417
The world came tantalizingly close to a deal to phase out fossil fuels (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
140 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Have you ever considered that first world nations are just going to use whatever energy source is the cheapest until it is no longer the cheapest?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 56 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I live below sea level and have a degree in economics. I have definitely considered the fact that I’m paying for the negative externalities of fossil fuels each time my flood insurance rates go up.

    For the record, my house is raised above sea level and I have solar panels. No one has to chime in with “just move” overly simplistic arguments. We’re better prepared than most Americans since we already deal with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Then we'd be doing fission. Fossil fuels aren't required to pay for their externalities the way nuclear is, not to mention that the fossil companies have spent decades lobbying and campaigning to keep from having to be responsible for their own bullshit, as well as campaigning to make other forms of energy seem / be less viable (either through PR messaging or regulatory capture).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Nuclear fission is not paying for the biggest externality either, its waste products. That for some reason seems to be the people's problem. And even then there doesn't exist a permanent storage solution for it as of today anywhere on the planet (yes, I know Finland thinks they have it figured out next year, but at a capacity of 5500t it will only hold the waste of the 5 Finnish reactors). It's absolute insanity to me how this gets brushed away so easily.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Should just bury this shit in a subduction rift and let the earth eat it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The problem with that is that the subduction rifts generally also have volcanoes that spew a bunch of that material back to the surface/atmosphere. It might take a few centuries for it to go through all that, but IMO better to bury it in one place and risk future people not understanding it (they'll figure it out quickly enough if they are human or similar intelligence) than to put it somewhere where the Earth itself will eventually reject it violently and people affected won't have much choice or understanding of what happens as a result.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Are you saying that nuclear is cheaper than renewables?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In the alternative universe we'd have been building fission power for decades when it was cheaper than renewables, and it would still be running today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In this universe we didn't though, I'm not sure why the multiverse is relevant here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    We were talking about power strategies from the 1980s and the person above said it would just be the "cheapest". If countries really were just building the cheapest, it would not have been renewables back then.

    We were already talking about a counterfactual.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I guess. If we're in this hypothetical alternative universe then those plants built in the 80's would be at the end of their lives and we'd be looking to spend a fortune to replace them with new nuclear or we'd be saving money by building renewables.

    I'm still not sure what this line if discussion is accomplishing though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    Probably nothing - though I do think it's worth remembering that renewables were much more expensive in the past than they are now. It's one reason why government action has been so slow - other reasons apply to nuclear power. I think people who are switched on to the crisis are all too aware that renewables are now easily the best source of power, but forget too easily that it was only through significant investment that we've ended up here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Maybe cheaper than renewables and grid scale batteries over the lifetime of the reactor. Perhaps you could correct me, but my understanding is that grid scale battery facilities don't even exist yet. Given the current state of battery technology, you'd need to replace the batteries at that facility in, what, seven years? Ten is really pushing it, right? That's not going to be cheap.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nuclear is 2-4 times more expensive and grid scale batteries (the most costly way of storing power) are already being used.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/?sh=32681a7e5971

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Grid scale batteries for solar day/night cycles can work. There is no good solution for seasonal fluctuations. Of course, a very large part of Earth’s population lives in close proximity to the equator with far less seasonal influences. It’s just unfortunate that those that pollute most (per capita) do not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wind works great at higher latitudes but what we need to be looking at is high voltage DC lines to transfer power over long distances with minimal loss.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    How?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Funneling subsidies and tax breaks from fossil fuel to sustainable energy sources. In the Netherlands alone, the around 40 billion euros are spent by the government each year directly or indirectly subsidizing fossil fuel.

    Kerosine airplane fuel is untaxed for example, while consumer car fuel comes with a 20% (ish) tax.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Subsidies don't actually make something cheaper, it just shifts the burden to the taxpayer.

    Taxing fossil fuels to the point where they are no longer the cheapest option is a nation shooting itself in the foot, which is why none of them do it.

    It's not just about price for the individual. It's about economic expansion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sure it shifts the burden to the taxpayer and I would like my tax money to be spent on other things please.

    Companies aren’t going to change their policies voluntarily, it’s up to governments to make better decisions with my money and make other options more viable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Charging them for the negative externalities. Like coal kills way more people than nuclear but there’s no tax on coal plants for the harm caused.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Then you're artificially increasing the cost of the fuel.

    It's still going to be absolutely cheaper than alternatives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. It’s fixing a market failure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel.

    I'm sorry, what?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    For example, a business routinely dumps its toxic waste into a watershed, polluting that watershed and imposing huge costs on all the other users of the watershed that require non-toxic water. As this lowers the 'market price' for the goods produced by the business, the incentive is to always do this rather than pay the cost of safely processing the toxic waste. See for example the massive PFA problems. Here: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent