why would you compare it to your own needs? If you had to build your own solar system you would get a smaller one (which would decrease the breakeven duration according to your weird criteria despite not meaningfully changing the system) and you would probably install it yourself.
The reality is that wherever that solar system was built electricity costs more than $0.03 and the person needs more energy or feeds the the energy into the grid.
It's like complaining about a family of five getting a Volkswagen Sharan when you are just fine in your Citroen Ami. It's not about you.
I live in India where equation is similar. Power is cheap.
But when I factor in power outage which happens a lot, the solar is much better deal.
I've had 24/7 power sine we moved to solar.
But when I factor in power outage which happens a lot, the solar is much better deal.
I've had 24/7 power sine we moved to solar.
> I probably won't spend $15k for electricity for all of my life
Living in a two bedroom unit in Sydney my last quarterly electricity bill was over $500.00 which comes to over $2000.00 a year.
Basically here in Sydney we have high electricity prices and my washer, drier and air conditioner love to chew up electricity.
Living in a two bedroom unit in Sydney my last quarterly electricity bill was over $500.00 which comes to over $2000.00 a year.
Basically here in Sydney we have high electricity prices and my washer, drier and air conditioner love to chew up electricity.
Where does the heat of you drier go? Into the room to be moved again by the air conditioner, or directly to the outside?
I'm not the person you replied to, but dryers are typically vented outside.
But you have to factor in that the majority of the cost is installation. I’m going to bet that labor cost in your country isn’t nowhere the cost of that.
If the labor cost in your country was the same as the US then your current power cost would be that low either.
You seems to have very cheap energy, here in Poland it's ~0.1$ but coupled with ability to store excess to grid it's quite practical and there's big rush with people installing solar panels. As you can use this extra elecricity for heating in winter which typically is 500$ to $1K per year (coal vs gas) + 500$ for elecricity per year, this means it pays for itself quite fast (not installed it yet for myself, want to be proven on durability of panels). If you don't have heating/AC need then it's probably less economical yet.
Building house here also starts around $50K (not counting land price). BTW land prices rose from 500$ to $500K on nice terrain when asphalt roads where build (in like 15 years span). I am happy that solar panels + storage are getting cheaper as building house anywhere will become possibile. Probably will contribute to faster development of poorer countries/regions with bad infrastructure.
Building house here also starts around $50K (not counting land price). BTW land prices rose from 500$ to $500K on nice terrain when asphalt roads where build (in like 15 years span). I am happy that solar panels + storage are getting cheaper as building house anywhere will become possibile. Probably will contribute to faster development of poorer countries/regions with bad infrastructure.
The average cost of residential electricity in the US is just under $0.12/kWh. A $6/mo electricity bill is pretty much unheard of around here. My electricity bill is around $50/mo and we only have 2 people living in the house. It would still take me ~25 years at my current rates and usages to break even, but the economics might work out better if you have a higher occupancy residence.
As more people move to electric vehicles putting in solar panels will become more feasible. The price of solar is falling so fast that if it is unfeasible today it might not be the same 2-4-6 years from now. 5-6 years ago a lot of people that are installing solar now calculated that it was not worth it for them then but it is now as the prices have fallen 50-60%.
It's impossible to charge electric vehicles on solar panels.
You charge at night when the panels don't produce and the panels don't have enough capacity to charge the vehicle completely.
So you need huge batteries that will be even more expensive.
Battery prices are also falling 18-20% every 2 years a tesla powerwall costs around $7k now $11k with installation. You dont need to top up your electric vehicle 100Kwh every night looking at avg car use most people would need to top up 7-8Kwh only so the battery cost wont be extremely expensive no need to install 100Kwh battries just 12-15Kwh would be enough.
7 to 8 Kwh is already more than half the production of an average standalone house. Which means that the rest of the house has to somehow do without half it's production.
Also, outside of cost, batteries and solar panels have a huge environment cost during production and are still terribly difficult to recycle.
Windmill blades are often buried underground for example.
Also, outside of cost, batteries and solar panels have a huge environment cost during production and are still terribly difficult to recycle.
Windmill blades are often buried underground for example.
I think energy companies factor in distribution costs and a bunch of other costs beyond pure energy cost per kWh, hence the hefty price.
Where do you live that you pay $0.03/kWh?
Kazakhstan.
Interesting. I looked it up and that sounds about right for domestic users.
The cost of solar in the US is highly dependent on labor costs and the regulatory process. So OPs system would cost less in Kazakhstan based on lower labor costs.
Residential solar is also an expensive way to produce solar. In the US we have industrial scale plants that produce at $0.018-0.024/kWh.
The cost of solar in the US is highly dependent on labor costs and the regulatory process. So OPs system would cost less in Kazakhstan based on lower labor costs.
Residential solar is also an expensive way to produce solar. In the US we have industrial scale plants that produce at $0.018-0.024/kWh.
According to:
https://www.iea.org/reports/kazakhstan-energy-profile
Coal fuels around 70% of electricity generation (in 2018), followed by natural gas (20% in 2018).
(rest seems to be hydro)
I assume cheap because no carbon tax.
https://www.iea.org/reports/kazakhstan-energy-profile
Coal fuels around 70% of electricity generation (in 2018), followed by natural gas (20% in 2018).
(rest seems to be hydro)
I assume cheap because no carbon tax.
A lot of bitcoin miners would love that rate!
I'll add some anecdata from Australia.
My neighbour had a 5kW system put on, single-phase inverter, about three years ago - for ~ A$7000.
I've just put a deposit down for installation of 12kW of panels with a 10kW three-phase inverter for A$7400
Same provider, though I haven't compared breakdown of costs (I'm assuming very similar installation / labour costs).
My neighbour had a 5kW system put on, single-phase inverter, about three years ago - for ~ A$7000.
I've just put a deposit down for installation of 12kW of panels with a 10kW three-phase inverter for A$7400
Same provider, though I haven't compared breakdown of costs (I'm assuming very similar installation / labour costs).
Coming at this late, but that is a really good price for a fully installed system, does that include some government subsidy?
Considering a similar system like that in southern Europe where installation is pretty cheap, and the prices are higher, I see A$12000 for a 10KW system of panels and a 10KW Fronius three-phase inverter.
Considering a similar system like that in southern Europe where installation is pretty cheap, and the prices are higher, I see A$12000 for a 10KW system of panels and a 10KW Fronius three-phase inverter.
Yes, there's some rebates from federal government in those numbers.
For the record:
33 x 370W solar panels (Jinko) - 12 year warranty
Three-phase inverter (Sungrow), battery capable down the track
Installation (labour, mounting kits, wiring, etc)
Total is A$13,000 -- less the government incentives / subsidy ($36 / STC) of A$6,600 which are intercepted by the vendor in this case.
In Australia these subsidies are taking yet another hit at the end of this year, hence there's a bit of a spike in people paying for these systems, but scheduling installation in 2021.
For the record:
33 x 370W solar panels (Jinko) - 12 year warranty
Three-phase inverter (Sungrow), battery capable down the track
Installation (labour, mounting kits, wiring, etc)
Total is A$13,000 -- less the government incentives / subsidy ($36 / STC) of A$6,600 which are intercepted by the vendor in this case.
In Australia these subsidies are taking yet another hit at the end of this year, hence there's a bit of a spike in people paying for these systems, but scheduling installation in 2021.
I wonder how the economics on this work. Does it make more sense to wait or does it make more sense to buy at any point since you always win?
Good question. In my case we're spending an inordinate amount on power currently, because we're using upwards of 20kW / day. Part of that is a horribly inefficient hot water system, part of it is needing an air conditioner this time of year (here in Australia).
The new system will include a smart meter changeover, which means hot water can be off-peak, and time-constrained, and air-conditioner will be used primarily during the times that we're generating power.
Combined with some other plans - adding a shade-roof over one of the existing poorly insulated structures, replacing the HWS with a heat pump, etc - I expect that we'll be close to power-positive most sunny summer days when we're on-site, and every non-cloudy day that we're not.
Payback for my neighbour was ~ 3 years, though he was more extravagant with his air conditioner because it wasn't costing him anything to put it on. I expect a similar or slightly faster payback period.
In which case - it makes more sense for me to do this immediately. Whether it would have been the case 3 years ago, I'm not so sure.
The new system will include a smart meter changeover, which means hot water can be off-peak, and time-constrained, and air-conditioner will be used primarily during the times that we're generating power.
Combined with some other plans - adding a shade-roof over one of the existing poorly insulated structures, replacing the HWS with a heat pump, etc - I expect that we'll be close to power-positive most sunny summer days when we're on-site, and every non-cloudy day that we're not.
Payback for my neighbour was ~ 3 years, though he was more extravagant with his air conditioner because it wasn't costing him anything to put it on. I expect a similar or slightly faster payback period.
In which case - it makes more sense for me to do this immediately. Whether it would have been the case 3 years ago, I'm not so sure.
How do you find a provider? Feel like sharing who you used and some details?
I'm not sure where you are, and what regions the vendor I'm using covers, but I did pick Beyond Solar.
This was mostly because my neighbour, an ex-power plant engineer, with much more expertise in this tech than me, had selected them three years ago, and his son had gone through a similar process a month or so ago and also chose them.
Quality of the equipment is the big factor, and I gather a lot of the significantly cheaper companies are cutting costs on the quality and/or warranty.
I was recommended https://www.solarquotes.com.au/ by several trusted sources for comparing options, though didn't end up using them.
This was mostly because my neighbour, an ex-power plant engineer, with much more expertise in this tech than me, had selected them three years ago, and his son had gone through a similar process a month or so ago and also chose them.
Quality of the equipment is the big factor, and I gather a lot of the significantly cheaper companies are cutting costs on the quality and/or warranty.
I was recommended https://www.solarquotes.com.au/ by several trusted sources for comparing options, though didn't end up using them.
Thanks!
The more installs done, the lower labor can get as everything is streamlined. A whole roof can be replaced for less in labor- which is coincidentally a much larger market than panels.
How much savings/profit do these actually generate to you? I guess some quite significant numbers, if you decided to actually expand capacity.
I hear more and more that building codes are updated to include solar. So maybe there will be a standard, thus reduced cost.
The article says the world relies on fossil fuel for energy because it's cheaper. That's true. It doesn't mention that the world relies on it because it's reliable. It doesn't disappear for 6 months of the year, or stop producing for 3 out of 5 days or during peak demand periods. Make renewables cheaper and more reliable and they will replace fossil fuels in a snap. Cheaper is not enough if it doesn't do the job.
in the past they were cheaper. Now renewables are cheaper.
Right now, intermittent renewables actually drives up the cost of fossil fuels! Renewables do wacky things to the spot price of power - sometimes electricity is free or even has negative value, sometimes it's expensive. Ideally fossil fuel plants would only spin up when they could sell power at a profit, but they can't dispatch so quickly, so they end up selling power at a loss for minutes or hours after the solar panels or wind turbines kick back on.
This is producing market conditions that are favorable to batteries and super-capacitors, because they can dispatch in seconds, or milliseconds. Arbitraging between times of cheap power to times of expensive power can already be competitive with fossil fuels some of the time. And batteries are getting cheaper, too.
There's some question about what the ideal mix of generation vs storage will end up being. While storage is expensive, we'll tend to over-provision wind and solar, and end up throwing power away... unless we can come up for some use for it when we have moments of surplus. There's some talk of using it for things like ocean water desalination, but most of our machinery has such a high investment cost right now that the cost of electricity is not the biggest expense, so we don't actually have many machines that we idle until power gets cheap. Maybe that'll change eventually.
Right now, intermittent renewables actually drives up the cost of fossil fuels! Renewables do wacky things to the spot price of power - sometimes electricity is free or even has negative value, sometimes it's expensive. Ideally fossil fuel plants would only spin up when they could sell power at a profit, but they can't dispatch so quickly, so they end up selling power at a loss for minutes or hours after the solar panels or wind turbines kick back on.
This is producing market conditions that are favorable to batteries and super-capacitors, because they can dispatch in seconds, or milliseconds. Arbitraging between times of cheap power to times of expensive power can already be competitive with fossil fuels some of the time. And batteries are getting cheaper, too.
There's some question about what the ideal mix of generation vs storage will end up being. While storage is expensive, we'll tend to over-provision wind and solar, and end up throwing power away... unless we can come up for some use for it when we have moments of surplus. There's some talk of using it for things like ocean water desalination, but most of our machinery has such a high investment cost right now that the cost of electricity is not the biggest expense, so we don't actually have many machines that we idle until power gets cheap. Maybe that'll change eventually.
>Now renewables are cheaper.
Yes, provided you ignore the cost of balancing an increasingly volatile grid, a volatility that is created by renewables. Also provided you ignore the cost to provide energy when said renewables aren't generating any.
Claims to back up your statment, such as from Lazard, are horribly flawed because they use the metric of LCOE - levelised cost of energy - to claim that renewable energy is cheaper. It is, provided you ignore the slew of costs that are not borne by renewable generators but which ARE borne by consumers.
Yes, batteries are getting cheaper but not at the scale required for the grid. Before you quote the Australian Tesla battery, remember that it can only provide energy for minutes - yes, minutes.
What is needed today for a low-carbon future is nuclear and hydro. Renewables will get there one day but that day is not tomorrow or next year.
Yes, provided you ignore the cost of balancing an increasingly volatile grid, a volatility that is created by renewables. Also provided you ignore the cost to provide energy when said renewables aren't generating any.
Claims to back up your statment, such as from Lazard, are horribly flawed because they use the metric of LCOE - levelised cost of energy - to claim that renewable energy is cheaper. It is, provided you ignore the slew of costs that are not borne by renewable generators but which ARE borne by consumers.
Yes, batteries are getting cheaper but not at the scale required for the grid. Before you quote the Australian Tesla battery, remember that it can only provide energy for minutes - yes, minutes.
What is needed today for a low-carbon future is nuclear and hydro. Renewables will get there one day but that day is not tomorrow or next year.
That volatility can be dealt with by distributing the renewables geographically. It’ll be sunny or windy somewhere. This requires overbuilding, which is currently cheaper that storage, and the average generation is highly predictable for day-ahead or hour-ahead trading. My rule of thumb is you can supply 70% of demand economically today without long distance transmission.
Search for “overbuilding renewables,” e.g. https://energycentral.com/c/em/overbuilding-curtailing-renew...
This still leaves room for hydro and nuclear.
The negative costs are borne by the owners of generating units that generate excess power when net demand falls. Solar can ramp down in milliseconds, windmills in minutes, CCGT can take hours, and nuclear takes days.
But what if we did add long distance transmission? Look at the US west of the Mississippi. I once estimated the capital cost of powering today’s demand using 100% renewables without storage.
That’s approximately $200bn in generation + $100bn for overcapacity.
The transmission system was mainly built to serve the legacy coal generators, but that’s often not where the best renewable resources are located. I estimated $40-80 billion for transmission.
That sounds like a lot, but 25% of the generation has already been spent. The cost of fuel for the gas generators, which is part of the LCOE, is on par with those numbers.
My biggest criticism of the Lazard study you mention is that it understates the cost of hedging fuel volatility costs.
Search for “overbuilding renewables,” e.g. https://energycentral.com/c/em/overbuilding-curtailing-renew...
This still leaves room for hydro and nuclear.
The negative costs are borne by the owners of generating units that generate excess power when net demand falls. Solar can ramp down in milliseconds, windmills in minutes, CCGT can take hours, and nuclear takes days.
But what if we did add long distance transmission? Look at the US west of the Mississippi. I once estimated the capital cost of powering today’s demand using 100% renewables without storage.
That’s approximately $200bn in generation + $100bn for overcapacity.
The transmission system was mainly built to serve the legacy coal generators, but that’s often not where the best renewable resources are located. I estimated $40-80 billion for transmission.
That sounds like a lot, but 25% of the generation has already been spent. The cost of fuel for the gas generators, which is part of the LCOE, is on par with those numbers.
My biggest criticism of the Lazard study you mention is that it understates the cost of hedging fuel volatility costs.
As a guy who's staffed permitting efforts for major linear corridors, I'm here to tell you that building out that kind of transmission infrastructure is a pipe dream. At least in the western US, the NIMBYs and enviros are too powerful.
> This requires overbuilding, which is currently cheaper that storage, and the average generation is highly predictable for day-ahead or hour-ahead trading.
