Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by ams6110 » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 6:10 AM UTC

timv wrote: post #18

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…

> Did I cover everything? Anything missing? There's interesting issues to consider with respect to scale + locality in generation/storage. My father-in-law's partner has a property in a rural area. Their property runs on 100% solar. The surrounding area has no local (large scale) power generation. During a recent storm the whole town was knocked off the grid. The property with solar kept working (after the storm, not…

It's pretty rare to invest in small scale, local fossil fuel power generation.

I think you're ignoring the diesel or natural gas fueled generators that are now installed at most supermarkets, many office buildings, and even apartment buildings and private homes. They are everywhere these days; even 10 years ago you didn't see them as much.

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

#62

Post by deciplex » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 6:13 AM UTC

gwright wrote: post #58

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…

Understanding costs with and without subsidies is critical. I believe the current reports about renewables being cost-effective relative to fossil fuels includes subsidies but I couldn't find the raw data after a few minutes of googling. If so, just means the costs are being shifted -- and that renewables are still more expensive than coal/gas. The big problem is that we still don't have effective ways to time-shift…

Since we already basically ignore, in an economic sense, the externalities that come with burning fossil fuels, ignoring any subsidies associated with renewables is sort of fair game. Or at least, if you're going to insist on factoring in subsidies, you should also account for externalities.

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

#63

Post by deciplex » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 6:16 AM UTC

maxharris wrote: post #7

The article uses euphemisms and double-talk: As more countries and states enact market systems that put a price on carbon emissions, clean energy technologies will actually become cheaper than fossil fuel technologies Translated into plain English: As more governments raise the price of fossil fuels through increased taxation, solar and wind may cost less than fossil fuels. What does the author have to gain by obfusc…

Do you know what an externality is? Do you know that ignoring them distorts the market?

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

#64

Post by DannoHung » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 6:16 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #60

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…

Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up... Batteries have improved over time, but I'm not convinced that they'll see the vast improvements necessary in order for them to replace natural gas for a long time. If natural gas really must be replaced the most logical alternative might be ammonia. Ammonia has hydrogen's good properties: not a greenhouse gas, doesn't cause smog, numerous producti…

Are physical potential energy storage systems completely impractical?

Flywheels, compressed air, gravity storage?

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

#65

Post by thaumasiotes » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 6:21 AM UTC

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…

> Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility.

You seem to be assuming that world demand for power can never rise. I find that... unlikely.

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

#66

Post by maxharris » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 6:28 AM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #26

maxharris wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

As of 2007, Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, leading opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline, wants taxes that will prohibit 80% of fossil fuel use. Since then, he has called for outlawing 90-95% if fossil fuel use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McKibben

If you don't believe this, there is a very famous article of his that Rolling Stone published in 2012.

There are few voices standing in his way, and if he accomplishes his stated goals, that is an abandonment of industrial civilization.

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

#67

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 6:28 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #60

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…

Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up... Batteries have improved over time, but I'm not convinced that they'll see the vast improvements necessary in order for them to replace natural gas for a long time. If natural gas really must be replaced the most logical alternative might be ammonia. Ammonia has hydrogen's good properties: not a greenhouse gas, doesn't cause smog, numerous producti…

I bet you $1000 to a charity of your choice that utility scale batteries combined with renewables replace natural gas for electricity generation in the US in the next 10 years. I shall even assume all the risk. If I'm correct, you can buy me a coffee.

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

#68

Post by Asbostos » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 6:34 AM UTC

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #6

existencebox wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a valid point, but I'd be curious to what extent this applies on both sides. I know I certainly hear a lot of buzz about the subsidies provided for "green energy", installing panels, that sort of thing. I was also under the impression that we haven't fully moved away from using certain rare earth metals/other compounds in the panels/large electric generators, which likely have a heavy cost externality in min…

The true fully-internalized cost of fossil energy is enormous. Mass extinction, crop failure, mass human migration, ocean ecosystem collapse. You think you can put a price on that? Do you think it's going to look cheaper than a couple tens of billions of dollars spent incentivizing solar panel installation?

If these things do happen (are they really any reliable predictions?), perhaps they're compensated for by the fact that we can grow enough food to feed the planet thanks to fertilizers and fossil fuel powered transportation. The situation would probably be worse without fossil fuels (limited to mostly medieval technology) than even a doomsday scenario with them.

Don't forget ocean ecosystems have already more or less collapsed due to fishing and mass human migration has already happened due to urbanization and population growth. Most city buildings that exist today will have been constructed in the last few decades or certainly the last century. We're quite fast at moving and developing civilizations.

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

#69

Post by mistermann » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 6:36 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #40

mistermann wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering, when they say prices are now near parity, is that pure prices, or does it still consider the "cost of externalities" factor? Also, does it factor in the necessary costs for peak load and low production (cloudy / no wind)? I actually don't think life would be that bad if society had to self-limit consumption during these times, but what are the real facts on these two items?

>I'm wondering, when they say prices are now near parity, is that pure prices, or does it still consider the "cost of externalities" factor? I think it just counts externalities that are already priced in via taxes/subsidies. It's not really possible to price global warming or clean air anyway. Plus, remember the story about primary school parents who were fined for being late to pick up their kids? The effect of try…

So just to be clear, we still do not know from what is included in this cost comparison, correct?

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

#70

Post by Asbostos » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 6:41 AM UTC

sbuttgereit wrote: post #13

maxharris wrote: post #7

The article uses euphemisms and double-talk: As more countries and states enact market systems that put a price on carbon emissions, clean energy technologies will actually become cheaper than fossil fuel technologies Translated into plain English: As more governments raise the price of fossil fuels through increased taxation, solar and wind may cost less than fossil fuels. What does the author have to gain by obfusc…

Hear, hear! I once read a study from a major state university, commissioned by the state government, that argued that it was more economic to recycle plastic bottles than to landfill them. BUT... when you dug into the details of the report (something the journalists and general public were unlikely to do), you found the calculations didn't correct for taxation (landfills) and subsidies (recyclers) as regulatory disto…

Hilariously, by ignoring such subsidies, they're effectively "discovering" something every street cleaner in some countries already knows - you get paid for collecting plastic bottles and you don't get paid for leaving them in the rubbish bin!