Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

i_am_bromega t1_j1h1cne wrote

Reply to comment by seven_tech in Exxon’s bad reputation got in the way of its industry-wide carbon capture proposal by Sorin61

Let’s see the breakdown of how that works. Show me any source that says we can go 100% in 15 years that wouldn’t absolutely wreck the global economy. I am hugely invested in renewables and going net negative carbon, but you’re talking fantasy land. Fossil fuels will be a huge part of the global energy profile for decades simply because there’s not enough money or resources to replace it in 15 years even if it were half the cost it is now. I encourage you to look at the math involved in replacing even half of what we use today.

−1

seven_tech t1_j1h7rpb wrote

Ok there's 3 reasons this is simply not true, and is regularly used as an argument as to 'crashing the economy' :

1- Renewable energy creates jobs, while being cheaper to produce electricity AND cheaper to build than building out more fossil fuels

2- The more renewables there are, the more expensive mining new fossil fuel is, while conversely being less likely to get investment because renewable energy puts downward pressure on energy prices. This in turn makes building new or maintaining existing fossil fuel plants bad investments and therefore, more expensive

2- The world disagrees with you regardless: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_renewable_energy_target

3

i_am_bromega t1_j1i2qx4 wrote

Your link doesn’t really say anything that disagrees with me. We can set all kinds of targets, but that doesn’t mean we will hit them, or that it’ll be cheap to do it. The EU went from 14% renewable in 2012 to 21% in 2021, so 7% in 9 years.

At this pace, in 15 years we will not be anywhere near 100%.

1

seven_tech t1_j1jwo8c wrote

Australia went from 5% to 20% in 15 years. South Australia had blackouts during the 2016 summer due to fossil fuel (particularly gas) companies poor maintenance shutting them down during high heat scenarios. Their state government decided enough was enough and poured money into renewables. They got the very first Tesla grid scale battery from Musk in 2017, which saved their grid $48m last year. In October this year, their grid ran 100% renewable for 6 days. They are officially planning a regular 100% renewable grid in 2025.

Australia changed national government this year and altered their targets substantially. They injected $25b into renewable sources directly and received $85b on top in private investment as a result. Their energy regulator is now planning (not predicting, actively planning pole and wire infrastructure requirements, new regulation to control Rooftop solar and forcing fossil fuel, particularly coal, to stay idle) for 80% renewables in 2030.

It's attitudes like yours which are holding us back. Labour and private investment are waiting for strong targets.

1

i_am_bromega t1_j1kh2u1 wrote

You’re highlighting my point. 100% isn’t happening in 15 years. Australia isn’t going from 20 to 100% in that timeframe. 25 billion isn’t enough to cover most, if any US states to go renewable. You’re also not factoring in the economics or supply chain of switching. Lithium demand and other rare earth metals are already projected to skyrocket without coming close to getting net zero. Without new extraction technologies, we simply can’t produce enough materials to go 100% renewable in the timeframe you’re suggesting.

LNG/coal plants will be around in 20 years. That much is guaranteed. It’s better to force carbon capture, which will make those plants more expensive to operate, while reducing emissions as the transition happens.

1

seven_tech t1_j1kn3ts wrote

The last coal plant in Australia is due to close in 2038. It's moved forward closure an entire decade in the last 3 years and they're talking about moving it forward again. LNG has shot themselves in the foot here, as they tried to game the federal electrical system during a lack of 'gas availability' (they chose to export it for higher prices) in June. They've just had their prices capped and a super profits tax is on the cards in early '23. LNG will be summer peaking only by mid-2030s. They'll be lucky if they're being used more than a month year.

I'm afraid you don't seem to see what's happening in the renewable space. Regulation globally is decimating fossil fuels because people are sick of them determining prices based on their profits. This isn't the 2000s anymore. The world is moving quickly and inexorablly to renewables. The war in Ukraine has galvanised Europe on it even more. Yes, in the short term (2-4 years) they will be more dependant. But they are spending hundreds of billions to get off it now because they're no longer prepared to have it used as a weapon a la Russia. America is the only major Western country now lagging in their ambition.

1

11fingerfreak t1_j1p04f1 wrote

The global economy only exists so long as humans exist. Climate change will eventually result in a planet where nearly every life form we know of today is extinct… including us. The global economy is unimportant compared to extinction.

But I get it. You may feel differently about it. Maybe you’re hoping that it’s all a hoax or it won’t be as bad as scientists have been saying. Or maybe you’re hoping some other species will come along and they’ll maintain the global economy and Capitalism in our absence. We’d hate to ruin it all for the lizards from Alpha Centuri or the hyper intelligent cockroaches by making decisions that don’t ensure profits for shareholders. Either way, I strongly suggest you not put your faith in the markets or hope that the scientists are wrong. Your call, though.

1