We should also keep in mind that this isn't unique to renewables, all power sources have to overbuild because systems get taken offline for repair and maintenance regularly. Sometimes it's even weather dependent as well, in a recent heatwave France had to shutdown nuclear power stations because the river for cooling water was becoming too warm.
We should also keep in mind that this isn't unique to renewables, all power sources have to overbuild because systems get taken offline for repair and maintenance regularly. Sometimes it's even weather dependent as well, in a recent heatwave France had to shutdown nuclear power stations because the river for cooling water was becoming too warm.
It's sad to see people downvote correct information.
For context, the US consumes ~12TWh of electricity daily, so 500 GWh per hour. Global lithium ion battery production is around 300 GWh per year. While it's true this is projected to rise exponentially, the amount dedicated to storage is minuscule compared to the scale required to fulfill even one hour of energy storage [1]. This has prompted people to propose more exotic forms of storage like hydrogen, methane produced through the Sabatier process, or thermal storage. But none of those have been deployed at any significant scale, and their feasibility remains unproven.
Nobody generates more than 20% of their electricity from solar. Denmark is the only country that generates over 30% of its power from wind, and Germany is the 3rd highest at 24.7% [2]. By comparison plenty of countries generate more than 30% of their electricity from nuclear power: Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Belgium, Hungary, Ukraine, Slovakia, and France. And the last 3 all produce the majority of their electricity from nuclear. [3]
Fossil fuels didn't kick off the industrial revolution, it was the heat engine. The ability to translate thermal energy into mechanical energy. Heating a fluid, turning a turbine, which turns a dynamo is something we cannot easily replace. Replacing the source of heat with a carbon-free source represents a much more modest refactor as compared to trying to migrate modern societies off the the heat engine. Renewables make sense as mitigation: just slap down some solar or wind, don't bother with storage, and shave off daytime carbon emissions when it is producing. But not as the backbone of a carbon-free energy sector.
1. https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
For context, the US consumes ~12TWh of electricity daily, so 500 GWh per hour. Global lithium ion battery production is around 300 GWh per year. While it's true this is projected to rise exponentially, the amount dedicated to storage is minuscule compared to the scale required to fulfill even one hour of energy storage [1]. This has prompted people to propose more exotic forms of storage like hydrogen, methane produced through the Sabatier process, or thermal storage. But none of those have been deployed at any significant scale, and their feasibility remains unproven.
Nobody generates more than 20% of their electricity from solar. Denmark is the only country that generates over 30% of its power from wind, and Germany is the 3rd highest at 24.7% [2]. By comparison plenty of countries generate more than 30% of their electricity from nuclear power: Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Belgium, Hungary, Ukraine, Slovakia, and France. And the last 3 all produce the majority of their electricity from nuclear. [3]
Fossil fuels didn't kick off the industrial revolution, it was the heat engine. The ability to translate thermal energy into mechanical energy. Heating a fluid, turning a turbine, which turns a dynamo is something we cannot easily replace. Replacing the source of heat with a carbon-free source represents a much more modest refactor as compared to trying to migrate modern societies off the the heat engine. Renewables make sense as mitigation: just slap down some solar or wind, don't bother with storage, and shave off daytime carbon emissions when it is producing. But not as the backbone of a carbon-free energy sector.
1. https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
> Nobody generates more than 20% of their electricity from solar. Denmark is the only country that generates over 30% of its power from wind, and Germany is the 3rd highest at 24.7% [2]. By comparison plenty of countries generate more than 30% of their electricity from nuclear power
This is an extremely odd comparison. No one is proposing a completely solar generation strategy - it's renewables vs whatever.
Plenty of countries generate more than 30% of their electricity from renewables.
This is an extremely odd comparison. No one is proposing a completely solar generation strategy - it's renewables vs whatever.
Plenty of countries generate more than 30% of their electricity from renewables.
Nuclears not some secret unexplored concept at this point. If it were competitive it would be competing. Its costs are too high, not due to regulations due to the sheer amount of resources involved in mining, refining, and operating. Not to mention initial construction.
It's doing much better in terms of actually being used as a large portion of countries electricity generation, as I demonstrated above. But more importantly, the reality is that nuclear isn't competing against renewables it's competing against a fossil fuel grid that's supplemented by renewables. Germany, the poster child for renewables, still emits 10x the carbon dioxide per watt of electricity as France.
Let me put it more bluntly. Renewables are indeed cheaper on a per-watt hour basis. But that's more than offset by the need to deal with intermittency. Batteries are great for cars, but they exist at nowhere near the scale required to decarbonize with a wind and solar generation base. More exotic proposals like thermal storage, hydrogen, or the Sabatier process remain in prototyping and academic stage. The cost of storage is a non-answer, because there's no real plan to build this storage.
Renewables make in a stopgap mitigation plan but we have no feasible way of building a grid that's powered completely or even mostly by renewables. If our plan is to decarbonize the energy sector, renewables do not offer a solution. Hydroelectricity, and geothermal power do, but those are geographically limited. Nuclear energy is the only source that can feasibly replace fossil fuels as a consistent, geographically independence, and carbon-free energy source.
TL;DR:
* Industrialization happened because we figured out we could heat water and push a piston (and later, spin a turbine). Modern society is built off the ability to produce mechanical and electrical energy from thermal energy.
* It's a lot easier to heat water and spin a turbine with a carbon-free source of heat, than to try and capture energy from sun and wind and store massive amounts of energy to overcome intermittency.
Let me put it more bluntly. Renewables are indeed cheaper on a per-watt hour basis. But that's more than offset by the need to deal with intermittency. Batteries are great for cars, but they exist at nowhere near the scale required to decarbonize with a wind and solar generation base. More exotic proposals like thermal storage, hydrogen, or the Sabatier process remain in prototyping and academic stage. The cost of storage is a non-answer, because there's no real plan to build this storage.
Renewables make in a stopgap mitigation plan but we have no feasible way of building a grid that's powered completely or even mostly by renewables. If our plan is to decarbonize the energy sector, renewables do not offer a solution. Hydroelectricity, and geothermal power do, but those are geographically limited. Nuclear energy is the only source that can feasibly replace fossil fuels as a consistent, geographically independence, and carbon-free energy source.
TL;DR:
* Industrialization happened because we figured out we could heat water and push a piston (and later, spin a turbine). Modern society is built off the ability to produce mechanical and electrical energy from thermal energy.
* It's a lot easier to heat water and spin a turbine with a carbon-free source of heat, than to try and capture energy from sun and wind and store massive amounts of energy to overcome intermittency.
Battery was and is never supposed to take up the entire storage load of a network - nobody is designing or forecasting future networks in that way.
Batteries provide fast response
Pumped hydro is what is being used on a lot of networks and in future network planning. Ironically old open cut mines are often perfect locations for them.
This paper discusses an algorithm used to find pumped hydro sites - there is _a lot_ of capacity out there waiting to be tapped
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191...
There are already numerous draft or under constructions plants that are "triple" projects with a combination of solar/wind + battery + pumped hydro
Batteries provide fast response
Pumped hydro is what is being used on a lot of networks and in future network planning. Ironically old open cut mines are often perfect locations for them.
This paper discusses an algorithm used to find pumped hydro sites - there is _a lot_ of capacity out there waiting to be tapped
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191...
There are already numerous draft or under constructions plants that are "triple" projects with a combination of solar/wind + battery + pumped hydro
To add to this, there are numerous very large scale project already underway to use existing hydro capacity as pumped hydro storage.
Eg, Bath County Pump Storage is a 3GW plant[1] although ironically it is often filled using nuclear power because the hydro station can adapt better to rapid changes in demand.
In the US there is 22GW total pump hydro storage already (compared to say 98GW total nuclear power capacity).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...
Eg, Bath County Pump Storage is a 3GW plant[1] although ironically it is often filled using nuclear power because the hydro station can adapt better to rapid changes in demand.
In the US there is 22GW total pump hydro storage already (compared to say 98GW total nuclear power capacity).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...
Pumped hydroelectricity is geographically dependent - you need a valley or mountain that you can dam up to build pumped hydro. While it may be great for South Australia, the region examined in your linked paper, it's wrong to assume that this availability is uniform.
The available isn't uniform, but it sure is widespread!
"The perception has been there are limited sites for pumped hydro around the world, but we have found hundreds of thousands."
https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potent...
"The perception has been there are limited sites for pumped hydro around the world, but we have found hundreds of thousands."
https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potent...
This paper just ran an algorithm over a heightmap, and pinpointed potential reservoirs. This is a far cry from actually identifying feasible sites. The massive density of hydroelectric storage in the Himalayas, for instance, is far too remote to be developed at anything approaching reasonable cost. Not to mention, it still leaves swathes of places like Central north America, and much of Northern Europe without access to hydroelectric storage.
The European electricity market is already very interconnected, so I doubt that would be a problem there at least.
Batteries are only the most expensive of a wide array of storage choices that today vie for which will end up cheapest, overall. Pumped hydro is mature, but underground and underwater compressed air are being proven; mine-shaft gravitic similarly; low-pressure LH2 is newly practical with aerogel insulation; carbon-captured LCH4, likewise; catalytic ammonia; and even powdered iron. None of these require any theoretical breakthroughs, just workaday engineering. In some cases combining them makes sense, such as mineshaft gravitics and compressed air in the same mineshaft. In other cases the storage medium is itself directly useful, as for example LH2 as aircraft fuel, and ammonia as both fertilizer and fuel.
Some depend on geography, particularly pumped hydro and mineshaft gravitic, and to a lesser degree compressed air. Catalytic improvements will bring rapid cost decline in LH2 and ammonia production. And, finally, battery technology, still the most immediately practical for home systems, is still improving fast. Any breakthroughs not anticipated only improve the picture.
The cost for utility-scale solar is many times less than roof-mounted, battery-backed home systems, but in places where distribution is expensive (rural) or unreliable (3rd world and California) it has strong appeal.
Some depend on geography, particularly pumped hydro and mineshaft gravitic, and to a lesser degree compressed air. Catalytic improvements will bring rapid cost decline in LH2 and ammonia production. And, finally, battery technology, still the most immediately practical for home systems, is still improving fast. Any breakthroughs not anticipated only improve the picture.
The cost for utility-scale solar is many times less than roof-mounted, battery-backed home systems, but in places where distribution is expensive (rural) or unreliable (3rd world and California) it has strong appeal.
Its a nice appeal to simplicity to say nuclear is just 'heating water and spinning a turbine', I could also say the sun is a very large carbon-free maintenance-free opex-free reactor in the sky and we just need to design a secondary stage of the power plant to transform the energy to electricity.
And instead of pistons OR turbines, we can use a new type of machine specifically built for this purpose aka renewable energy technologies.
The reality is it doesn't matter how you word it or what you think should be simpler. Its what the economy can actually build, and including risk, buying solar panels which have no moving parts and last for decades are currently the more efficient way to add a watt to the grid.
Your "blunt" assertion where you predict the capacity of the grid to accomodate renewables and the quantity of battery storage and the feasibility of every potential upcoming storage technology probably requires a few sources to be taken seriously as well.
The reality is it doesn't matter how you word it or what you think should be simpler. Its what the economy can actually build, and including risk, buying solar panels which have no moving parts and last for decades are currently the more efficient way to add a watt to the grid.
Your "blunt" assertion where you predict the capacity of the grid to accomodate renewables and the quantity of battery storage and the feasibility of every potential upcoming storage technology probably requires a few sources to be taken seriously as well.
Correct, the sun is a great source of energy. But we use most of our energy when the sun is blocked by the earth. The sun is opex and capex free, but the storage necessary to make it feasible requires massive capital expenditure and massive operational expenditure.
The point is, just adding watts to the grid is not a solution. You needed watt when they're needed and where they're needed. And doing that with renewables is a lot harder, hence why we're really just supplementing fossil fuels with wind and solar not really working towards full decarbonization.
My assertions about the capacity of battery production were indeed backed by sources of predicted growth of battery production. In case you missed it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25283498
The point is, just adding watts to the grid is not a solution. You needed watt when they're needed and where they're needed. And doing that with renewables is a lot harder, hence why we're really just supplementing fossil fuels with wind and solar not really working towards full decarbonization.
My assertions about the capacity of battery production were indeed backed by sources of predicted growth of battery production. In case you missed it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25283498
> It's sad to see people downvote correct information.
I'm confused, there's no downvote button in HN.
I'm confused, there's no downvote button in HN.
There is you need a certain amount (200?) of karma to use it. Posts with negative votes have more lightly colored text. The above post no longer has negative votes so it's normal colored now.
For completion, am not sure if it was 200 before but it's 1000 now.
> Yes, provided you ignore the cost of balancing an increasingly volatile grid, a volatility that is created by renewables. Also provided you ignore the cost to provide energy when said renewables aren't generating any.
If we're taking into account those kind of costs, shouldn't we also account for the cost emitting CO2?
If we're taking into account those kind of costs, shouldn't we also account for the cost emitting CO2?
> "What is needed today for a low-carbon future is nuclear and hydro."
Hydro is great if you have the terrain for it, but much of the world is not geographically suited for extensive hydro. Nuclear is extraordinarily expensive and often takes decades to plan and build.
Renewables can be built far cheaper and far more quickly. On grids that still have gas & coal fired power stations, every GWh of electricity produced from renewables displaces a GWh that would otherwise be produced from fossil fuels.
Or, to put it another way, every dollar spent on renewables will result in a significantly larger and faster reduction of carbon emissions than if that same dollar were spent on nuclear.
Hydro is great if you have the terrain for it, but much of the world is not geographically suited for extensive hydro. Nuclear is extraordinarily expensive and often takes decades to plan and build.
Renewables can be built far cheaper and far more quickly. On grids that still have gas & coal fired power stations, every GWh of electricity produced from renewables displaces a GWh that would otherwise be produced from fossil fuels.
Or, to put it another way, every dollar spent on renewables will result in a significantly larger and faster reduction of carbon emissions than if that same dollar were spent on nuclear.
>Nuclear is extraordinarily expensive and often takes decades to plan and build.
That's not necessarily true as countries like China are building new nuclear reactors in 4-5 years. Remember that nuclear is one of the few industries that designs for the worst case scenario which is part of the high cost. The other component of the high cost is often policy and overzealous bureaucracy.
>On grids that still have gas & coal fired power stations, every GWh of electricity produced from renewables displaces a GWh that would otherwise be produced from fossil fuels.
This is not true. A kWh from a wind turbine is absolutely not equal to a kWh from a coal/gas/nuclear/hydro plant due to the fact that the capacity factor for a typical wind turbine is around 20-30%. A hydro plant often runs at > 80% capacity factor.
That's not necessarily true as countries like China are building new nuclear reactors in 4-5 years. Remember that nuclear is one of the few industries that designs for the worst case scenario which is part of the high cost. The other component of the high cost is often policy and overzealous bureaucracy.
>On grids that still have gas & coal fired power stations, every GWh of electricity produced from renewables displaces a GWh that would otherwise be produced from fossil fuels.
This is not true. A kWh from a wind turbine is absolutely not equal to a kWh from a coal/gas/nuclear/hydro plant due to the fact that the capacity factor for a typical wind turbine is around 20-30%. A hydro plant often runs at > 80% capacity factor.
> "A kWh from a wind turbine is absolutely not equal to a kWh from a coal/gas/nuclear/hydro plant due to the fact that the capacity factor for a typical wind turbine is around 20-30%."
No, a kWh of energy produced by a wind turbine absolutely is equal to a kWh produced by any other means.
You'd be correct to say that a kW of capacity is not equal. (ie: a 1 GW wind farm may not produce as much energy as a 1 GW nuclear plant, but 1 GWh of energy is 1 GWh of energy, no matter what source produces it).
For what it's worth, UK off-shore wind farms currently have load factors of between 39 and 47%, and these are predicted to exceed 50% by 2035. Source: https://renews.biz/55349/uk-offshore-wind-load-factors-to-ex...
No, a kWh of energy produced by a wind turbine absolutely is equal to a kWh produced by any other means.
You'd be correct to say that a kW of capacity is not equal. (ie: a 1 GW wind farm may not produce as much energy as a 1 GW nuclear plant, but 1 GWh of energy is 1 GWh of energy, no matter what source produces it).
