Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

Long article on rapid introduction of electric HD trucks in China. China is upending fossil fuel economics: "The lesson for Western operators and policymakers is that the cost curve has shifted. The decisions that made sense even in 2024 do not match the realities of 2025."

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/11/26/chinas-bev-trucks-and-the-end-of-diesels-dominance/

 

[WolfStock1]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Don't agree with your comments. The article provided references.  Other than fully depreciated gas and nuclear, Renewables are the lowest cost of electricity in the US. New gas plants, to meet increasing demand, will be much more expensive than fully depreciated; and, as the article states, costs and backlogs for new gas plants are increasing. 

 

I don't disagree with regards to the cost of new builds (though again - they generally don't take into account many factors including regulations, transmission lines, and opportunity cost effect on reliability).   

But the title of the article, and your comment, is referring to the cost of electricity, not the cost of new plants.   They are not the same thing.

Specifically a big contributor to rising electricity prices is the shutdown of existing operational plants, lowering the supply and thus increasing prices.   You seem to keep ignoring/forgetting that.   Electricity isn't just created by new-build plants.

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

I don't disagree with regards to the cost of new builds (though again - they generally don't take into account many factors including regulations, transmission lines, and opportunity cost effect on reliability).   

But the title of the article, and your comment, is referring to the cost of electricity, not the cost of new plants.   They are not the same thing.

Specifically a big contributor to rising electricity prices is the shutdown of existing operational plants, lowering the supply and thus increasing prices.   You seem to keep ignoring/forgetting that.   Electricity isn't just created by new-build plants.

The plants that were being shutdown had relatively high cost, that's why they were being shutdown.

[donsutherland1]

For perspective, no industry comes close to the explicit and implicit subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry.

From the IMF:

[WolfStock1]

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

The plants that were being shutdown had relatively high cost, that's why they were being shutdown.

Yes and why have their costs been going up?   Because of increasingly-onerous environmental regulations, including for CO2 emissions.   It is not due to organic costs.

E.g. the EPA in April 2024 implemented new regs requiring coal plants to cut C02 emissions by 90% by 2039 or be shut down.   The cost to try to reduce emissions by this much is extremely high, and they know this.   They are being forced closed, with "cost" as an excuse to hide the real reason.   It's not naturally due to cost.

[WolfStock1]

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

For perspective, no industry comes close to the explicit and implicit subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry.

From the IMF:

 

Sorry but that's laughable.   They throw throw the whole kitchen sink in and call it "implicit subsidies".    Traffic congestion is a fossil fuel subsidy?   Why would traffic congestion from an ICE vehicle be any more a subsidy than than for an EV?    Can you somehow magically fit EV's into a smaller space or something?

I just bought some groceries at the local supermarket.   I'm guessing that somehow fits into their "implied subsidies" bucket.

No - renewable energy is far more subsidized than fossil, by about 30x as much.   Lots of data here:

https://www.cato.org/blog/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-mostly-fiction-real-energy-subsidies-should-go

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/renewable-energy-still-dominates-energy-subsidies-in-fy-2022/

 

[wokeupthisam]

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

For perspective, no industry comes close to the explicit and implicit subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry.

From the IMF:

The 'implicit subsidies' are subjective non-quant unverifiable estimates, hardly the stuff of science.  There is no attempt in the paper to quantify or account for any offsetting derived benefits of fossil fuel use.  The paper isn't peer-reviewed scientific lit, in fact it's a working paper, ie purpose is to "...describ'e research in progress by the author(s) and... published to elicit comments and to encourage debate. The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management."  It's interesting to note (since you did not) that of the relatively tiny proportion of 'explicit subsidies' cited, the main source is China, hardly representative of the global subset of countries at large, followed by the Saudis, Russia, No Korea and Iran.  The US accounts for little more than a few percent of the cited 'explicit subsidies' - good luck changing the industrial policies of the aforementioned chief 'offenders' of fossil fuel subsides who account for the the lion's share of 'explicit subsidies'.  The authors of the paper (and you, using it as evidence) completely avoid dealing with the cost/benefit of direct, explicit subsidies to so-called 'clean energy'.  A clearer example of a gaslighting post would be difficult to conjure.  LOL

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Sorry but that's laughable.   They throw throw the whole kitchen sink in and call it "implicit subsidies".    Traffic congestion is a fossil fuel subsidy?   Why would traffic congestion from an ICE vehicle be any more a subsidy than than for an EV?    Can you somehow magically fit EV's into a smaller space or something?

