If this does happen it would represent a win for everyone, but a substantial intellectual victory for the people who delayed action against climate change in the '00s and '10s. If we're all going to switch to renewables in the '20s for economic reasons then it would have been madness to force their adoption 10 years earlier to deal with a threat that materialises in 2050+.
> a threat that materialises in 2050+
What the heck are you talking about? We see the issues globally for last 20 years at least. Droughts, heatwaves in Europe killing tens of thousands, Islands in pacific being flooded due to sea rising and so on and on.
> It looked at 6,696 operational plants and 1,046 in the pipeline and found that 46% will be unprofitable this year, up from 41% in 2019 I thought this is due to Covid-19 but apparently it's a chronic trend. > That will rise to 52% by 2030 as renewables and cheaper gas outcompete coal, the think tank said. A very slow one too.
It's a Chronic Strain on the coal industry. The coal industry is going up in smoke. Profit estimates are in the weeds as green energy is at an all time high.
If this does happen it would represent a win for everyone, but a substantial intellectual victory for the people who delayed action against climate change in the '00s and '10s. If we're all going to switch to renewables in the '20s for economic reasons then it would have been madness to force their adoption 10 years earlier to deal with a threat that materialises in 2050+.
a) The economic snowball we're finally starting to see for renewables is largely driven by governments finally being forced by the undeniable reality to take real regulation steps. b) The economic cost of waiting 10 years to address an exponential process is going to far outweigh the cost there would've been to give an extra "oomph" to action, I'm sure.
> largely driven by governments ... tak[ing] real regulation steps
Which ones? I'm only aware of serious efforts in Germany and they basically torpedoed their own electricity use (their per-capita trends aren't good). There aren't that many governments who could stomach doing that to their people.
Why should energy costs fall below their current levels? There are billions of people who only consume a fraction of the energy that citizens of industrialized countries consume. If anything, energy prices will rise and coal will remain profitable. Energy will be needed to build all those roads and cars. And then there is the scarcity of sand. How can sand for concrete be artificially created but with more energy?
a) The economic snowball we're finally starting to see for renewables is largely driven by governments finally being forced by the undeniable reality to take real regulation steps. b) The economic cost of waiting 10 years to address an exponential process is going to far outweigh the cost there would've been to give an extra "oomph" to action, I'm sure.
> largely driven by governments ... tak[ing] real regulation steps Which ones? I'm only aware of serious efforts in Germany and they basically torpedoed their own electricity use (their per-capita trends aren't good). There aren't that many governments who could stomach doing that to their people.
I think a lot of it has been driven indirectly by vehicle regulation. The past few years have seen several major countries establish end-dates for gasoline powered vehicles. This has spurred development of battery technology - very important for wind and solar - and also sent a market signal about the future role that fossil fuels play in global society. Even if a country hasn't explicitly banned fossil fuels yet for electricity generation, the writing is on the wall and it's only a matter of time. Investors and corporations are seeing that renewables are an inevitable future, and adjusting their strategies accordingly.
Why should energy costs fall below their current levels? There are billions of people who only consume a fraction of the energy that citizens of industrialized countries consume. If anything, energy prices will rise and coal will remain profitable. Energy will be needed to build all those roads and cars. And then there is the scarcity of sand. How can sand for concrete be artificially created but with more energy?
They are talking about energy cost per watt hour, not the total expenditure for energy.
That's still so much better than tech companies, even tech companies 6 months ago /s
Never forget how absolutely huge coal is. Those Joules are not going to be replaced with renewables any time soon. It's literally impossible because renewables need Joules themselves to be built, not just money. Money does not synthesize power generating objects; materials and energy and machinery and the approval to do so (capital) all together do:
From what I understand there is an ongoing battle in the Chinese government between those who understand the country desperately needs to get off of fossil fuels as soon as possible, and those who want to stay on coal forever. So at the same time that China has been building an enormous number of coal plants, it is also building renewable power plants and pushing hard on ev's.