For what it's worth, UK off-shore wind farms currently have load factors of between 39 and 47%, and these are predicted to exceed 50% by 2035. Source: https://renews.biz/55349/uk-offshore-wind-load-factors-to-ex...
yes, that's correct. i used the wrong idea there.
if you wanna talk externalities, let’s price in the damage done by climate change into fossil fuel costs, and see which one is cheaper
I think we’ll start using more ways to store the energy. In the scenarios you describe, when the energy price fluctuate so wildly, the processes don’t have to be efficient. There’s not really a problem if 70% is lost in the process if the energy we started with is free. Pumping water to higher elevation or hydrogen production is suddenly reasonable.
Pumped storage is great, but it's simply not viable at a large scale. There are very few places where natural landscape allows it, and making more artificial ones would require flooding vast areas. Considering how difficult it often is to build solar plants on deserts (e.g. consider Ivanpah solar plant, which almost did not get build due to its impact on habitat of desert tortoises, which ended up getting relocated at a cost of $300k each), I don't expect the green interest groups to accept such wholesale destruction of environments.
Existing hydro lakes can act as storage (within the constraints of how much inflow there is and minimum outflow rates).
Decrease lake outflow when solar and wind are producing power. Increase lake outflow when they are not.
https://www.hydro.org/waterpower/why-hydro/available/
Decrease lake outflow when solar and wind are producing power. Increase lake outflow when they are not.
https://www.hydro.org/waterpower/why-hydro/available/
Your link says that at best we could double our current hydro generation capacity, which supports my point: it's simply too little for our storage needs, and if we electrify more of our economy (i.e. use it to replace heat and transport for which we use a lot of fossils now), it will be even less. It might still be worth doing, but is far from solving the storage problem: it just has significant limits on its potential scale.
> Your link says that at best we could double our current hydro generation capacity
No, it says "that without building a single new dam" [hydro could roughly double its existing capacity in the US].
I'll assume you just misread that, but in any case that's pretty different to building new dams, or utilising tech like mines, or at-sea pumped storage.
No, it says "that without building a single new dam" [hydro could roughly double its existing capacity in the US].
I'll assume you just misread that, but in any case that's pretty different to building new dams, or utilising tech like mines, or at-sea pumped storage.
> No, it says "that without building a single new dam" [hydro could roughly double its existing capacity in the US].
No, that's not what it says. It says:
> The report estimates that without building a single new dam, these available hydropower resources, if fully developed, could provide an electrical generating capacity of more than 12 gigawatts (GW), equivalent to roughly 15 percent of current U.S. hydropower capacity.
Without constructing any new dams, you only increase it by 15%, not double it. Also, consider that 12 GW is 105 TWh per year. US consumes 4100 TWh of electricity per year. It would sure be nice to increase non-fossil electricity production by 2.5%, but that's clearly not very much. If the plan is to use hydro to cover the shortfall when the renewables are not producing enough, you need much more generating capacity than 12 GW, and more than 65 GW your link suggests could be potentially built. Finally, 2.5% is on the order of our annual growth in electricity consumption, which will in fact accelerate as we move off fossils. Thus, building out all possible hydro will only buy one year of growth in consumption.
No, that's not what it says. It says:
> The report estimates that without building a single new dam, these available hydropower resources, if fully developed, could provide an electrical generating capacity of more than 12 gigawatts (GW), equivalent to roughly 15 percent of current U.S. hydropower capacity.
Without constructing any new dams, you only increase it by 15%, not double it. Also, consider that 12 GW is 105 TWh per year. US consumes 4100 TWh of electricity per year. It would sure be nice to increase non-fossil electricity production by 2.5%, but that's clearly not very much. If the plan is to use hydro to cover the shortfall when the renewables are not producing enough, you need much more generating capacity than 12 GW, and more than 65 GW your link suggests could be potentially built. Finally, 2.5% is on the order of our annual growth in electricity consumption, which will in fact accelerate as we move off fossils. Thus, building out all possible hydro will only buy one year of growth in consumption.
Yes, sorry you are right!
My error was confusing the "7% total capacity" and "15% existing capacity" not being off the same baseline.
My error was confusing the "7% total capacity" and "15% existing capacity" not being off the same baseline.
> I don't expect the green interest groups to accept such wholesale destruction of environments.
In the grand scheme of things, this is like refusing chemotherapy for cancer because it makes your hair fall out.
Climate change is a huge issue. You have to be willing to sacrifice what would normally be valid environmental concerns to address it. You either believe it is an emergency or not.
In the grand scheme of things, this is like refusing chemotherapy for cancer because it makes your hair fall out.
Climate change is a huge issue. You have to be willing to sacrifice what would normally be valid environmental concerns to address it. You either believe it is an emergency or not.
There are probably not one general solution that will work everywhere. But for example in Sweden where about half of the electricity already is from hydropower, it will work well to even out seasonal variations, from for example getting very little sun in the winter. But say for California, where there’s enough sun most days of the year, generating hydrogen might work better to even out the electricity generation between night and day.
And considering solar power, there’s no shortage of available space. There’s plenty of roofs to cover with panels. Or line the sides of, say, Interstate 5 with a wall of vertical panels that also helps keep wild animals from the road and reduce noise pollution.
There is no reasonable and economic way to store Terawatthours of electricity.
Even huge hydrostorage plants have only a few GWh.
Even huge hydrostorage plants have only a few GWh.
Huh? Norway alone has 85 TWh of hydrologic storage.
New Zealand has about 4 TWh, but they are considering adding an additional 5-12 TWh with one single storage project:
https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/central-otago/scientific-thoug...
New Zealand has about 4 TWh, but they are considering adding an additional 5-12 TWh with one single storage project:
https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/central-otago/scientific-thoug...
> Ideally fossil fuel plants would only spin up when they could sell power at a profit
Another effect is it makes these plants sit idle for periods of time.
It costs a lot of money to build a power plant. Every hour it sits idle is an hour you're not getting any benefit out of the investment you made. So it takes longer to break even on your investment. (Possibly, as a consolation, the plant lasts longer or has lower yearly maintenance costs.)
Another effect is it makes these plants sit idle for periods of time.
It costs a lot of money to build a power plant. Every hour it sits idle is an hour you're not getting any benefit out of the investment you made. So it takes longer to break even on your investment. (Possibly, as a consolation, the plant lasts longer or has lower yearly maintenance costs.)
In my experience, machinery experiences more wear and tear if you repeatedly turn it off and on than just letting it run constantly.
I’d expect a power plant to be the same with all the heat and whatnot.
I’d expect a power plant to be the same with all the heat and whatnot.
Peaker plants can get paid fees to be ready to deliver power, even without actually running. I think there are plants that get built, paid for as a pure peaker plant, and never run because the peaker is not required.
isn't that the game plan for hydrogen powered vehicles? so they can build a plan to absorb all these excess from over provisioning at a lower rate to produce hydrogen for their fleet
This is especially attractive for aircraft, but it will take awhile to happen. We probably need new aircraft.
Hopefully civilization will not collapse first, from refugees driving fascist governments into power, and former democracies self-surveilling themselves into locked-in dictatorships.
On the upside, collapsed civilization will have lower energy demands, and will find carbon extraction and transport harder to organize.
Hopefully civilization will not collapse first, from refugees driving fascist governments into power, and former democracies self-surveilling themselves into locked-in dictatorships.
On the upside, collapsed civilization will have lower energy demands, and will find carbon extraction and transport harder to organize.
Sure. Find some way to break up CO2 from the atmosphere and bond hydrogen to the carbons. It creates a relatively safe, easy-to-use hydrogen storage medium and it reduces greenhouse gases at the same time. The cars would just need to break the carbon-hydrogen bonds to release the energy once again, and the process is GHG-neutral.
I don't think the term "reliable" is the right term to use there. One should distinguish between reliability and availability. Renewables tend to be extremely reliable - why would a solar cell fail? - but not always available. Fossil or nuclear powerplants are quite available - they can run 24/7 on full power, but not always reliable. Especially nuclear power plants have a not so great reliability. They are often shut down completely and without warning for smaller non dangerous events. Also, in certain weather conditions, cooling of power plants is an issue so they have to be shut down. Also, for all fossil fuel plants, there is existing storage to compensate on a failing supply change (oil crisis) which have to be calculated in the costs.
Of course, the availability of renewables is an issue that has to be dealt with in planning the grid. If they are cheap enough, overprovisioning helps a lot, having larger grid interconnects help - even if there is not always wind in Germany, there should be pretty always be wind in Germany or France as an example. We still can change the way existing plants produce electricity - adding pumps to hydroelectric plants to convert them into storage, store the gas used in biomass plants rather than constantly burning it. And of course we need to build up additional storage. But that is just at the beginning of the learning curve, as most grids currently can just absorb all renewables as they are produced.
Of course, the availability of renewables is an issue that has to be dealt with in planning the grid. If they are cheap enough, overprovisioning helps a lot, having larger grid interconnects help - even if there is not always wind in Germany, there should be pretty always be wind in Germany or France as an example. We still can change the way existing plants produce electricity - adding pumps to hydroelectric plants to convert them into storage, store the gas used in biomass plants rather than constantly burning it. And of course we need to build up additional storage. But that is just at the beginning of the learning curve, as most grids currently can just absorb all renewables as they are produced.
Traditional power stations do exactly this - being closed for maintenance or running on low output for days, weeks or months even the interconnector cables between UK and European power suppliers have failed for months at a time. BUT yes, there's no equivalent of unexpected low wind and/or low solar for days or weeks.
The equivalent is a detached turbine blade, or sudden failure of cooling water pipes/intakes/pumps. Unexpected failures happen all the time.
The point is, a failing turbine makes not a noticable dent in the electricity production when there are tens of thousands of turbines. At that scale, the number of turbines which are shut down for failures/maintenance becomes a constant. A huge power plant going down in an instant is another problem however.
RTFA:
Batteries and electricity storage follow learning curves too One of the downsides of renewable sources is their intermittent supply cycle. The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. Technologies like batteries that store electric power are key to balance the changing supply from renewables with the inflexible demand for electricity.
Fortunately electricity storage technologies are also among the few technologies that are following steeply declining learning curves.
Batteries and electricity storage follow learning curves too One of the downsides of renewable sources is their intermittent supply cycle. The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. Technologies like batteries that store electric power are key to balance the changing supply from renewables with the inflexible demand for electricity.
Fortunately electricity storage technologies are also among the few technologies that are following steeply declining learning curves.
We already have cheap "batteries" in our homes. Run the electric water heater when the power is cheap. Water in the tank stays hot for a couple days.
The only piece missing here is an internet-connected thermostat for the tank that inquires about the spot price for electricity and turns on when it's cheap.
The same thing applies to your HVAC system.
The only piece missing here is an internet-connected thermostat for the tank that inquires about the spot price for electricity and turns on when it's cheap.
The same thing applies to your HVAC system.
You're exaggerating a bit. Water heater will stay hot for a day or so, but will rapidly cool when you start using it and cold water flows in. House will be uncomfortably cold after a few hours in the wintertime if the heat is not running, and it's not really practical to overheat it when electric rates are low/free because you can only go maybe 10 degrees before it's really too warm for comfort. You'd need a heat tank of some sort which complicates the system and as a practical matter homes don't have that and might not have space for.
Finally aside from all that I heat my water and my home with natural gas.
Finally aside from all that I heat my water and my home with natural gas.
I've had power outages for a week more than once, and can vouch for it staying warm enough for a comfortable shower for a couple days.
For HVAC, you can heat/cool it at a minimum to the edge of the comfort range, which will make a big difference. You can take it much further by heating/cooling some thermal mass, and drawing on that mass when the electricity is cheaper.
That mass can simply be a pile of stones in a box with some ductwork added. It's hard to find a cheaper "battery" technology than a box of rocks.
Frankly, I think people are way too focused on batteries and are overlooking the rather obvious.
For HVAC, you can heat/cool it at a minimum to the edge of the comfort range, which will make a big difference. You can take it much further by heating/cooling some thermal mass, and drawing on that mass when the electricity is cheaper.
That mass can simply be a pile of stones in a box with some ductwork added. It's hard to find a cheaper "battery" technology than a box of rocks.
Frankly, I think people are way too focused on batteries and are overlooking the rather obvious.
Water has really good thermal mass already. I think that adding huge water tanks in basements would be pretty beneficial: if the water in those tanks is operated in closed cycle, minerals from water wouldn't accumulate, and if we used rust proof materials, they tanks could last for the lifetime of the house. Then, we could use them to store heat in winter and cold in summer, when electricity is cheap.
District heating already deploys rather large thermal storage in surprisingly compact volumes. The picture here is 2GWh:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating#Heat_accumula...
When powered by heat pumps, I imagine this could be used for cooling in the summer as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating#Heat_accumula...
When powered by heat pumps, I imagine this could be used for cooling in the summer as well.
There were concept houses in Germany, where they had a water tank of 6 cubic meters which was heated through the summer via thermal solar collectors and stored enough energy for the house heating in the winter (and even in the winter the collectors would collect heat on sunny days).
>a pile of stones in a box with some ductwork added
man, the beauty in our lives disappears. Imagine that heated by electricity (especially if during cheap period) instead of coal/wood, and how great it is to sleep on or right next to such a stove (my grandmother house had one :):
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/12/tile-stoves.html
man, the beauty in our lives disappears. Imagine that heated by electricity (especially if during cheap period) instead of coal/wood, and how great it is to sleep on or right next to such a stove (my grandmother house had one :):
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/12/tile-stoves.html
I don't know about you, but I live in a log cabin in the back woods of Canada and have only wood stoves lined with bricks to keep me warm in winter (and we have a real Winter here). The cook stove has a cistern (water tank) for greater thermal mass and the stoves have baffles for high efficiency. The fuel grows all around me do it's carbon neutral (except for the chainsaw gas, but that's a luxury I will not forego).
This is not a used-to-was thing. It's the norm outside of towns in my county.
This is not a used-to-was thing. It's the norm outside of towns in my county.
A lot of these issues "house will be uncomfortable cold" are because the way houses have been built previously (and still are in a lot of places) is horribly inefficient. In my country (it's -5c outside now, so not exactly warm) the building standards dictate new houses must consume no more than 15W/m2/year of heat energy for heating.
To convert that to US units, that means a 3000sqft house somewhere were electricity is $0.15c/kWh would cost $600/year to heat from electric baseboard heaters. If you have a heat pump you could bring that down to $200/year - and that's before you even consider solar.
I live in a 5 year old apartment, and haven't even turned on the heating this season, but it's still a comfortable 20c/68F inside.
To convert that to US units, that means a 3000sqft house somewhere were electricity is $0.15c/kWh would cost $600/year to heat from electric baseboard heaters. If you have a heat pump you could bring that down to $200/year - and that's before you even consider solar.
I live in a 5 year old apartment, and haven't even turned on the heating this season, but it's still a comfortable 20c/68F inside.
It's technically possible to store heat for several months, e.g. in a large water tank, and use that heat over the winter. Only really feasible for very thermally efficient houses, but it can be done:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storag...
The obvious solution is not to let cold water flow into the water heater unless you have the electricity to heat it - and if needed make it a bit larger so there is more buffering capacity.
No need for internet connected anything. But there is a need for a "smart grid".
We, in France, have a very primitive system based peak / off-peak hours used in many houses, and I expect other countries to have the same kind of system since it is so simple.
Basically, you have an extra wire coming out of the meter. If there is voltage, it is peak hours, if there is no voltage, if is off-peak. To that wire, you connect a relay which sits in the breaker panel. That relay can turn a circuit on or off, often the water heater, so that it only runs off-peak. You can force it on if you know you are going to use more hot water than usual.
Such a simple thing, but updated in real time can already go a long way. In a more advanced system, the meter could tell you the price of electricity via PLC and you could have a relay in your breaker box that turns on a circuit depending on price.
Even smarter devices could receive the signal from the meter directly and do more things, for example, many appliances have a "delayed start" function. A "start when electricity is cheap" function would be a great addition.
The problem is that would require standardization. A standard protocol shared by utilities and electric device manufacturers. As for communication, PLC sounds ideal, it doesn't have to be fast, and it could also be the same signal used by the utility to remotely check the meter for billing (something that is being deployed in France, BTW).
We, in France, have a very primitive system based peak / off-peak hours used in many houses, and I expect other countries to have the same kind of system since it is so simple.
Basically, you have an extra wire coming out of the meter. If there is voltage, it is peak hours, if there is no voltage, if is off-peak. To that wire, you connect a relay which sits in the breaker panel. That relay can turn a circuit on or off, often the water heater, so that it only runs off-peak. You can force it on if you know you are going to use more hot water than usual.
Such a simple thing, but updated in real time can already go a long way. In a more advanced system, the meter could tell you the price of electricity via PLC and you could have a relay in your breaker box that turns on a circuit depending on price.
Even smarter devices could receive the signal from the meter directly and do more things, for example, many appliances have a "delayed start" function. A "start when electricity is cheap" function would be a great addition.
The problem is that would require standardization. A standard protocol shared by utilities and electric device manufacturers. As for communication, PLC sounds ideal, it doesn't have to be fast, and it could also be the same signal used by the utility to remotely check the meter for billing (something that is being deployed in France, BTW).
It does mention this briefly in the Batteries and electricity storage follow learning curves too section.
Yeah, that is mentioned as "one of the downsides of renewables".
That is like saying, "one of the downsides of using a cooked noodle as a fork is that it doesn't hold its shape". It's disqualifying until that issue is sorted.
The value of solar right now is that it provides energy at the hottest, most energy use part of the day. But there is a tipping point where marginal solar is not really valuable for a grid anymore. California and Germany are at that point.
Hopefully we get cost-effective day-scale energy storage, it's not going to happen in the next few years unfortunately.
That is like saying, "one of the downsides of using a cooked noodle as a fork is that it doesn't hold its shape". It's disqualifying until that issue is sorted.
The value of solar right now is that it provides energy at the hottest, most energy use part of the day. But there is a tipping point where marginal solar is not really valuable for a grid anymore. California and Germany are at that point.
Hopefully we get cost-effective day-scale energy storage, it's not going to happen in the next few years unfortunately.
It's certainly not disqualifying until we are at far far far higher levels of renewables on the grid. Getting to 80% generation would take very little storage.
And people overestimate how much storage costs. In Texas, even with super cheap natural gas, there are more GW of storage in the interconnection queue than there are of natural gas plants. That's at today's prices, in a market where everybody competes on their own costs!
https://rmi.org/clean-energy-is-canceling-gas-plants/
And greater than 95% of new solar projects in California include storage, and something like 25% of projects outside of California include storage along with the renewables.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hybrid-power-pl...
We don't absolutely need to deploy storage right now, but independent agents are still doing it, because they make money by deploying storage at current costs.
And people overestimate how much storage costs. In Texas, even with super cheap natural gas, there are more GW of storage in the interconnection queue than there are of natural gas plants. That's at today's prices, in a market where everybody competes on their own costs!
https://rmi.org/clean-energy-is-canceling-gas-plants/
And greater than 95% of new solar projects in California include storage, and something like 25% of projects outside of California include storage along with the renewables.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hybrid-power-pl...
We don't absolutely need to deploy storage right now, but independent agents are still doing it, because they make money by deploying storage at current costs.
Well, at least the upside is that this will be another forcing function for better battery tech.
Another step up in battery tech would literally level us up as a civilization.
Another step up in battery tech would literally level us up as a civilization.
> But there is a tipping point where marginal solar is not really valuable for a grid anymore.
And that is a very good problem to have.
There are any number of industrial processes that could easily put that excessively cheap energy to use. Aluminum smelting, for example.
And that is a very good problem to have.
There are any number of industrial processes that could easily put that excessively cheap energy to use. Aluminum smelting, for example.
electrolysis, bitcoin mining (!), electric car recharging, etc.
It isn't. Your base load stations close and you are left only with the intermittent reweables and natural gas. South Australia is the only energy market in that place right now and the prices paid there would destroy any industrial economy.
"Renewables, natural gas and a couple of nuclear plants" is the UK situation, with normal electricity prices. Almost all the coal is closed permanently.
People will keep saying it won't work long after it's already been done.
People will keep saying it won't work long after it's already been done.
Wood and biomass are renewable. Fossil fuels "disappear" after being consumed. The sun, however will reliably be around for quite some time.
That's still cheaper. No need to create battery farms that can hold power for half a year.
Related question: what's the spot price for solar power at 1am? How cheap is it then?
Assuming no or minimal congestion or losses, the LMP (locational marginal price) or nodal price is basically the same everywhere. So the question is what is the MEC (marginal energy component) of the nodal price which is shared by everyone. In general, prices in the spot market are pretty low that early in the morning. It depends on the RTO/ISO region, but maybe ~$10/MWh?
Using lithium ion batteries, that solar would cost $81-$140/MWh, which is pretty much the same price as coal (compare the final slide to the first slide):
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
But batteries get cheaper every year, so check back in 2021 for even cheaper prices. Most observers expect lithium ion storage to be cheaper than natural gas within a decade. And when you amortize the nighttime storage costs with the cheap daytime solar, natural gas is barely holding on in some markets. If we had a carbon tax that came close to internalizing the externalities, I don't think NG would be running for much longer.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
But batteries get cheaper every year, so check back in 2021 for even cheaper prices. Most observers expect lithium ion storage to be cheaper than natural gas within a decade. And when you amortize the nighttime storage costs with the cheap daytime solar, natural gas is barely holding on in some markets. If we had a carbon tax that came close to internalizing the externalities, I don't think NG would be running for much longer.
With 4500km power transmission lines currently being planned[1], the key question is "1 am where?" That's about 3-4 hours of time difference if the cable was along a line of latitude which obviously reduces the required storage time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93ASEAN_Power_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93ASEAN_Power_...
Also, unfortunately for our climate, fossil fuels are easy to store, even for decades (potentially forever, they don't decay) and transport and require no advanced technology to be useful, you simply need a way to set them on fire.
There was a discussion few days ago about fossil fuels bootstrapping the industrial revolution(s), one of the theories is that without them we wouldn't be talking about renewable energy at all (except in very basic ways like running a watermill)
There was a discussion few days ago about fossil fuels bootstrapping the industrial revolution(s), one of the theories is that without them we wouldn't be talking about renewable energy at all (except in very basic ways like running a watermill)
That's why it's highly unlikely there was a civilization on the Earth before ours.
... unless that's what we're burning when we burn fossil fuels....
have you guys seen Naomi Klein new documentary. Renewable energy is a joke, just another way to squeeze money out of normal people by using a taxation system.
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/09/17/the-green-new-deal-...
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/09/17/the-green-new-deal-...
To make wind and solar power more reliable, you need to stop earth rotation or manipulate the climate to produce continuous sunlight and/or wind.
That’s simply impossible.
The only reliable renewable enery is hydropower and maybe geothermal power.
That’s simply impossible.
The only reliable renewable enery is hydropower and maybe geothermal power.
Take some advice from someone who has been there and done that, and suffered for it: -
Cure yourself of this tendency to jump to extremes. Your relationships and your career will benefit from pausing and moderating what you say.
To the content of your comment: -
There is a sizable menu of options to make wind and solar more reliable. Two technologies with nearly a century of history behind them are pumped hydro and CAES (compressed air energy storage).
Batteries have been technologically feasible for decades, and are on the cusp of economic feasibility (that is: being cheaper than the alternatives), thanks to the manufacturing learning curve that the OP makes so much of.
Better grid interconnections also help a lot and probably have an even more illustrious history than pumped hydro and CAES. Demand management (asking large users, e.g. pulp and paper mills to pause for a while), is also a venerable technique.
It is possible to use surplus power to make fuels to burn when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. This is still in its infancy only because we have never before had periods when electricity had a negative price.
These are just the things that sprang to my mind without thinking about it. There are others.
Cure yourself of this tendency to jump to extremes. Your relationships and your career will benefit from pausing and moderating what you say.
To the content of your comment: -
There is a sizable menu of options to make wind and solar more reliable. Two technologies with nearly a century of history behind them are pumped hydro and CAES (compressed air energy storage).
Batteries have been technologically feasible for decades, and are on the cusp of economic feasibility (that is: being cheaper than the alternatives), thanks to the manufacturing learning curve that the OP makes so much of.
Better grid interconnections also help a lot and probably have an even more illustrious history than pumped hydro and CAES. Demand management (asking large users, e.g. pulp and paper mills to pause for a while), is also a venerable technique.
It is possible to use surplus power to make fuels to burn when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. This is still in its infancy only because we have never before had periods when electricity had a negative price.
These are just the things that sprang to my mind without thinking about it. There are others.
This reminds me of a comment about Creality's belted 3D printer not being able to violate the laws of physics and then someone added rollers so long prints don't fall of the bed...
Seemingly complicated problems don't necessarily require complicated solutions.
You can do three easy things. Create bigger electricity grids with more decentralized generation (the whole earth receives a roughly constant amount of energy from the sun), overproduce energy or build some storage.
Seemingly complicated problems don't necessarily require complicated solutions.
You can do three easy things. Create bigger electricity grids with more decentralized generation (the whole earth receives a roughly constant amount of energy from the sun), overproduce energy or build some storage.
What appears to be missing from this discussion is that renewables are not enough:
>Our hardest climate problems – the ones that are both large and lack obvious solutions – are agriculture (and deforestation – its major side effect) and industry. Together these are 45% of global carbon emissions. And solutions are scarce.
>Agriculture and land use account for 24% of all human emissions. That’s nearly as much as electricity, and twice as much all the world’s passenger cars combined.
>Industry – steel, cement, and manufacturing – account for 21% of human emissions – one and a half times as much as all the world’s cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes combined.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/15/how-to-decarbonize-america...
We need to start putting just as much research effort into these areas as went into renewables.
>Our hardest climate problems – the ones that are both large and lack obvious solutions – are agriculture (and deforestation – its major side effect) and industry. Together these are 45% of global carbon emissions. And solutions are scarce.
>Agriculture and land use account for 24% of all human emissions. That’s nearly as much as electricity, and twice as much all the world’s passenger cars combined.
>Industry – steel, cement, and manufacturing – account for 21% of human emissions – one and a half times as much as all the world’s cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes combined.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/15/how-to-decarbonize-america...
We need to start putting just as much research effort into these areas as went into renewables.
This podcast (https://www.npr.org/transcripts/923966126) has some interesting info on lowering the CO2 emissions of concrete.
Most of industry can use renewables just fine.
Chemical ones need carbon that, if energy is plentyful can be captured from the atmosphere.
The agriculture number is mostly methane. Methane is different from CO2 in that it's short lived, so it doesn't keep adding up after a certain amount. Just adding it to the CO2 emmissions us very misleading.
We do need research, but renewables are a key part for solving those problems too.
Chemical ones need carbon that, if energy is plentyful can be captured from the atmosphere.
The agriculture number is mostly methane. Methane is different from CO2 in that it's short lived, so it doesn't keep adding up after a certain amount. Just adding it to the CO2 emmissions us very misleading.
We do need research, but renewables are a key part for solving those problems too.
The graph shows solar becoming on par/ slightly cheaper then oil/gas/coal solutions over the past decade. If this trend continues we may see an energy revolution take place in the next 10-20 years. Data center costs will dive down, more places will become livable with always on AC/heating. Even inefficient energy storage becomes viable with low enough prices (if solar is 70% cheaper than gas, then it can still compete with gas at night if the energy storage is more than 30% efficient or so, when in reality storage is close to 70-80% efficient). Humanity as a whole might even make it to a Type 1 Civilization with our increased usage. Carbon capturing even becomes a viable solution to climate change.
Just as rapidly changing CPU and internet speeds changed the world over the past few decades, so too will an energy revolution. I look forward to this new world and how we can use the innovations to solve todays problems.
Just as rapidly changing CPU and internet speeds changed the world over the past few decades, so too will an energy revolution. I look forward to this new world and how we can use the innovations to solve todays problems.
>more places will become livable with always on AC/heating
It's time to realize that climate change is not the only environmental catastrophe we're facing now.
If the switch to renewable energy leads us to speed up the ecological collapse (due to land artificialization, natural habitat loss/fragmentation...), we're £%cked.
https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/inline/files/ipbes_glo...
It's time to realize that climate change is not the only environmental catastrophe we're facing now.
If the switch to renewable energy leads us to speed up the ecological collapse (due to land artificialization, natural habitat loss/fragmentation...), we're £%cked.
https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/inline/files/ipbes_glo...
Too bad that low cost is invisible for the consumers. California has one of the most, if not the most, expensive electricity in spite of years of investment in renewables.
California has high rates, like the Northeast[1], primarily because it pulls some externalities onto the bill. Red-state residents not paying for the cost of pollution doesn't eliminate the cost! But California has moderate bills due to decades of work on efficiency. (Climate helps somewhat, but there is a huge AC load in 30m-inhabitant SoCal.)
[1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/
[1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/
I don't agree with this externality justification. I could get a 100% renewable backed plan in Houston for 1/3 the rate I pay in San Jose.
Does Houston have a carbon tax that prices the externalities into your electricity bill? If not then that's why fossil fuels are still cheaper. They don't have to pay for the externalities.
GP was comparing price of renewables, not fossil fuels.
That's not what my family in California tells me. Their bills are exorbitant for a more modest lifestyle, and this is in contrast to Oregon.
this is why rooftop solar, which has the highest LCOE of any power generation, still ends up making sense for consumers. Because it doesn't have to compete on the open market, it just has to be plausibly cheaper than your utility bill
Rooftop solar still have 5+ years ROI. Recently utilities changed billing plans to make it even less attractive.
> Rooftop solar still have 5+ years ROI
Why is that a problem? Most people take multiples of that time just to pay off their mortgage. Maybe if you are house flipping, but even then this tends to increase their value.
Why is that a problem? Most people take multiples of that time just to pay off their mortgage. Maybe if you are house flipping, but even then this tends to increase their value.
Seems like an elitist point of view. Just pointing out the for the middle class family putting a lot of money to maybe get even after 5+ years is not very attractive.
You can get a zero-down loan or a lease the panels with payments lower than your power bill. This has nothing to do with liquidity.
But even if you dont stay in the house, the next owner can use it. I expect most houses will be lived in for atleast 30 years if they are getting mortgaged.
I think the average home ownership in the US is 5-7 years. Depending on the size of your solar setup, you very well may not break even before moving for whatever reason.
That said, it does make sense if you do plan to stay for 10+ years I think. As new houses get built, hopefully with requirements for solar, the housing stock will eventually all be upgraded to include some form of solar generation. I would expect the price to further come down and the majority of homes in the 1st world to have residential solar of some form within the next 30 years.
That said, it does make sense if you do plan to stay for 10+ years I think. As new houses get built, hopefully with requirements for solar, the housing stock will eventually all be upgraded to include some form of solar generation. I would expect the price to further come down and the majority of homes in the 1st world to have residential solar of some form within the next 30 years.
This seems to assume that solar panels do nothing for resale value. However there is definitely value for the next homeowner to save $50-$100/month in expenses.
NB: ROI isn't measured in years, it's a ratio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment
Payback period is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payback_period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment
Payback period is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payback_period
I live in Finland next to a hydroelectric dam. Electricity is, at worst, like 200 bucks a month. More than half the cost is transport. The dam is less than 15km out. What a ripoff.
Privatizing the electric grid would make electricity cheaper, they said.
Privatizing the electric grid would make electricity cheaper, they said.
Privatizing the grid isn't enough to make it cheaper. The regulatory environment has to be set up to allow competition. It's competition that lowers prices, not simply being privately owned.
Even though you're 15km from a primary source, the network is built to provide you electricity even if that source is down. That requires connections to generators much further away.
It's the uptime that adds costs.
It's the uptime that adds costs.
The privatized electric grid companies were granted permission to raise prices for funding grid expansion. A later audit discovered that they pocketed 90% of the raise. (the expansion cost only 10%)
Even closer than the hydro dam there's a waste incinerator plant 3km from my home. Even if the hydro wasn't 100% reliable which of course it isn't (the channel is drained occasionally for maintenance), they can burn trash at any time to make up the difference. On some days there's a funny smell in the air.
It's greed that adds to these costs.
Even closer than the hydro dam there's a waste incinerator plant 3km from my home. Even if the hydro wasn't 100% reliable which of course it isn't (the channel is drained occasionally for maintenance), they can burn trash at any time to make up the difference. On some days there's a funny smell in the air.
It's greed that adds to these costs.
