Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 176 posts

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#21

Post by simplexion »

maxharris wrote: post #14
harigov wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think what the author mentioned and what you implied are one and the same. From author's perspective, when you look at the actual price of fuel including the carbon emissions that they are causing, which cause expenses in other ways like health/environment, clean energy technologies are actually getting cheaper than fossil fuel technologies.

During the 20th century, deaths due to temperature extremes dropped by over 70% (mostly due to the advent of air-conditioning): http://www.econ.yale.edu/~js2755/Climate_Adaptation_BCDGS.pd... I also found these statistics helpful: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/data/

I also found these statistics helpful: http://www.pd.infn.it/~dorigo/autism_organic_foods.jpg

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#22

Post by maxharris »

simplexion wrote: post #21
maxharris wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the 20th century, deaths due to temperature extremes dropped by over 70% (mostly due to the advent of air-conditioning): http://www.econ.yale.edu/~js2755/Climate_Adaptation_BCDGS.pd... I also found these statistics helpful: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/data/

I also found these statistics helpful: http://www.pd.infn.it/~dorigo/autism_organic_foods.jpg

My argument is that fossil fuels and industrial civilization yields positive externalities, including longer lifespan and resilience against the impacts of a changing climate.

If you followed the link, you'd see that the raw data for many of the figures, including figure 1.9/5.1, comes from EM-DAT (http://www.emdat.be), as well as other sources including the World Bank's World Development Indicators (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator), and even Scripps! (http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/merged_ice_core/merged_ice_c...)

Your response to this is to make silly jokes. Nice.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#23

Post by scythe »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…

7. Compressed air energy storage can't get here fast enough.

Batteries are great, but they have to be replaced. Tanks can last for centuries and the materials are way cheaper at scale (CAES makes no sense below the MWh scale).

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#24

Post by trhway »

maxharris wrote: post #14
harigov wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think what the author mentioned and what you implied are one and the same. From author's perspective, when you look at the actual price of fuel including the carbon emissions that they are causing, which cause expenses in other ways like health/environment, clean energy technologies are actually getting cheaper than fossil fuel technologies.

During the 20th century, deaths due to temperature extremes dropped by over 70% (mostly due to the advent of air-conditioning): http://www.econ.yale.edu/~js2755/Climate_Adaptation_BCDGS.pd... I also found these statistics helpful: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/data/

man, there is no argument about importance of industrial civilization and fossil fuels that brought us here. There is a reason why the term "weaning of fossil fuels" is used as the time of fossil fuels has passed, and now their usage only slows down the development of our civilization.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#25

Post by simplexion »

maxharris wrote: post #22
simplexion wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also found these statistics helpful: http://www.pd.infn.it/~dorigo/autism_organic_foods.jpg

My argument is that fossil fuels and industrial civilization yields positive externalities, including longer lifespan and resilience against the impacts of a changing climate. If you followed the link, you'd see that the raw data for many of the figures, including figure 1.9/5.1, comes from EM-DAT ( http://www.emdat.be ), as well as other sources including the World Bank's World Development Indicators ( http://data.w…

I agree. Fossil fuels have definitely had benefits in the past but now we have to ability to continue with those benefits, increase them and remove the negatives.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#26

Post by yongjik »

maxharris wrote: post #20
yongjik wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the impact on people when their energy costs are raised? Less than the impact on people when the land they own doesn't stay land.

I live in Ballard, a neighborhood of Seattle, which is right on the ocean. If and as sea levels rise, every single person here would be better off running away from their homes, abandoning everything they own and starting from scratch somewhere inland. For each of us, even this would be better than abandoning industrial civilization, which is the thing that gives us hospitals, abundant food, clothing, shelter, clean/…

Holy strawman. Taxing fossil fuel now equals abandoning industrial civilization?

But I agree on one point. When (not IF) the sea level rises, some people are bound to end up better off, by taking opportunities and exploiting all the other people who have to find new place to live.

Some people will do absolutely anything to make money, and don't care how their action will affect people living now or a generation from now. Human nature.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#27

Post by maxharris »

simplexion wrote: post #25
maxharris wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument is that fossil fuels and industrial civilization yields positive externalities, including longer lifespan and resilience against the impacts of a changing climate. If you followed the link, you'd see that the raw data for many of the figures, including figure 1.9/5.1, comes from EM-DAT ( http://www.emdat.be ), as well as other sources including the World Bank's World Development Indicators ( http://data.w…

I agree. Fossil fuels have definitely had benefits in the past but now we have to ability to continue with those benefits, increase them and remove the negatives.

By raising energy prices, which will soak the poor? Not everyone can afford to shop at Whole Foods, drive $100k electric cars, and live in LEED-certified houses (not cheap here in Seattle!)

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#28

Post by sinxoveretothex »

maxharris wrote: post #14
harigov wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think what the author mentioned and what you implied are one and the same. From author's perspective, when you look at the actual price of fuel including the carbon emissions that they are causing, which cause expenses in other ways like health/environment, clean energy technologies are actually getting cheaper than fossil fuel technologies.

During the 20th century, deaths due to temperature extremes dropped by over 70% (mostly due to the advent of air-conditioning): http://www.econ.yale.edu/~js2755/Climate_Adaptation_BCDGS.pd... I also found these statistics helpful: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/data/

I don't know why I couldn't reply to your comment 4 children down but oh well.

I don't understand how what you say is somehow a case for fossil fuel more so than a case for energy use. That is: why is the rise of a country's wealth metrics tied to fossil fuel? Wouldn't it be the same even if it were using say solar?

Also, I quickly browsed through your second link and I was very surprised about the figure 1.6 (which claims that there is less pollution as time goes by). I checked the source and although there isn't much context, it seems that what the EPA data is saying is that less pollutants are emitted year over year… that's a negative second order derivative of the amount of pollutant, not a negative first order derivative as the title seems to suggest (to me anyway).

It bothers me greatly that such a superficial analysis reveals bothersome details like this. I am inclined to believe that this source is not very good.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#29

Post by cpprototypes »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…

There's possibly a better alternative to batteries:

http://www.audiusa.com/newsroom/news/press-releases/2015/05/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel

This type of technology can allow the extra power generated by solar/wind to be used to create oil. If this technology is developed further, I think it could be a better alternative to batteries. Imagine a desert full of solar panels creating oil with excess electricity during the day. And at night the oil can be used to either provide night time electricity or directly in the existing oil infrastructure (cars, gas stations, etc.) The oil would be effectively carbon neutral.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#30

Post by jweir »

I wish there was a link to the article and sources on the prices.

"while natural gas-based electricity cost $82 in North and South America."

This makes no sense – the price of NG is very local.

I just ran an analysis of NYISO Zone J (New York City's) average hourly price for the last year – and it comes out at an average of $40.87 per MWh(peak and off peak). This would include all sources of generation.

The prices in the article would have everyone generating electricity loosing massive amounts of money – which they aren't.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mOm7bMQYJof7WDfqXmbA...

You can find raw pricing data from the various US energy markets below – you'll have to dig a bit. This is price though, not cost.

http://www.nyiso.com/ http://www.pjm.com/ http://www.ercot.com/ http://www.miso.com/ http://www.caiso.com/

Post reply on HN