I just bought some groceries at the local supermarket.   I'm guessing that somehow fits into their "implied subsidies" bucket.

No - renewable energy is far more subsidized than fossil, by about 30x as much.   Lots of data here:

https://www.cato.org/blog/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-mostly-fiction-real-energy-subsidies-should-go

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/renewable-energy-still-dominates-energy-subsidies-in-fy-2022/

 

Without doubt, fossil fuel interests and their allies reject the concept of implicit subsidies. Even as implicit subsidies are estimates, they are premised on the reality that that the burning of fossil fuels leads to an increase in particulate matter, dumps greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and drives changes in climate that have significant societal costs and even larger long-term costs associated with lost economic output, human health, climate change-enhanced disasters, etc. The question isn't whether such costs exist. They do. It isn't whether they are significant. They are. The only meaningful question concerns the exact magnitude of such costs.

Estimating implicit subsidies is a far more realistic practice than relying exclusively on an explicit subsidies-only framework. An explicit subsidies-only framework rests on the fatally-flawed assumption that there are no costs from the burning of fossil fuels beyond those captured in explicit subsidies. Implicit subsidies provide a fuller and much more realistic picture. 

It's obviously a picture the fossil fuel interests seek to mask, much as the tobacco interests had done in the face of rising lung cancer cases and other smoking-related conditions decades earlier. It is also no less unethical than the deceptive practices deployed by the embattled tobacco industry at that time. 

Fossil fuel interests, who are largely responsible for the problem of anthropogenic climate change, want to dictate the rules by which society views energy in general and costs of energy in particular. They don't want society to accept that there are better, cleaner, less costly alternatives for a growing share of energy needs. 

The International Monetary Fund chooses to provide a fuller picture. It isn't perfect, but it is far more complete than one the fossil fuel interests seek to paint.The IMF's framework is far more accurate than any simplistic framework that treats the implicit subsidies associated with the burning of fossil fuels as $0.

 

[Brewbeer]

8 hours ago, chubbs said:

The plants that were being shutdown had relatively high cost, that's why they were being shutdown.

Facilities reach the end of their operable reliable lives, and then need to be updated at substantial cost to have additional service live.   This is all straight forward. Some on here dont understand economics.

[donsutherland1]

4 minutes ago, wokeupthisam said:

The 'implicit subsidies' are subjective non-quant unverifiable estimates, hardly the stuff of science.  There is no attempt in the paper to quantify or account for any offsetting derived benefits of fossil fuel use.  The paper isn't peer-reviewed scientific lit, in fact it's a working paper, ie purpose is to "...describ'e research in progress by the author(s) and... published to elicit comments and to encourage debate. The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management."  It's interesting to note (since you did not) that of the relatively tiny proportion of 'explicit subsidies' cited, the main source is China, hardly representative of the global subset of countries at large, followed by the Saudis, Russia, No Korea and Iran.  The US accounts for little more than half a percent of the cited 'explicit subsidies' - good luck changing the industrial policies of the aforementioned chief 'offenders' of fossil fuel subsides who account for the the lion's share of 'explicit subsidies'.  The authors of the paper (and you, using it as evidence) completely avoid dealing with the cost/benefit of direct, explicit subsidies to so-called 'clean energy'.  A clearer example of a gaslighting post would be difficult to conjure.  LOL

Implicit subsidies are based on imperfect estimates. But they recognize that there are real costs. Those costs are substantial even if they are estimates. One need not agree on the exact figure ($7.1 trillion) to recognize that they are very large. A framework that assumes that such costs don't exist is wholly unrealistic.

Also, the IMF's working papers are not scientific in nature. They are estimates for policy makers. 