Privatization as its finest.
Here in Norway it's because we sell our cheap hydro overseas, so that we can buy back more expensive energy when hydro is low. The owners make a ton of cash, and us consumers can only say "thank you".
Sure something something more reliable, but don't come here and say the cash they skim isn't a strong motivation in this equation.
At least a lot of the hydro is owned by local municipalities and counties, so most of it goes back into the local communities. But not all.
Sure something something more reliable, but don't come here and say the cash they skim isn't a strong motivation in this equation.
At least a lot of the hydro is owned by local municipalities and counties, so most of it goes back into the local communities. But not all.
Norway's system of municipal hydropower ownership combined with export of surplus hydropower, effectively converts the (basically mandatory) electricity bill into a tax. Reducing the need for other forms of local government taxation, given that the municipality is well-run and not corrupt.
Beneficial side effects are incentivizing power efficiency, since capital-intensive efforts like insulating your house and installing a heat exchanger are only profitable if electricity prices are high.
Another dramatically undersold benefit is that Norwegian municipalities are effectively well-paid pumped storage operators when continental European power prices are low or negative, which effectively reduces the effective "synthetic" power bill taxation, while retaining its income to the municipalities.
Authorities and publicly owned power companies have really screwed the pooch on explaining these benefits to the public.
Given these benefits, retaining ownership of the hydropower companies in the hands of the public is super important. If they're sold to private owners, it's basically tantamount to allowing private owners to purchase tax collection rights. And honestly, screw that.
Beneficial side effects are incentivizing power efficiency, since capital-intensive efforts like insulating your house and installing a heat exchanger are only profitable if electricity prices are high.
Another dramatically undersold benefit is that Norwegian municipalities are effectively well-paid pumped storage operators when continental European power prices are low or negative, which effectively reduces the effective "synthetic" power bill taxation, while retaining its income to the municipalities.
Authorities and publicly owned power companies have really screwed the pooch on explaining these benefits to the public.
Given these benefits, retaining ownership of the hydropower companies in the hands of the public is super important. If they're sold to private owners, it's basically tantamount to allowing private owners to purchase tax collection rights. And honestly, screw that.
Great summary of what's at play here.
> Given these benefits, retaining ownership of the hydropower companies in the hands of the public is super important
It's almost unfathomable to me that anyone can disagree with this, yet I'm pretty sure the status quo won't last for much longer.
I'm tempted to use some very strong words for describing those that are working to this end, but I guess it could all boil down to ideological blindness and short sighted greed.
> Given these benefits, retaining ownership of the hydropower companies in the hands of the public is super important
It's almost unfathomable to me that anyone can disagree with this, yet I'm pretty sure the status quo won't last for much longer.
I'm tempted to use some very strong words for describing those that are working to this end, but I guess it could all boil down to ideological blindness and short sighted greed.
Quisling would be an appropriate word. I really wish the political right managed to put their ideology on the shelf for this case. It's a case of blindly following heuristics rather than reasoning about the underlying principles.
Yeah as long as ownership is retained by the public I don't mind so much, I'd just like it if they called a spade a spade.
But things are getting sold off, which is a worrying trend.
But things are getting sold off, which is a worrying trend.
I agree, also regarding the latest wind power projects. These are often built on public land, and regardless on land that's open to the public through the right to roam.
I would have less of a problem with it if the incomes from these power stations were owned by the municipalities. But the municipal governments have demonstrated time and time again that they really suck at negotiating. So what happens is that private investors, often foreign, negotiate a very cheap lease where wind turbines are built on public land. All profits, except a small yearly lease to the municipality, are returned to the investors.
There should be people in the current conservative government that understand enough about market forces to step in and ensure that profitable wind power projects are actually built by the municipalities, but looks like they're asleep at the wheel. Or maybe there's some special interest groups that have managed to sneak in and stop that kind of measure. This is an area where ideology ends up being the enemy of the public.
I would have less of a problem with it if the incomes from these power stations were owned by the municipalities. But the municipal governments have demonstrated time and time again that they really suck at negotiating. So what happens is that private investors, often foreign, negotiate a very cheap lease where wind turbines are built on public land. All profits, except a small yearly lease to the municipality, are returned to the investors.
There should be people in the current conservative government that understand enough about market forces to step in and ensure that profitable wind power projects are actually built by the municipalities, but looks like they're asleep at the wheel. Or maybe there's some special interest groups that have managed to sneak in and stop that kind of measure. This is an area where ideology ends up being the enemy of the public.
$200 max sounds nice. I paid that some months for a 900 sqft (83.6127 m2) apartment in the summer in Texas. I have family that have seen 3-400/month for their larger houses some months.
Granted, these are mass produced homes built in the 50s-80s for the most part before home construction got more strict about insulation and energy used to be a lot cheaper.
Granted, these are mass produced homes built in the 50s-80s for the most part before home construction got more strict about insulation and energy used to be a lot cheaper.
The cost of electricity in CA is mostly the cost of the distribution infrastructure maintenance, which is a value approved on several levels of government, and the actual electron cost is hidden from the end user behind layers and layers of contracts.
The cost of electricity, then, is based on some fixed costs of infrastructure: we still haven't figured out how to make more electrons go down less metal wire than in the past. Any savings will result in lack of maintenance, aka: fires.
The cost of electricity, then, is based on some fixed costs of infrastructure: we still haven't figured out how to make more electrons go down less metal wire than in the past. Any savings will result in lack of maintenance, aka: fires.
Subsides for the green energy were/are significant factor in energy prices in CA. If we got to the point that the green energy is price competitive we should see the decrease either because we do not need to subsidize or because the generation is cheaper.
Same here in Denmark, taxes on my last electricity bill were 6x the price for electricity
> California has one of the most, if not the most, expensive electricity in spite of years of investment in renewables
Some municipalities have improved a lot on that issue. See Santa Clara, Silicon Valley Power. Prices are most lower than PG&E.
Some municipalities have improved a lot on that issue. See Santa Clara, Silicon Valley Power. Prices are most lower than PG&E.
What are their prices?
See links below.
https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/residents/rates-and-fees
https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/about-s...
https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/residents/rates-and-fees
https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/about-s...
That is very good. Thank you!
Why is this? Is there no competition?
California is rich enough to afford incompetent governance :)
The state has no incentive to give you something for free that used to cost a lot. Why would they do it? Votes?
The 'carriage' fee, ie the fee used to transport the electricity will grow quite a lot as the entity in charge of that finds reason to charge that much more and gov. will find reasons to tax.
There's the cost of electricity - but also distributors and government in that equation.
If the cost of making parts for the Google Phone were $1, and there were only 1 type of phone in the US and everyone had to have one ... would Google drop the price of the phone? Probably not. They would capture more surpluses.
This will be the same everywhere.
If electricity were purchased at 'independent stations' etc it would be another story entirely. As energy got cheaper, power usage would increase, and efficiency of households would go down.
The 'carriage' fee, ie the fee used to transport the electricity will grow quite a lot as the entity in charge of that finds reason to charge that much more and gov. will find reasons to tax.
There's the cost of electricity - but also distributors and government in that equation.
If the cost of making parts for the Google Phone were $1, and there were only 1 type of phone in the US and everyone had to have one ... would Google drop the price of the phone? Probably not. They would capture more surpluses.
This will be the same everywhere.
If electricity were purchased at 'independent stations' etc it would be another story entirely. As energy got cheaper, power usage would increase, and efficiency of households would go down.
[deleted]
California deregulated electricity and in the absence of regulations, electricity providers discovered that they could collude in reducing capacity until prices went nice and high, and make continuous windfall profits from then forward.
> California deregulated electricity
"Deregulated" is something of a misnomer here. They removed restrictions on prices and collusion, but did not remove the state-enforced monopolies that different electric providers have in different areas of the state. So they combined the worst aspects of deregulation with the worst aspects of regulation.
"Deregulated" is something of a misnomer here. They removed restrictions on prices and collusion, but did not remove the state-enforced monopolies that different electric providers have in different areas of the state. So they combined the worst aspects of deregulation with the worst aspects of regulation.
Part of this was that CA’s “deregulation” outlawed long term pricing in favor of spot pricing. So it created a situation where providers could “discover” that they needed to take a plant down for maintenance at peak, only to “accidentally” raise the price of electricity.
AIUI, long term contracts were seen as opaque, whereas spot pricing wasn’t.
AIUI, long term contracts were seen as opaque, whereas spot pricing wasn’t.
The source of that problem was the price for consumers was fixed by the government, while the utility was obliged to pay whatever the wholesale price was.
they are geographical monopolies.
One very hopeful, usually neglected point is that we don't need to produce anywhere near the same amount of renewable energy as the total enthalpy (raw energy content) of the carbon sources to maintain the same level of service.
Electric vehicles convert power to motion several times as efficiently as internal-combustion equipment (except ships and aircraft), so much less total energy is needed to move the same mass of (especially) people and cars. This is most immediately visible in the current usefulness of electric scooters.
(Big ships are already 70+% efficient, so there is less room for improvement. Small aircraft can claim benefits similar to cars, but airliners will suffer losses converting to (e.g.) LH2 or LCH4, and/or after the electric motors have worked; but there is still room for some improvement.)
Similarly, and surprisingly to many, the same applies to building heating systems, where better than 300% efficiency of heat pumps means that 1 kW of electric power produces 3+ kW of warm air. (The extra 2 kW comes from outside air.
So, today, while we still get more than 80% of raw energy from petroleum, renewables driving electric systems already have reduced that to 60% of actual delivered service.
Electric vehicles convert power to motion several times as efficiently as internal-combustion equipment (except ships and aircraft), so much less total energy is needed to move the same mass of (especially) people and cars. This is most immediately visible in the current usefulness of electric scooters.
(Big ships are already 70+% efficient, so there is less room for improvement. Small aircraft can claim benefits similar to cars, but airliners will suffer losses converting to (e.g.) LH2 or LCH4, and/or after the electric motors have worked; but there is still room for some improvement.)
Similarly, and surprisingly to many, the same applies to building heating systems, where better than 300% efficiency of heat pumps means that 1 kW of electric power produces 3+ kW of warm air. (The extra 2 kW comes from outside air.
So, today, while we still get more than 80% of raw energy from petroleum, renewables driving electric systems already have reduced that to 60% of actual delivered service.
This is the source they are using: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
Does lazard include subsidies in their numbers or not? I can't figure it out.
I'm having trouble making sense of the lazard report, but to me it seems that it does, and ourworldindata.org is using their numbers while claiming they are without subsidies.
Does lazard include subsidies in their numbers or not? I can't figure it out.
I'm having trouble making sense of the lazard report, but to me it seems that it does, and ourworldindata.org is using their numbers while claiming they are without subsidies.
I don't have time to check that report in particular, but past Lazard studies have included both subsidized and unsubsidized figures side by side.
And as Bryan says in the sibling comment, there's not a large gap between the prices. Residential solar was heavily subsidized in many countries but wind and utility scale solar aren't as much, and they're also the cheap ones.
If they're not clearly marked, you may need to hunt down another with more detail.
And as Bryan says in the sibling comment, there's not a large gap between the prices. Residential solar was heavily subsidized in many countries but wind and utility scale solar aren't as much, and they're also the cheap ones.
If they're not clearly marked, you may need to hunt down another with more detail.
What does this mean?
>Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 14.0) shows that as the cost of renewable energy continues to decline, certain technologies (e.g., onshore wind and utility-scale solar), which became cost-competitive with conventional generation several years ago on a new-build basis, continue to maintain competitiveness with the marginal cost of selected existing conventional generation technologies.
I assume new-build is building a wind for or nat gas plant.
What is marginal cost? Is that adding capacity to a wind farm or nat gas plant, or just having an existing nat gas plant generate more power per day.
Are they basically saying that renewables are competitive when capital costs are included and also when capital costs are excluded?
>Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 14.0) shows that as the cost of renewable energy continues to decline, certain technologies (e.g., onshore wind and utility-scale solar), which became cost-competitive with conventional generation several years ago on a new-build basis, continue to maintain competitiveness with the marginal cost of selected existing conventional generation technologies.
I assume new-build is building a wind for or nat gas plant.
What is marginal cost? Is that adding capacity to a wind farm or nat gas plant, or just having an existing nat gas plant generate more power per day.
Are they basically saying that renewables are competitive when capital costs are included and also when capital costs are excluded?
Yeah, they're saying that it's cheaper to build renewables than continuing to run fossil fuel plants. The marginal costs are for additional power once you own the plant.
I believe around 80% of the lifetime cost of a fossil fuel plant is the fuel itself, so even if you're gifted a plant for free it may not be economical to run.
The fly in the soup is intermittency, but grids are generally able to absorb more renewables (wholesale price dropping below 0 is the indicator saturation has happened). And electric cars are going to mean a bunch more dispatchable demand and eventually V2G.
I believe around 80% of the lifetime cost of a fossil fuel plant is the fuel itself, so even if you're gifted a plant for free it may not be economical to run.
The fly in the soup is intermittency, but grids are generally able to absorb more renewables (wholesale price dropping below 0 is the indicator saturation has happened). And electric cars are going to mean a bunch more dispatchable demand and eventually V2G.
Every slide will say unsubsidized or subsidized; generally Larard reports focus only on the unsubsidized cost.
[deleted]
It doesn't matter. The subsidy is 22% and the gap is more than 22%.
So fossil fuels, at least for power generation, is already obsolete. Fantastic!
Since the power plant replacement cycle is much slower than for phones, it will take a while to propagate the shift, but it is already inevitable.
Since the power plant replacement cycle is much slower than for phones, it will take a while to propagate the shift, but it is already inevitable.
There's still the problem of what to do between 4pm and 8 am on a day without wind, which means we won't be able to shut down too many power plants until cheap energy storage exists.
Energy storage is already cheap enough to provide this for a few hours in the evening, as long as it's guaranteed that the battery get to discharge (and get paid) daily. In the ERCOT market, one of the markets that's most open to new, independent entrants reusing to make money, the interconnection queue has more GW of storage than natural gas.
The much trickier problem is storage that's only needed once a week, once a month, or once a year. That's where we don't have batteries, yet.
The much trickier problem is storage that's only needed once a week, once a month, or once a year. That's where we don't have batteries, yet.
Gravity batteries! Basically a hunk of concrete that uses spare grid power to be hoisted, and then converts the gravitational energy when its dropped.
Seems like there are only a few companies giving it a real go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery
Seems like there are only a few companies giving it a real go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery
Low energy density though — a fully charged 1kg LiIon battery has enough energy to raise its own weight by a height of about 50 km.
Wikipedia says energy density of 0.36-0.875 MJ/kg; assuming 0.5 MJ/kg and putting it into PE = mgh -> 0.5 MJ/kg * 1kg = 1kg * g * h -> h = (0.5 MJ/kg)/g = ~51 km
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%280.5%20MJ%2Fkg%29%2Fg...
Wikipedia says energy density of 0.36-0.875 MJ/kg; assuming 0.5 MJ/kg and putting it into PE = mgh -> 0.5 MJ/kg * 1kg = 1kg * g * h -> h = (0.5 MJ/kg)/g = ~51 km
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%280.5%20MJ%2Fkg%29%2Fg...
I think that ultimately this limits how cheap gravity batteries can get, there’s just too much material and those materials are already well-understood components with little chance for falling costs. We would likely need entirely new and innovative materials or designs A gravity battery that used completely new materials or design to come up with something cheap.
Where as lithium ion batteries generally get cheaper the more energy dense we make them (in the same chemistries, at least) because fewer resources go into making that same kWh of storage.
Where as lithium ion batteries generally get cheaper the more energy dense we make them (in the same chemistries, at least) because fewer resources go into making that same kWh of storage.
Admittedly, I know very little of the battery industry, and not much more about gravity battery viability.
That said, naive me would would ask why we can't just fill ballasts with waste water or other dense waste materials on-site?
Energy density over a gravity battery's working lifetime is a different metric than "per-charge", and maybe more relevant for supplying energy back to a grid (compared to, e.g. a home).
That said, naive me would would ask why we can't just fill ballasts with waste water or other dense waste materials on-site?
Energy density over a gravity battery's working lifetime is a different metric than "per-charge", and maybe more relevant for supplying energy back to a grid (compared to, e.g. a home).
