The idea that Communist states are prepared to manage their environments appropriately is laughably absurd. They've never cleaned up their act until after the fall of Communism.
Yeah, but why did they burn so much coal and oil? Because it was cheaper and they didn't care about the environment.
When solar and wind are cheaper they'll use that -- and still not care about the environment. They'll be polluting their land with heavy metals, sure, but not the air with CO2.
You see the change already with islands changing to solar and wind. Hawaii for instance is increasing solar because even with batteries it's cheaper than coal/oil - way higher at 18% electricity from solar than other states (CA is higher only because they're horribly mismanaged). That will propagate to logistically cheaper places as the cost of solar/wind continues to decrease.
carbon is only going to be the primary source of energy from humans this century and if you want nuclear or fusion power you're going to have to wait for it's mass planetary adoption well over 80 years from now.
Energy is not immune to disruptive technology, in fact it's prime for it because electricity is totally fungible. It doesn't matter the source and the speed of change is determined by the price difference.
It's not a case of oil having too much inertia behind it. Once the price of other energy is cheaper than extraction oil use will crater in the span of a decade or less, and when that starts could be 80 years or it could be next year. And this is the point, that you can't predict when it will happen but we know it will.
extra billions of humans need energy, but they will need and want more energy than any of their predecessors.
Irrelevant. What matters is the cost of energy sources. Whatever amount is needed, they won't be getting it from far more expensive oil.
That's not going to happen. Coal is cheaper. Dude, natural gas isn't cheaper than coal, and renewable are way more expensive. We don't even have the battery technology to make renewable cheaper, and all renewable are less efficient than coal & natural gas. Nuclear energy is eye-gougingly expensive, but most of that is mitigated by the fact that it can put out so much energy over such a large area, for such a long time. The economy of scale helps make nuclear energy reasonable. But renewables get even more prohibitively expensive at scale. There's really no situation where green energy overtakes coal in price until all green energy is subsidized at all points in the economy.
Hawaii for instance is increasing solar because even with batteries it's cheaper than coal/oil - way higher at 18% electricity from solar than other states
A wind-swept, sunny, pacific, island is the 2nd best possible place, and it's still being heavily federally subsidized, Hawaiian's themselves are paying increased taxes to make a lower upfront cost, you can bet your ass the progressives on Hawaii have regulated oil/gas almost entirely out of business, and the problem of scale (and worse: maintenance) still remains. There are no better places (excluding the open desert), and even then you need major state manipulation of the marketplace in order to make it lower cost.
This isn't an economic issue, where if you toy with just the right things, you'll make the price go down enough to justify it to yourself. It's a chemistry problem. Hydro-Carbons are some of the most efficient, most storable, longest lasting, most controllable, and cheapest, stores of chemical energy on earth. Even with batteries, renewables aren't even close. Like I said, Uranium works, but only at a large enough scale. Renewables barely work anywhere except on very small scales. Batteries work reliably on small scales, but are catastrophic on large scales, and don't actually last that many uses before they degrade. I'm telling you: you're not even 50 years from the needed materials science to make batteries an easy solution without subsidy and socialism. Fusion has advanced faster than batteries.
Energy is not immune to disruptive technology, in fact it's prime for it because electricity is totally fungible. It doesn't matter the source and the speed of change is determined by the price difference.
You're not getting it. I'm not saying that energy is immune to disruptive technology, I'm saying that every government on earth is dumping horrifically wasteful amounts of money to try and find that disruptive technology because of it's strategic implications. A century ago, that disruptive technology was gasoline refining. Right now, it's Fusion. It's never been renewables because it's a bad investment.
That price difference to the consumer is not where the equation stops. Yes, getting mass adoption can help pay for the new energy source, but it also still requires the governments to pay for it, and if the taxes and subsidies are so burdensome on the economy that mass adoption of a new energy source damages the economy, then it is worth taking up. Nobody is at the point they need to get anywhere near abandoning hydro-carbons, and nobody every will be at the point where they need to mass accept renewables.
What matters is the cost of energy sources. Whatever amount is needed, they won't be getting it from far more expensive oil.
A wind-swept, sunny, pacific, island is the 2nd best possible place, and it's still being heavily federally subsidized ... There are no better places (excluding the open desert), and even then you need major state manipulation of the marketplace in order to make it lower cost.
It's a nice theory, but not supported by the facts. Federal subsidies was only $2.5 billion across all states compared to $66 billion for fossil - that's why each state does it's own thing, with coal in WV and solar in CA from state subsidies, wind in TX because Federal subsidies are tiny.
How do you look at charts like this (source) of unsubsidized cost and continue believing such nonsense? Nat gas is cheaper than coal, wind/nat gas/solar are about tied on mainland.
This isn't an economic issue, where if you toy with just the right things, you'll make the price go down enough to justify it to yourself.
Right, it's an economic issue where the market will pick the best solution and except for things like container ships or long-haul trucks that need energy density that's usually the cheapest solution. You're arguing against the invisible hand, but you don't realize it because you're talking about a 1990s market not today's and certainly not a future energy market.
You can only fight the market so much, like how the left made nuclear a boogie-man and yet it's still happening in China and even here it's just standing by waiting for the pragmatism of hard times.
Yeah, but why did they burn so much coal and oil? Because it was cheaper and they didn't care about the environment.
When solar and wind are cheaper they'll use that -- and still not care about the environment. They'll be polluting their land with heavy metals, sure, but not the air with CO2.
You see the change already with islands changing to solar and wind. Hawaii for instance is increasing solar because even with batteries it's cheaper than coal/oil - way higher at 18% electricity from solar than other states (CA is higher only because they're horribly mismanaged). That will propagate to logistically cheaper places as the cost of solar/wind continues to decrease.
Energy is not immune to disruptive technology, in fact it's prime for it because electricity is totally fungible. It doesn't matter the source and the speed of change is determined by the price difference.
It's not a case of oil having too much inertia behind it. Once the price of other energy is cheaper than extraction oil use will crater in the span of a decade or less, and when that starts could be 80 years or it could be next year. And this is the point, that you can't predict when it will happen but we know it will.
Irrelevant. What matters is the cost of energy sources. Whatever amount is needed, they won't be getting it from far more expensive oil.
That's not going to happen. Coal is cheaper. Dude, natural gas isn't cheaper than coal, and renewable are way more expensive. We don't even have the battery technology to make renewable cheaper, and all renewable are less efficient than coal & natural gas. Nuclear energy is eye-gougingly expensive, but most of that is mitigated by the fact that it can put out so much energy over such a large area, for such a long time. The economy of scale helps make nuclear energy reasonable. But renewables get even more prohibitively expensive at scale. There's really no situation where green energy overtakes coal in price until all green energy is subsidized at all points in the economy.
A wind-swept, sunny, pacific, island is the 2nd best possible place, and it's still being heavily federally subsidized, Hawaiian's themselves are paying increased taxes to make a lower upfront cost, you can bet your ass the progressives on Hawaii have regulated oil/gas almost entirely out of business, and the problem of scale (and worse: maintenance) still remains. There are no better places (excluding the open desert), and even then you need major state manipulation of the marketplace in order to make it lower cost.
This isn't an economic issue, where if you toy with just the right things, you'll make the price go down enough to justify it to yourself. It's a chemistry problem. Hydro-Carbons are some of the most efficient, most storable, longest lasting, most controllable, and cheapest, stores of chemical energy on earth. Even with batteries, renewables aren't even close. Like I said, Uranium works, but only at a large enough scale. Renewables barely work anywhere except on very small scales. Batteries work reliably on small scales, but are catastrophic on large scales, and don't actually last that many uses before they degrade. I'm telling you: you're not even 50 years from the needed materials science to make batteries an easy solution without subsidy and socialism. Fusion has advanced faster than batteries.
You're not getting it. I'm not saying that energy is immune to disruptive technology, I'm saying that every government on earth is dumping horrifically wasteful amounts of money to try and find that disruptive technology because of it's strategic implications. A century ago, that disruptive technology was gasoline refining. Right now, it's Fusion. It's never been renewables because it's a bad investment.
That price difference to the consumer is not where the equation stops. Yes, getting mass adoption can help pay for the new energy source, but it also still requires the governments to pay for it, and if the taxes and subsidies are so burdensome on the economy that mass adoption of a new energy source damages the economy, then it is worth taking up. Nobody is at the point they need to get anywhere near abandoning hydro-carbons, and nobody every will be at the point where they need to mass accept renewables.
That is not going to be true in your lifetime.
It's a nice theory, but not supported by the facts. Federal subsidies was only $2.5 billion across all states compared to $66 billion for fossil - that's why each state does it's own thing, with coal in WV and solar in CA from state subsidies, wind in TX because Federal subsidies are tiny.
How do you look at charts like this (source) of unsubsidized cost and continue believing such nonsense? Nat gas is cheaper than coal, wind/nat gas/solar are about tied on mainland.
Right, it's an economic issue where the market will pick the best solution and except for things like container ships or long-haul trucks that need energy density that's usually the cheapest solution. You're arguing against the invisible hand, but you don't realize it because you're talking about a 1990s market not today's and certainly not a future energy market.
You can only fight the market so much, like how the left made nuclear a boogie-man and yet it's still happening in China and even here it's just standing by waiting for the pragmatism of hard times.