Finally, I recognize that there have been subsidies for renewable energy e.g., as one witnessed with the Inflation Reduction Act. An "infant industry" argument can be made. Energy has been a highly subsidized field. One finds a range of tax deductions, credits, and subsidies i.e., a deduction for intangible drilling costs, depletion allowances, accelerated depreciation for oil and gas infrastructure, etc. Unlike some of the renewable technologies, the fossil fuel industry is anything but an infant industry.

[wokeupthisam]

20 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Implicit subsidies are based on imperfect estimates. But they recognize that there are real costs. Those costs are substantial even if they are estimates. One need not agree on the exact figure ($7.1 trillion) to recognize that they are very large. A framework that assumes that such costs don't exist is wholly unrealistic.

Also, the IMF's working papers are not scientific in nature. They are estimates for policy makers. 

Finally, I recognize that there have been subsidies for renewable energy e.g., as one witnessed with the Inflation Reduction Act. An "infant industry" argument can be made. Energy has been a highly subsidized field. One finds a range of tax deductions, credits, and subsidies i.e., a deduction for intangible drilling costs, depletion allowances, accelerated depreciation for oil and gas infrastructure, etc. Unlike some of the renewable technologies, the fossil fuel industry is anything but an infant industry.

it's worth noting that none of the explicit and implicit benefits of fossil fuel use to societies, not to mention the variances of those among countries with greatly differing economies, are computed in order to arrive at a true estimate of the overall picture.  Ignoring that entire side of the market equation is illegitimate.   

[chubbs]

14 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

Yes and why have their costs been going up?   Because of increasingly-onerous environmental regulations, including for CO2 emissions.   It is not due to organic costs.

E.g. the EPA in April 2024 implemented new regs requiring coal plants to cut C02 emissions by 90% by 2039 or be shut down.   The cost to try to reduce emissions by this much is extremely high, and they know this.   They are being forced closed, with "cost" as an excuse to hide the real reason.   It's not naturally due to cost.

Environmental impacts are a cost to society. Fossil fuels have been and largely still are getting a free ride on CO2 emissions. The typical coal or gas-fired power plant doesn't pay for its CO2 emissions. A big subsidy.

[Brewbeer]

it's also worth noting that all the explicit and implicit benefits of the current consumption of energy from fossil fuels are exactly the same as those from the consumption of energy from renewables.  

Ignoring that both sources of energy on a watt for watt basis provide the same current value to society is illogical.  No one is questioning that fossil fuels helped accelerate human social evolution.  what is being questioned is what is the comparative future costs and benefits of various energy sources moving forward from the current point in time; historic energy sources are irrelevant to this discussion    

[WolfStock1]

 

14 hours ago, wokeupthisam said:

it's worth noting that none of the explicit and implicit benefits of fossil fuel use to societies, not to mention the variances of those among countries with greatly differing economies, are computed in order to arrive at a true estimate of the overall picture.  Ignoring that entire side of the market equation is illegitimate.   

Bingo.

chubbs and donaldsutherland1 don't seem to understand that "subsidies" and "costs" are not the same thing.   You can't just lump them in together like that.   If you're going to do that - you also have to include "benefits".   Not doing so simply invalidates the argument.

It's an attempt to distract from the actual argument, which is explicit subsidies.   That is a valid discussion, and the data clearly shows that renewable energy receives far more subsidies than fossil-fuel energy.

[Brewbeer]

Quote

the data clearly shows that renewable energy receives far more subsidies than fossil-fuel energy.

there are about $10 in fossil fuel subsidies spent for every dollar of renewable subsidies when all financial factors including tax breaks are included in the evaluation  

 

[WolfStock1]

31 minutes ago, Brewbeer said:

there are about $10 in fossil fuel subsidies spent for every dollar of renewable subsidies when all financial factors including tax breaks are included in the evaluation  

 

Nope.  Read the links I posted for actual numbers.

As of 2022 renewable energy comprised 53 percent of all energy subsidies.   This includes tax incentives.   And this despite renewables only being 21% of production.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/renewable-energy-still-dominates-energy-subsidies-in-fy-2022/

You can keep repeating the "when all financial factors" canard all you want, but it doesn't make it true.