Most people guess wrong about what technologies end up winning, so me as an internet rando could definitely be wrong about gravity batteries! Certainly the idea that lithium ion batteries would be cheap/high-specific-energy enough for cars would have seemed crazy 20 years ago. And even more so that lithium ion would make it to the grid!
My thought about them are mostly about learning curves, however. We have a long ways to go while we make lithium ion batteries cheaper, probably decades, and we improve a lot each year. Gravel, rock, stone, etc. and however we contain and move that around? That seems to be something that humans have been optimizing since our first days, and there doesn't seem to be much room for improvement at the moment.
My other assumption, which could be false, is that gravity batteries are not currently economical on our current grid with current electricity prices and price swings, an assumption I make because there are no installs I know of, and none planned. Instead of being uneconomic, they could just be untried, because the electricity industry is fairly innovative. If gravity batteries are economical today then I think there could be future for them.
My thought about them are mostly about learning curves, however. We have a long ways to go while we make lithium ion batteries cheaper, probably decades, and we improve a lot each year. Gravel, rock, stone, etc. and however we contain and move that around? That seems to be something that humans have been optimizing since our first days, and there doesn't seem to be much room for improvement at the moment.
My other assumption, which could be false, is that gravity batteries are not currently economical on our current grid with current electricity prices and price swings, an assumption I make because there are no installs I know of, and none planned. Instead of being uneconomic, they could just be untried, because the electricity industry is fairly innovative. If gravity batteries are economical today then I think there could be future for them.
It's more or less impossible for there to be no wind over a large area at the same time - low wind areas are surrounded by circulating air in a cyclonic structure.
I think you must have missed this event from just a few weeks ago:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blackout-alert-from-natio...
Last week, National Grid issued two electricity margin notices, the most serious security-of-supply alerts since 2016, both citing low wind farm output among the causes and urgently appealing for more power plants. To keep the lights on, Britain burnt coal in polluting old power stations that are due to close within a few years.
“Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with has been reduced,” it said last month, warning of “tight margins” on Britain’s power grid in the days to come.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blackout-alert-from-natio...
Last week, National Grid issued two electricity margin notices, the most serious security-of-supply alerts since 2016, both citing low wind farm output among the causes and urgently appealing for more power plants. To keep the lights on, Britain burnt coal in polluting old power stations that are due to close within a few years.
“Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with has been reduced,” it said last month, warning of “tight margins” on Britain’s power grid in the days to come.
I guess you and pjc50 have a different idea of “a large area”. The UK is about half the size of California.
Balancing power over ever larger areas does run into problems with long distance inter-connectors and spare capacity in general though, so it's not like this is an easily solved problem. The UK is well connected to mainland Europe with many large interconnectors and has an enormous abundance of off shore wind power because it's an island, yet it still nearly had brown/blackouts due to low wind coinciding with normal maintenance. That suggests the UK is hitting the limits of what can be done with wind power despite having a lot of it. Even if interconnectors were upgraded, that doesn't help if other countries are already using all their wind power locally.
Maybe use excess electricity to produce hydrogen using electrolysis and then burn it in a turbine later?
Here's a comparison: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/energy-storage-2019
Electrolysis isn't very efficient without nasty electrolytes. For massive scale, pumped water/air is still probably the most feasible in a reasonable timeframe and cost.
Electrolysis isn't very efficient without nasty electrolytes. For massive scale, pumped water/air is still probably the most feasible in a reasonable timeframe and cost.
Global energy grid?
So that North Americas energy can come from China during the night?
The sun is always shining somewhere but this does doesn't sound feasible simply due to geo-political and infrastructure reasons.
Have any serious plans been put forward for this idea?
The sun is always shining somewhere but this does doesn't sound feasible simply due to geo-political and infrastructure reasons.
Have any serious plans been put forward for this idea?
Running a power cable across the Pacific is going to be rife with expensive engineering problems, but sure, you could send electrons from Three Gorges to Google at some cost. I wouldn't call it cheaper, though.
AFAIK even getting solar electricity from Sahara to European part of the Mediterranean basin would be extremely expensive, and this is peanuts compared to the cost of sending electricity over the Pacific.
Unless there are massive improvements in superconductive materials, of course.
Unless there are massive improvements in superconductive materials, of course.
Couldn't they invest into hydrogen electrolysis? Hydrogen will grow in importance as an industrial energy input.
If saharan electricity is the cheapest then nobody else can compete in hydrogen production.
If saharan electricity is the cheapest then nobody else can compete in hydrogen production.
In the spirit of "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway." I wonder if shipping big piles of fully charged batteries around has any chance of being a practical power distribution method?
Not even remotely. Batteries have some of the worst energy density both by unit of volume and mass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Ene....
Not to mention global annual battery production amounts to less than 1 hour of the USA's national electricity usage.
Not to mention global annual battery production amounts to less than 1 hour of the USA's national electricity usage.
Your first point is valid, but I think the second is using the wrong measure — as batteries are rechargeable, surely the measure should be total existent batteries not annual production of batteries?
(I would be surprised if this was viable even with my suggested measure, no argument there!)
(I would be surprised if this was viable even with my suggested measure, no argument there!)
Liquid natural gas freightliners are also refillable. I'm not sure what you mean by this. A cargo ship filled to the brim with batteries still has orders of magnitude less energy as a ship filled with the same mass of natural gas.
Global annual battery production has to be first integrated with respect to time and then multiplied by the turn-around time to calculate global annual capacity to ship electricity by way of charged batteries.
I absolutely accept that this is a poor solution, and that I am quibbling over a factor of perhaps 500 at most when it’s short by a factor of ~250,000.
I absolutely accept that this is a poor solution, and that I am quibbling over a factor of perhaps 500 at most when it’s short by a factor of ~250,000.
The value of the electricity can be measured by comparing it to the value of a petroleum product. transportable energy can be made using from CO2 in the air using Fischer-Tropsch.
It's energy intensive, and uneconomic - which is why people are stringing HVDC links across bodies of water - Denmark/Sweden, Australia/Tasmania, NZ North/South Islands instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects
It's energy intensive, and uneconomic - which is why people are stringing HVDC links across bodies of water - Denmark/Sweden, Australia/Tasmania, NZ North/South Islands instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects
LNG tankers are today’s energy equivalent of station wagon full of tapes. In the future we might do the same by liquefying hydrogen (or ammonia) to distribute energy from renewable-rich countries to renewable-poor ones.
I highly doubt this. According to wikipedia[1], three high voltage towers can transmit 7079 MW of power. To beat that with lipo batteries you'd need to move 26,713 metric tons worth of batteries per hour[2], and that's not even including time to charge. I don't think any sort of freight transportation method can do that cheaper than some transmission towers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
[2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7079+MWh+%2F+265Wh%2Fk...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
[2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7079+MWh+%2F+265Wh%2Fk...
[deleted]
Well, this is technically true, and already being done today with gas and petroleum.
Converting it back-and-forth to electricity isn't easy nor very efficient, though. Hydrogen is a bit easier, although still lossy. I'd say it's doable, and not as bad as it sounds, if you really have excess production.
inb4 compressed air supertankers.
That said, it will in most cases be less expensive to use it as close to the originating point as possible if you can find a need for it.
Converting it back-and-forth to electricity isn't easy nor very efficient, though. Hydrogen is a bit easier, although still lossy. I'd say it's doable, and not as bad as it sounds, if you really have excess production.
inb4 compressed air supertankers.
That said, it will in most cases be less expensive to use it as close to the originating point as possible if you can find a need for it.
The most effective (relatively safe, relatively energy-dense, easy to handle) way to store energy is in a hydrogen-carbon bond. If only there was some way to transport that across oceans in large tankers....
OK, shipping batteries between continents is far from feasible now.
But what about electrifying a small collection of households by batteries that are replaced from a truck every N weeks, instead of building many miles of power lines through (perhaps flammable) wilderness?
But what about electrifying a small collection of households by batteries that are replaced from a truck every N weeks, instead of building many miles of power lines through (perhaps flammable) wilderness?
Remember, lithium ion batteries are demonstrably effective bombs. Shipping big piles of bombs around is a well-established power distribution method, although not usually electrical power.
Batteries are heavy - unless you are sending these station wagons downhill, its probably not such a great idea.
A 747 as a giant lithium battery with wings
Sneakernet 4.0
You really want to be dependent on other countries for your vital infrastructure? Imagine if we go to war with china/russia, and they shut down energy exports to the US causing rolling blackouts everywhere.
The obvious solution would be not to go to war with china/russia unless they shut down energy exports. And of course they wouldn't, as they depend on selling and also importing electricity at times.
We even have practical experiences with that. Germany for many decades got their natural gas from the sovjet union and russia. Despite of the cold war, and it indeed was just short of a war state, gas supplies never were cut. Because cutting gas supply to Germany would have been a simple way to apply pressure, but not a cheap one. It would either have triggered a war or at minimum that after recovering from the cut, Germany would have been permanentely lost as a trading partner. So there was never a supply cut in many decades.
Then get your electricity nationaly, or from france, or from germany, or from saudi arabia, or from australia, or from argentina.
The point of a global energy grid would be that there's always sun and wind somewhere on the planet and you would smooth out time-of-day differences in usage. The point is NOT to outsource your country's entire electricity production.
The point of a global energy grid would be that there's always sun and wind somewhere on the planet and you would smooth out time-of-day differences in usage. The point is NOT to outsource your country's entire electricity production.
> Then get your electricity nationaly, or from france, or from germany, or from saudi arabia, or from australia, or from argentina.
Ah yes, because the other countries will magically have the spare capacity (both in terms of generation and transmission)?
We already see this play out in Europe: nobody there wants to do anything about russia because they control the natural gas supply.
>The point is NOT to outsource your country's entire electricity production.
Maybe, but the effects are the same. If you can't produce enough electricity to make it through the night, that puts you in very vulurable position. Even if it doesn't completely shut down the country, it might cause enough unrest to topple the current administration (eg. if they're only leading in the polls by a few percentage points and there's an election in a few months).
Ah yes, because the other countries will magically have the spare capacity (both in terms of generation and transmission)?
We already see this play out in Europe: nobody there wants to do anything about russia because they control the natural gas supply.
>The point is NOT to outsource your country's entire electricity production.
Maybe, but the effects are the same. If you can't produce enough electricity to make it through the night, that puts you in very vulurable position. Even if it doesn't completely shut down the country, it might cause enough unrest to topple the current administration (eg. if they're only leading in the polls by a few percentage points and there's an election in a few months).
> Ah yes, because the other countries will magically have the spare capacity (both in terms of generation and transmission)?
I believe simongr3dal’s argument is the invisible hand of the free market, not magic.
Optimistically, solar resources are more evenly distributed than oil and gas, so no country can act like Russia; pessimistically, Russia isn’t the first country to exert influence by threatening to cease supply of its resources, and it won’t be the last; the optimistic response to which is that there are many ways to solve seasonal issues, for example the UK (personal familiarity, no other reason for this example) could plan 18-hours local storage and enough local production for winter rather than summer.
I believe simongr3dal’s argument is the invisible hand of the free market, not magic.
Optimistically, solar resources are more evenly distributed than oil and gas, so no country can act like Russia; pessimistically, Russia isn’t the first country to exert influence by threatening to cease supply of its resources, and it won’t be the last; the optimistic response to which is that there are many ways to solve seasonal issues, for example the UK (personal familiarity, no other reason for this example) could plan 18-hours local storage and enough local production for winter rather than summer.
Magnetic field of power cables is easily detectable and you can't realistically defend thousands miles of them.
True, that part is lagging behind, but it is also improving fast.
Solar beamed power from orbital facilities?
Beaming power from space has huge losses, and I really don't think we need to a system of remote-controlled death rays orbiting the planet right now.
The issue for me is that it doesn't matter how cheap they are.
Australian government approach is largely to subsidize homeowners to put solar panels on their roof. (They do do other things too! But billions in home owner subsidies...) The main incentive of course is they then have cheaper power bills for not much outlay.
If you rent, nearly nothing. You'd have to have a generous landlord or luck out on a house someone has already done and then moved from. The latter will admittedly will become more common over time.
If you live in an apartment, nearly nothing. While it is technically possible to put solar on the roof the extra complications of body corporate make it largely a non-starter. Besides, in truely large apartment buildings the roof top space is tiny compared to the number of apartments so the benefit is minimal anyway.
So for now, only standalone homeowners get this benefit. And while I am not sure, I suspect reducing homeowners customer costs shifts the cost burden for the grid slightly more to others.
I just want the government to fund society wide infrastructure to benefit everyone in society...
Australian government approach is largely to subsidize homeowners to put solar panels on their roof. (They do do other things too! But billions in home owner subsidies...) The main incentive of course is they then have cheaper power bills for not much outlay.
If you rent, nearly nothing. You'd have to have a generous landlord or luck out on a house someone has already done and then moved from. The latter will admittedly will become more common over time.
If you live in an apartment, nearly nothing. While it is technically possible to put solar on the roof the extra complications of body corporate make it largely a non-starter. Besides, in truely large apartment buildings the roof top space is tiny compared to the number of apartments so the benefit is minimal anyway.
So for now, only standalone homeowners get this benefit. And while I am not sure, I suspect reducing homeowners customer costs shifts the cost burden for the grid slightly more to others.
I just want the government to fund society wide infrastructure to benefit everyone in society...
Wouldn't landlords have the same incentive? By lowering the cost of utilities for their rental property they can increase the share of rent they keep as profit (in the case that utilities are included in rent) or charge more rent, based on the fact that the property is more desirable with the cheaper utilities / better environmental footprint.
Renewables are nothing new here. The same incentives encourage landlords to make properties generally energy efficient and desirable.
Don't get me wrong, I know the realities of rental housing. Many landlords do not give a shit, especially in markets without much housing. But as a general rule, the incentives are there, and eventually will have a large impact on the rental market. If most properties are solar powered, a rental that is not will have come with a discount.
Renewables are nothing new here. The same incentives encourage landlords to make properties generally energy efficient and desirable.
Don't get me wrong, I know the realities of rental housing. Many landlords do not give a shit, especially in markets without much housing. But as a general rule, the incentives are there, and eventually will have a large impact on the rental market. If most properties are solar powered, a rental that is not will have come with a discount.
In Australia, the renter almost always pays the power bill (excepting share houses, usually students).
It's hard to market "you'll spend less on power so that's why the rent is higher".
It's hard to market "you'll spend less on power so that's why the rent is higher".
Of course it's not the headline on the rental ad, but that is a factor in what makes a rental property desirable. If you're not taking average utility bills into account when looking for a rental, you should be.
Maybe this is more relevant in cold climates. As a student I once rented an old house where the heating oil bill would surpass the rent in the winter. I won't make that mistake again, even if the rent on the house is cheap.
A self sufficient unit with 0 power bill would be pretty attractive to me as a tenant.
Maybe this is more relevant in cold climates. As a student I once rented an old house where the heating oil bill would surpass the rent in the winter. I won't make that mistake again, even if the rent on the house is cheap.
A self sufficient unit with 0 power bill would be pretty attractive to me as a tenant.
My experience with renting (up until 2 years ago) was always that demand exceeded supply and so we couldn't put things like appliance energy efficiency into the must-have list.
And yeah, in quite a temperate part of Australia here... cooling is more important than heating.
And yeah, in quite a temperate part of Australia here... cooling is more important than heating.
There's lots of people in the world with lots of different situations. If you only fund things that benefit every single person equally, you won't fund anything, because there are no initiaves that benefit every single member of society equally.
I agree with your first sentence. But you lost me after that.
I never asked for benefit to every single person perfectly equally.
For society, having the quite significant proportion of people who are renters and apartment dwellers getting more than an insignificant benefit from our own government should be a thing.
I am not asking for handouts. But for the handouts to those people wealthy enough (not rich per se but wealthy enough) to own their own standalone home to stop. And for that money to benefit all via society wide infrastructure such as a powerstation/energy storage/grid costs and upgrades.
It'd benefit the standalone homeowners still. But everyone else too.
I never asked for benefit to every single person perfectly equally.
For society, having the quite significant proportion of people who are renters and apartment dwellers getting more than an insignificant benefit from our own government should be a thing.
I am not asking for handouts. But for the handouts to those people wealthy enough (not rich per se but wealthy enough) to own their own standalone home to stop. And for that money to benefit all via society wide infrastructure such as a powerstation/energy storage/grid costs and upgrades.
It'd benefit the standalone homeowners still. But everyone else too.
I have no horse in this race, but it seems to me the solar panels on single family dwellings do benefit everyone. Presumably there are times when the house in question is producing more than it uses, at which point electricity is being pumped back into the grid (I dunno about aus but in the US they're compensated far below market rates for this generation). So it sounds to me as if home owners are selling off space that they own (at great expense!) to contribute to the grid. Apartment dwellers (or condo owners) as you have noted don't usually have the same kind of space to sell off.
And of course apartment dwellers benefit from the reduction in externalities.
And of course apartment dwellers benefit from the reduction in externalities.
"So it sounds to me as if home owners are selling off space that they own (at great expense!) to contribute to the grid."
Well, the "great expense" is subsidised is the issue. So not that great an expense. Effectively their power bills should cancel out the remaining costs eventually and then the home owner should effectively get "free energy" after that.
How much free energy? Maybe none and they are ripped off! Maybe lots. Generally people are betting on at least some, or they wouldn't do it.
My point though is why not spend that money on power grid infrastructure which would benefit all of us!
In particular the economies of scale should have more environmental AND economic impact than thousands of custom roof sites installed with varying degree of expertise and maintained by home amateurs.
Well, the "great expense" is subsidised is the issue. So not that great an expense. Effectively their power bills should cancel out the remaining costs eventually and then the home owner should effectively get "free energy" after that.
How much free energy? Maybe none and they are ripped off! Maybe lots. Generally people are betting on at least some, or they wouldn't do it.
My point though is why not spend that money on power grid infrastructure which would benefit all of us!
In particular the economies of scale should have more environmental AND economic impact than thousands of custom roof sites installed with varying degree of expertise and maintained by home amateurs.
No, they're selling their roof real estate to improve the capacity for the whole grid. That's why they're receiving money, although you choose to think of as a subsidy. The great expense was the acquisition of said real estate.
This money spend does benefit everyone (even me, on the other side of the planet), because it improves the climate change situation, and locals in particular, because it doesn't require using lots of land to do it. That land can be used for something else useful to you.
This money spend does benefit everyone (even me, on the other side of the planet), because it improves the climate change situation, and locals in particular, because it doesn't require using lots of land to do it. That land can be used for something else useful to you.
I never said not to do anything at all. I just want the action to be different. So you'd still get your climate change benefit - which I want too!
Maybe it works differently where you are but nothing is sold here. No paperwork changes hands regarding property ownership. At any point, if the homeowner wants to throw the roof solar out, they can.
They are getting a subsidy.
The subsidy makes the solar panel vs energy costs deal work out. It was ultimately to spur the solar panel industry - which I agree benefits everyone in the general global warming sense. But in the global sense it doesn't matter whether that is via a thousand homeowners or a single power station.
As for the land? :-) Australia has plenty of that. We're amongst the lowest population density on the planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
Go full fantasy and we have arid land for enough solar panels to power everyone on the planet - twice over! That fantasy ignores many realities. It is a terrible idea in a practical sense.
But it makes the point - we've got space for solar panels for one or two solar power stations for our local populace.
My point is that benefitting everyone a bit more equally rather than significantly the homeowners would be nice.
Maybe it works differently where you are but nothing is sold here. No paperwork changes hands regarding property ownership. At any point, if the homeowner wants to throw the roof solar out, they can.
They are getting a subsidy.
The subsidy makes the solar panel vs energy costs deal work out. It was ultimately to spur the solar panel industry - which I agree benefits everyone in the general global warming sense. But in the global sense it doesn't matter whether that is via a thousand homeowners or a single power station.
As for the land? :-) Australia has plenty of that. We're amongst the lowest population density on the planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
Go full fantasy and we have arid land for enough solar panels to power everyone on the planet - twice over! That fantasy ignores many realities. It is a terrible idea in a practical sense.
But it makes the point - we've got space for solar panels for one or two solar power stations for our local populace.
My point is that benefitting everyone a bit more equally rather than significantly the homeowners would be nice.
> (I dunno about aus but in the US they're compensated far below market rates for this generation).
That's not true. California (which is a part of the US) uses net metering, under which consumer solar surplus is sold to the grid at retail rates.
That's not true. California (which is a part of the US) uses net metering, under which consumer solar surplus is sold to the grid at retail rates.
I have real problem with this discussion of "cheap" when it comes to wind and solar.
1. The marginal cost per kWh is calculated based on amortizing upfront costs over 20+ years, and those schedules have often proven to be quite optimistic.
2. The marginal cost per kWh is only a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to intermittent power sources.
The proper cost needs to attribute the cost of matching supply and demand. The supposedly easy answer is storage, but storing electricity is hard. Grid scale batteries are quite expensive and general deployment would cause a very real spike in the cost the raw materials. With proper accounting, the cost of renewables are not cheap at all, as proven by Germany and California.
3. The renewables industry likes to downplay the sheer volume of fossil fuels required to manufacture the parts. The energy ROI on this is quite poor, and in many cases, we would have been better off skipping the intermediate step and burning the oil and gas directly.
1. The marginal cost per kWh is calculated based on amortizing upfront costs over 20+ years, and those schedules have often proven to be quite optimistic.
2. The marginal cost per kWh is only a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to intermittent power sources.
The proper cost needs to attribute the cost of matching supply and demand. The supposedly easy answer is storage, but storing electricity is hard. Grid scale batteries are quite expensive and general deployment would cause a very real spike in the cost the raw materials. With proper accounting, the cost of renewables are not cheap at all, as proven by Germany and California.
3. The renewables industry likes to downplay the sheer volume of fossil fuels required to manufacture the parts. The energy ROI on this is quite poor, and in many cases, we would have been better off skipping the intermediate step and burning the oil and gas directly.
>3. The renewables industry likes to downplay the sheer volume of fossil fuels required to manufacture the parts. The energy ROI on this is quite poor, and in many cases, we would have been better off skipping the intermediate step and burning the oil and gas directly.
I'm assuming you're referring to Ferroni and Hopkirk (2016) which claimed ERORI of ~0.8-1.7.
You should be aware that their work has been pretty thoroughly picked apart - the rebuttal produced immediately after the above, by 27 international scholars, suggests a ERORI of 7-8. It has likely improved since that time.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
I'm assuming you're referring to Ferroni and Hopkirk (2016) which claimed ERORI of ~0.8-1.7.
You should be aware that their work has been pretty thoroughly picked apart - the rebuttal produced immediately after the above, by 27 international scholars, suggests a ERORI of 7-8. It has likely improved since that time.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
I'll have to take a look. Thanks!
> The renewables industry likes to downplay the sheer volume of fossil fuels required to manufacture the parts. The energy ROI on this is quite poor, and in many cases, we would have been better off skipping the intermediate step and burning the oil and gas directly.
Is this from electricity (which could be renewable in future), or is there an actual hard requirement for carbon in terms of burning very hot materials to generate heat in the manufacturing process or something?
Is this from electricity (which could be renewable in future), or is there an actual hard requirement for carbon in terms of burning very hot materials to generate heat in the manufacturing process or something?
Some of it is in base materials and some of it in smelting requirements (though I'm not 100% sure how much of that could be replaced by electricity).
Most of it is in the mining, refining, and transport of the massive quantities of metals needed to manufacture and install the combination of generation, transport, transformation, and storage equipment + the second/third order equipment to manufacture the electrical equipment.
Our supply chains are dependent on fossil fuels for all of this, and we're a long long way off from replicating even a fraction of it with a purely electrical version.
If we do choose to pursue that goal (which I think is worthwhile), the renewables still lack the energy ROI to make it feasible. We can do it, but it pretty much requires wide scale adoption of nuclear for the thermodynamics to work out.
Most of it is in the mining, refining, and transport of the massive quantities of metals needed to manufacture and install the combination of generation, transport, transformation, and storage equipment + the second/third order equipment to manufacture the electrical equipment.
Our supply chains are dependent on fossil fuels for all of this, and we're a long long way off from replicating even a fraction of it with a purely electrical version.
If we do choose to pursue that goal (which I think is worthwhile), the renewables still lack the energy ROI to make it feasible. We can do it, but it pretty much requires wide scale adoption of nuclear for the thermodynamics to work out.
You know there is a fatal flaw in your third argument. Maximum resource cost is bounded by the cost of the renewables. Yet their cost is going down despite producing the same or even more energy. This is completely incompatible with your premise of ERORI always staying below 1.
If burning oil and gas directly was more efficient then it would be impossible for costs to go down beyond a certain point and subsidies would have to grow over time as more and more renewables are deployed.
The reality is that the opposite happened. Countries jumped onto renewables as they became cheaper [0] and subsidies are shrinking across the board.
So whatever your source is, it either had an agenda or it is simply incompetent.
[0] please don't tell me that they didn't become cheaper when the submission article is entirely about renewables becoming cheaper
If burning oil and gas directly was more efficient then it would be impossible for costs to go down beyond a certain point and subsidies would have to grow over time as more and more renewables are deployed.
The reality is that the opposite happened. Countries jumped onto renewables as they became cheaper [0] and subsidies are shrinking across the board.
So whatever your source is, it either had an agenda or it is simply incompetent.
[0] please don't tell me that they didn't become cheaper when the submission article is entirely about renewables becoming cheaper
You're ignoring the differing resource costs. China can freely consume domestic, brown coal for manufacturing purposes, in a significantly cheaper way than any Western country.
[deleted]
Confronting and solving the duck curve[1] and producing high duty-cycle electricity during non-sunlight hours is going to be a real challenge. We're at the point now where states will often pay other states to take excess renewable electricity during peak hours. What's the point in cheaper when we're already effectively throwing away electricity?
I personally don't believe batteries are going to do it. The world needs too many batteries. They're an important part but they aren't going to cut it, especially not fast enough.
The kind of power we need starts with an "N".
1. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-...
I personally don't believe batteries are going to do it. The world needs too many batteries. They're an important part but they aren't going to cut it, especially not fast enough.
The kind of power we need starts with an "N".
1. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-...
The listed nuclear price is $155/MWh. But that's for baseload power, which can't replace batteries. What's needed is dispatchable or on-demand power, which costs about 3x as much for gas, I have no idea how much it inflates the price for nuclear, but the answer will be "a lot".
Nuclear in 2020 doesn't make any sense. It's far cheaper to over-provision and use storage.
We should have been building nuclear like crazy over the past 40 years. Then it could have followed a similar learning curve that renewables did and it'd still make sense today.
Nuclear in 2020 doesn't make any sense. It's far cheaper to over-provision and use storage.
We should have been building nuclear like crazy over the past 40 years. Then it could have followed a similar learning curve that renewables did and it'd still make sense today.
> The listed nuclear price is $155/MWh.
Getting the price down for nuclear construction and maintenance is important. Keep in mind that these plants were built in the 80s or earlier.
> Nuclear in 2020 doesn't make any sense. It's far cheaper to over-provision and use storage.
What storage? That's the point. You can listen to what Bill Gates said about this last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xe3BWPsBTU
Getting the price down for nuclear construction and maintenance is important. Keep in mind that these plants were built in the 80s or earlier.
> Nuclear in 2020 doesn't make any sense. It's far cheaper to over-provision and use storage.
What storage? That's the point. You can listen to what Bill Gates said about this last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xe3BWPsBTU
The Hinckley C price is about that, and it's late.
There's a lot of potential for "smart grid" solutions to help here. But for it to work, we need to get the incentives right. I'm a big fan of Griddy, an electricity provider in Texas that charges you 15-minute wholesale price for your power.
If enough people are paying wholesale price, it creates incentives for smart appliances to time power consumption.
If enough people are paying wholesale price, it creates incentives for smart appliances to time power consumption.
Excess? Storage is the way to go. Even skimming some edge off the top could allow arbitrage opportunities that could create a market by itself.
> Fossil fuels dominate the global power supply because until very recently electricity from fossil fuels was far cheaper than electricity from renewables. This has dramatically changed within the last decade. In most places in the world power from new renewables is now cheaper than power from new fossil fuels.
This is the thing our great-grandkids will ask us about. ("were you alive back when?")
Millenia from now, historians will not talk so much about the commercialization of electric power. They will divide time between the "pre-industrial" and "post-solar" eras, because that's what will be visible in the fossil layers.
This is the thing our great-grandkids will ask us about. ("were you alive back when?")
Millenia from now, historians will not talk so much about the commercialization of electric power. They will divide time between the "pre-industrial" and "post-solar" eras, because that's what will be visible in the fossil layers.
I'd vote for "post-advanced batteries" instead of "post-solar". Solar will only be one of the energy sources and the thing that will take us to the next level will be advanced battery tech, in my opinion.
Imagine something with the energy density of kerosene but rechargeable. My brain can't even imagine what we'd do with it, but it would probably transform our daily lives more than the invention of the automobile did.
Imagine something with the energy density of kerosene but rechargeable. My brain can't even imagine what we'd do with it, but it would probably transform our daily lives more than the invention of the automobile did.
I'm trying to imagine something more revolutionary than the automobile, and I'm having trouble!
Barring the legal/political hurdles, I could theoretically drive from my home in Texas to Alaska, then cross to Russia, and on to Paris in around 250~ driving hours. Throw in another day or two for a private boat across the Bering Strait/North Pacific.
9 days to basically drive around the entire world. 15000 miles. Just for giggles, my 2012 Honda CRV will get around 350-400 miles per tank of gas. We'll drive conservatively at 60 mph to hit the full range. Depending on the cost of gasoline, I could drive around the entire world for about $1200. Maybe $1500 once I get into Europe. Insane!
Before cars, that same journey would take months moving non stop. A solo trip can now be done in about 2 weeks with an experienced driver.
Absolutely insane the cool stuff we can do with modern technology :)
Barring the legal/political hurdles, I could theoretically drive from my home in Texas to Alaska, then cross to Russia, and on to Paris in around 250~ driving hours. Throw in another day or two for a private boat across the Bering Strait/North Pacific.
9 days to basically drive around the entire world. 15000 miles. Just for giggles, my 2012 Honda CRV will get around 350-400 miles per tank of gas. We'll drive conservatively at 60 mph to hit the full range. Depending on the cost of gasoline, I could drive around the entire world for about $1200. Maybe $1500 once I get into Europe. Insane!
Before cars, that same journey would take months moving non stop. A solo trip can now be done in about 2 weeks with an experienced driver.
Absolutely insane the cool stuff we can do with modern technology :)
[deleted]
Subsidized polysilicon produced from coal in Xinjiang is a much larger contributor than the technology improvements.
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/wacker-chemie-blames-chinas-pol...
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/wacker-chemie-blames-chinas-pol...
I don't think we can assume costs will keeping coming down in a kind of linear fashion. To get to 50% renewable energy it probably will and I think this will happen by itself because there's a clear financial benefit to it. For the other 50% this may be difficult, but this is where carbon taxes probably will have to fill the gap, but this could also mean things like biofuels and carbon capture and a whole bunch of unconventional things we haven't even dreamed of yet will be cost competitive to further expansion of renewables.
The article shows how competition and increased demand drop the solar and wind price. How obvious when you think about it, technologies that are based on building plants have limited competition, or even legislation that prevents competition, so there is no similar drive for price. While panels can be made anywhere and installed by normal people.
I wonder if the Solar death rates are under-reported. Installation and maintenance has significant risks. Folks fall off roofs all the time, and usually die.
Government subsidies stimulated the virtuous circle. Remember dry fossil fuel well costs are fully deductible too. Eventually both could be phased oit.
The price of solar dropped because China put it in their five year plans about for about the last 4 plans to dominate that market.
The "safest and cleanest" chart is VERY misleading when in comes to nuclear.
It completely ignores the LONG-TERM risk for human survival: catastrophic release of large quantities of active fuel or waste (due to events like war, terrorism, natural disasters).
It completely ignores the LONG-TERM risk for human survival: catastrophic release of large quantities of active fuel or waste (due to events like war, terrorism, natural disasters).
Surely this theoretical risk of that is dwarved by the concrete risk of climate change.
No doubt, but this is entirely besides the point. My point is still valid.
Big disasters too happen with fossils and hydro.
Hydro plant failures have ocurred, and are far and away the most lethal energy-related accidents to date, true. The worst power plant accident of time, not a nuclear power plant failure, but a hydro station in China, Banqiao Dam.
It's instructive several ways.
Any number of fairly simple methods would have hugely alleviated the impact of the disaster. Much as with major nuclear disasters, it was a cascade of failures, starting with poor management and a dysfunctional culture, amplified through poor design, adverse conditions, poor communications, delayed or absent warnings, and little or no disaster response (many of the deaths were attributed to starvation and disease, not drowning or other physical impacts).
A useful thing to keep in mind, though, is that after a dam break is done being a a massive disaster area, which typically resolves in a few hours to a few weeks, the land is no longer a glowing radioactive mess. It can be re-settled and populated as structures and infrasctructure are rebuilt. Zhumadian City, the region surrounding Banqiao, has a present population of over 7 million.
Hydro disasters have been large, but are tangible/sensible, immediate, and resolve relatively quickly.
There are literally tens of thousand of dams, if not > 100k, worldwide (over 22k in China alone), with well over a century of major utilisation. Granted 100 or fewer major (2+GWe) installations.
There are fewer than 400 nuclear power stations worldwide, with at least three highly notable failures.
The immediate innundation from Banqiao was responsible for ~25k deaths. The additional 100k or so came from starvation and disease due to widespread disruption of the region, and a grossly inadequate disaster response plan and capability. Adequate engineering, operation, management, forecasting, disaster planning, preparation, and response, could have reduced the loss still further.
Organisational / institutional failures at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and for that matter, Hanford and Sellafield, were and are massive contributing factors. These cannot be engineered around.
It's instructive several ways.
Any number of fairly simple methods would have hugely alleviated the impact of the disaster. Much as with major nuclear disasters, it was a cascade of failures, starting with poor management and a dysfunctional culture, amplified through poor design, adverse conditions, poor communications, delayed or absent warnings, and little or no disaster response (many of the deaths were attributed to starvation and disease, not drowning or other physical impacts).
A useful thing to keep in mind, though, is that after a dam break is done being a a massive disaster area, which typically resolves in a few hours to a few weeks, the land is no longer a glowing radioactive mess. It can be re-settled and populated as structures and infrasctructure are rebuilt. Zhumadian City, the region surrounding Banqiao, has a present population of over 7 million.
Hydro disasters have been large, but are tangible/sensible, immediate, and resolve relatively quickly.
There are literally tens of thousand of dams, if not > 100k, worldwide (over 22k in China alone), with well over a century of major utilisation. Granted 100 or fewer major (2+GWe) installations.
There are fewer than 400 nuclear power stations worldwide, with at least three highly notable failures.
The immediate innundation from Banqiao was responsible for ~25k deaths. The additional 100k or so came from starvation and disease due to widespread disruption of the region, and a grossly inadequate disaster response plan and capability. Adequate engineering, operation, management, forecasting, disaster planning, preparation, and response, could have reduced the loss still further.
Organisational / institutional failures at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and for that matter, Hanford and Sellafield, were and are massive contributing factors. These cannot be engineered around.
I thought you try to adhere to facts, till I got to "the land is a glowing radioactive mess" thing. If you say so, please too mention the land which is poisonous carcinogenic mess because of coal sludge leaks, tar sand mining and fracking byproducts, heavy metals and pesticides which tend to concentrate in hydropower reservoirs, etc.etc. And some of these actually have longer half-life than nuclear leaks.
I'm not discussing or comparing fossil fuels, but rather renewables, and specifically hydro, with nuclear. Coal sludge, tar sands mining, and fracking have nothing to do with hydropower generation. Those are the activities renewable energy alternatives are specifically intended to replace, and as such, they address any related concerns directly.
I'm unaware of any substantial credible literature describing toxic accumulations in hydro projects due to the hydro project itself.
"Cancer alleys" along major riverways due to other streamside and watershed activities (e.g., the lower Mississippi river & delta region) are prevalent without any accompanying hydroelectric facilities. Hydro isn't the cause.
This seems to be a shifting of the argument on your part.
I'm unaware of any substantial credible literature describing toxic accumulations in hydro projects due to the hydro project itself.
"Cancer alleys" along major riverways due to other streamside and watershed activities (e.g., the lower Mississippi river & delta region) are prevalent without any accompanying hydroelectric facilities. Hydro isn't the cause.
This seems to be a shifting of the argument on your part.
It is, sadly, not in widespread public awareness. But some research is there, such as [1] [2].
If a hydropower dam has been built today on lower Mississippi it would over time fill with a cubic-mile-worth of toxic sediment on the top of currently existing problems. This is not an exaggeration, an additional superfund site with a volume measured in cubic miles, due solely to the hydro project itself I don't see how else can it be construed.
[1]https://waterlawjournal.com/sedimentation-in-california-rese...
[2]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-019-8146-y
If a hydropower dam has been built today on lower Mississippi it would over time fill with a cubic-mile-worth of toxic sediment on the top of currently existing problems. This is not an exaggeration, an additional superfund site with a volume measured in cubic miles, due solely to the hydro project itself I don't see how else can it be construed.
[1]https://waterlawjournal.com/sedimentation-in-california-rese...
[2]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-019-8146-y
First, if. The lower Mississippi has poor hydro potential.
And the region is already a cancer alley. Again: hydro does not create that risk or the polutants.
This is an extreme reach.
And the region is already a cancer alley. Again: hydro does not create that risk or the polutants.
This is an extreme reach.
Ah now I get it, when something instead of producing pollution directly, merely concentrates it in a reservoir, we can blithely ignore it. /s
If there was a systemic risk that all dams in the world magically collapse at the same time then it should be included in the comparison.
Not accounting for all types of risks makes for a very skewed comparison.
Not accounting for all types of risks makes for a very skewed comparison.
If you look at where investors put their money, it's very clear that the learning effects have already convinced them that renewables provide the best ROI. It's not even a debate or a hypothetical outcome. This happened years ago. Price parity for wind/solar happened about seven years ago in most markets. The learning curves that this article talks about have not slowed down since and the result of that is that is that prices are no longer similar but at this point obviously cheaper (2-3x).
What's more interesting is what is going to happen next: they prices going to be an order of magnitude cheaper; and then another one. And this is going to happen quickly. And unless something changes, it's happening on a predictable timeline even. Investors and policy makers are already taking decisions based on this.
The effects of a two orders of magnitude change in pricing are both easy and hard to predict. The easy part is predicting that we will not merely use renewables to replace non renewables. Or put differently, an order of magnitude change in price will be paired with an order of magnitude increase in demand. The world electricity right now is a bit over 30 PWH (peta watt hour) per year, give or take. Normal linear growth would probably get us to 50-100PHW in a couple of decades. However, orders of magnitude changes in prices (10x, 100X, 1000X) could put us on a different path where we are producing hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of PWH of electricity. Like this half of this century.
People worried about storage: Elon Musk is building TWH battery factories right now. A few decades from now we might have hundreds or thousands such factories: enough battery production to store current electricity production for about a year every year. And bear in mind that batteries can be used more than once. A single TWH worth of batteries with about 3000 cycles would store about 3PWH of energy; we only need ten such factories to get to 30PWH. Back of the envelope math is fun.
That's all easy part to predict but it may be hard for people to wrap their heads around the numbers. Exponentials are hard for people's intuitions. The only uncertainty here is how long the learning curves will apply. The most pessimistic perspective on that would be that thousands of R&D projects, startups, research institutes are going to fail 100% starting right now and the learning curves will flat line completely and immediately. Any other perspective means that 10x is 100% certain to happen in 15-20 years and 100x would be extremely likely by 2060 or so. I hope to still be around by then. I could be off by an order of magnitude (both ways) and basically the only change would be the years in this paragraph would change a little.
The hard part is predicting what we'll actually do with this energy. There's no shortage of interesting applications that are essentially cost bottle-necked on energy. Synthetic fuels, clean water, heavy industry, transport, mass transit, etc. all benefit from orders of magnitude changes in pricing for energy. This is a massive economic opportunity.
What that also means is that the learning curves this article talks about will start impacting the cost of things that currently don't have them. Including most of our legacy fossil energy infrastructure. A gas plant burning fossil methane doesn't benefit from this learning curve. The same plant burning methane produced from thin air using excess solar/wind does: that becomes cheaper to operate as the price of solar/wind drops.
Current fossil fuel energy consumption is going to be a rounding error when you consider the demand increase fueled by a 100x drop in electricity prices. Eventually, fossil fuel is going to be beyond irrelevant as we'll literally be able to synthesize the entire current demand for that orders of magnitude cheaper than current prices. All forms of fossil fuel exploitation will grind to a halt because of that. That's good news.
What's more interesting is what is going to happen next: they prices going to be an order of magnitude cheaper; and then another one. And this is going to happen quickly. And unless something changes, it's happening on a predictable timeline even. Investors and policy makers are already taking decisions based on this.
The effects of a two orders of magnitude change in pricing are both easy and hard to predict. The easy part is predicting that we will not merely use renewables to replace non renewables. Or put differently, an order of magnitude change in price will be paired with an order of magnitude increase in demand. The world electricity right now is a bit over 30 PWH (peta watt hour) per year, give or take. Normal linear growth would probably get us to 50-100PHW in a couple of decades. However, orders of magnitude changes in prices (10x, 100X, 1000X) could put us on a different path where we are producing hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of PWH of electricity. Like this half of this century.
People worried about storage: Elon Musk is building TWH battery factories right now. A few decades from now we might have hundreds or thousands such factories: enough battery production to store current electricity production for about a year every year. And bear in mind that batteries can be used more than once. A single TWH worth of batteries with about 3000 cycles would store about 3PWH of energy; we only need ten such factories to get to 30PWH. Back of the envelope math is fun.
That's all easy part to predict but it may be hard for people to wrap their heads around the numbers. Exponentials are hard for people's intuitions. The only uncertainty here is how long the learning curves will apply. The most pessimistic perspective on that would be that thousands of R&D projects, startups, research institutes are going to fail 100% starting right now and the learning curves will flat line completely and immediately. Any other perspective means that 10x is 100% certain to happen in 15-20 years and 100x would be extremely likely by 2060 or so. I hope to still be around by then. I could be off by an order of magnitude (both ways) and basically the only change would be the years in this paragraph would change a little.
The hard part is predicting what we'll actually do with this energy. There's no shortage of interesting applications that are essentially cost bottle-necked on energy. Synthetic fuels, clean water, heavy industry, transport, mass transit, etc. all benefit from orders of magnitude changes in pricing for energy. This is a massive economic opportunity.
What that also means is that the learning curves this article talks about will start impacting the cost of things that currently don't have them. Including most of our legacy fossil energy infrastructure. A gas plant burning fossil methane doesn't benefit from this learning curve. The same plant burning methane produced from thin air using excess solar/wind does: that becomes cheaper to operate as the price of solar/wind drops.
Current fossil fuel energy consumption is going to be a rounding error when you consider the demand increase fueled by a 100x drop in electricity prices. Eventually, fossil fuel is going to be beyond irrelevant as we'll literally be able to synthesize the entire current demand for that orders of magnitude cheaper than current prices. All forms of fossil fuel exploitation will grind to a halt because of that. That's good news.
I worked for a solar co in the US for a while, 10yrs ago or so. It was a very interesting time, the hardware (solar panels, inverters) part of our Cost of Goods Sold fell considerably over the course of a few years. I'll suggest a few reasons, as I saw them:
1) Larger-scale, fully-automated manufacturing facilities were coming online. Some mfrs were reputable and high-quality, some not so much. But the abundance of supply caused these vendors to compete for business on price/warranty/etc terms, which drove down our cost to build systems.
2) Lots of developers were also bidding for projects, and utilities forced solar/wind developers to compete to offer lower prices for their power.
3) Government/utility subsidies helped get manufacturing facilities up and running, and made marginal projects more affordable to build/buy. Some incentive programs were well-designed, some were not. The markets that offered the best total return to investors got done first -- the lowest-hanging fruit for solar was in areas with relatively good sun, expensive grid power, and perhaps some extra tax/etc subsidies. Same idea for wind (or any infrastructure or real estate investment, really).
4) Attractive project margins encouraged lots of developers to enter the market, which increased competition and resulted in innovation in business models and processes.
5) Manufacturers scaled up further to satisfy increased demand, resulting in lower hardware costs.
6) Larger investors started angling for a slice of the action. VCs were looking for unicorns, MBA students were looking for jobs. Bankers wanted to make loans and do IPO/M+A work. Big renewable projects/portfolios of >$100M are pretty much the minimum interesting size deal for big project financiers, small deals don't move the needle for them. In fact, if you can put $1B+ to work in a responsible manner, that's even better. Banks are risk averse and renewables were a new/unproven (and thus risky) asset class, and in the early days it was hard to get any sort of financing, at any rate. As more projects demonstrated good ROI, more banks did the work to understand the (hardware/warranty/operational/etc) risks and became willing to lend in this sector. The IRS issued clear guidance on some tax issues which further reduced uncertainty (=risk) for would-be investors. As more financiers entered the market, they competed for deals and the cost of capital for high-quality developers/borrowers fell by several %.
7) Over time, the subsidy programs faded away, but (as intended) during that time hardware costs fell considerably. As developers got more experience, they also got better at reducing ancillary costs (sales, development, legal, etc).
And so it goes, a nice virtuous cycle of competition, some subsidies to help a nascent industry, decent deal economics for investors and early adopters, and manufacturing scale-up.
And so it goes, a nice virtuous cycle of competition, some subsidies to help a nascent industry, decent deal economics for investors and early adopters, and manufacturing scale-up.
Are they also so cheap without subsidies? I feel like without subsidies and without carbon taxes, they are no match for fossil fuels.
Yes, those graphs show the pure productions costs. Which is actually not fair, because coal might have low production costs, but the damage to the atmosphere isn't included in the calculation, so carbon taxes are not artificial, but partially express the actual costs of coal.
Solar powered engines have been around since Mouchot had the first models working in Tours in 1865. The fact is renewable energy was always a choice, just not the cheapest in the short run.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustin_Mouchot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustin_Mouchot
Wind power is centuries older than fossil fuel engines, but actually using it to do the sort of things we expect from power generation takes some doing.
Yes, solar is even older, with plants and other organisms on the forefront of energy production and development. It is kind of an untapped source of renewable energy.
If we are going to include organisms here... ALL of our energy production is or was at some point solar, with the exception of geothermal and nuclear.
Coal? Solar. Wood burning? Solar. The food you eat? Solar. Wind? Solar. Gasoline? Solar too.
Coal? Solar. Wood burning? Solar. The food you eat? Solar. Wind? Solar. Gasoline? Solar too.
Yeah but what is solar energy? Nuclear.
That's why I talked about wind power, which was being used to directly power mechanical things- without any intermediate biology- long before anyone used fossil fuels to do it.
By ignoring most costs.
Saying renewables are cheap when it's sunny or windy is like saying coal is cheap at the mine.
For some reason people realize that distance in space is a problem. But distance in time is something that we can't wrap our heads around.
It would cost trillions to build up enough storage capacity in the grid to time shift the power needed, or to build a grid capable of moving power between regions on the scale of continents.
Saying renewables are cheap when it's sunny or windy is like saying coal is cheap at the mine.
For some reason people realize that distance in space is a problem. But distance in time is something that we can't wrap our heads around.
It would cost trillions to build up enough storage capacity in the grid to time shift the power needed, or to build a grid capable of moving power between regions on the scale of continents.
Now, instead of rooting for that change, we can think about the actual consequences. It's inevitable; fossil fuels are on the way out. What does that mean, besides lower carbon?
It means that countries which rely on fossil fuels for their economy, are going to see the same kind of crushing economic decline that, say, the UK coal industry has.
What do you suppose happens when, for example, Saudi Arabia can no longer feed itself? It just peacefully and gently starves to death?
To be clear, I'm not saying we should somehow try to prevent fossil fuels exiting the scene. The change in energy sources to lower-carbon ones is an old one, and there's no way to stop it, nor should we try. Wood gave way to coal and then oil and then natural gas, and the process will continue with zero-carbon sources like photovoltaics. That's a bullet that's already been fired, and there's no way to stuff it back inside the barrel of the gun.
But, do we really have a plan for the consequences, not only in Saudi Arabia but also every other nation that's dependent on oil? Hint: we do not.