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]

1 hour 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/

The "when all financial factors are included" thing throws a bunch of subjective factors in that allow the author to twist the numbers to meet their agenda (like including "costs" in the equation for fossil fuel but not including the benefits).

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

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    

Exactly.

They dismiss the simple watt-for-watt comparability of energy sources because they still imagine a world where fossil fuels are the superior source of energy. They rage against any acknowledgment of implicit subsidies, because recognition of those costs reveal how the playing field has been tilted toward fossil fuels for generations. They pretend the economic, environmental, and social costs of engineering a hotter planet are $0, because only that fiction allows them to erase the mounting bill for continuing to choose to burn carbon at a massive scale. A $0 assumption also allows them to set aside the profound ethical choices involved in continuing to reject less expensive and cleaner alternatives for fossil fuels.

Trapped in a worldview shaped by the sunk-cost fallacy, they insist that yesterday’s benefits justify tomorrow’s risks. They cling to the comforts of the past as if nostalgia could grant immunity from the consequences for their shortsighted choice. In doing so, they gamble the future on the belief that the benefits of yesterday’s energy can somehow cancel out the costs of the world it is relentlessly warming.

[WolfStock1]

5 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

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.  

 

Actually no - they're not    Specifically a key benefit to fossil that is not achieved from renewables is baseline reliability.   This is of course huge, and a complete deal-breaker when it comes to trying to use renewables for the lion's share of our energy sources, for the foreseeable future.

As it is now renewables can only act as a supplement to the primary energy sources of fossil, nuclear, and to a small extent hydro.    Renewables cannot act as a primary source without completely redundant systems (a deal breaker cost-wise) or huge growth in battery storage (also a deal-breaker for the foreseeable future).

Somehow this keeps getting ignored/forgotten about.

It's moving its way towards center stage though, as our electrical grid becomes increasingly unreliable, and our EV sales growth sputters as it has.

The demand growth due to AI certainly isn't helping the situation - it is certainly pushing the issue more to the center of the stage.

Add to that the scale factor.  So far renewables have mostly been picking the low-hanging fruit - with power being supplied to the grid in areas where wind and solar are easy - the desert southwest for solar and the flyover country for wind.   Trying to scale wind and solar from its current 15% of electrical supply in those regions to the 75-80% or so required nationwide (particularly in the harder-to-reach NE population corridor), and adding the increased demand due to EVs and AI is going to require incredible growth in our electrical grid infrastructure.   The benefits-vs-cost equation starts to change dramatically after the low-hanging fruit has been picked.   

[WolfStock1]

Stepping back - I would like to say, believe it or not, that I'm not anti-renewable-energy, by any stretch.  It will eventually be inevitable and necessary, and will be a good thing in the long run.

I'm being devil's advocate here because I see a big sales job being done - some would say a con job even - in overstating the progress of renewables, and in understating the downside costs of the big renewable push, in terms of the hit it's causing on the prosperity of our society.   The migration to renewable is going to take a long time - likely well over a hundred years IMO if not two hundred, and it's going to cause significant and unavoidable pain.  We have been in a golden age of easy energy with fossil fuels, and it will end.   Fossil is simply easier than renewables, because of physics - primarily energy density; with us living within a few hundred years period reaping the benefits of millions of years of natural storage and compaction of energy into tiny masses of burnable stuff.   It will eventually be gone, with us having to transition to renewables.   (Short the other alternative which is extinction or at least near-extinction of humans)

In pushing the transition to renewables as hard as we are we are though - before the transition would otherwise happen organically, we are only serving to increase that transition pain.   And I'm talking net pain; after any benefit to slowing MMGW (which IMO is negligible) is included in the equation.

[Brewbeer]

6 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

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/

The "when all financial factors are included" thing throws a bunch of subjective factors in that allow the author to twist the numbers to meet their agenda (like including "costs" in the equation for fossil fuel but not including the benefits).

that source is not credible and should not be trusted on this topic

again, it's 10 to 1

we need to be clear about this:  at humanity's present fossil fuel burn rate, sea level is going to rise substantially, the science is clear and the scientific community is in  agreement.  Miami is definitely going under water.  We can argue about whether it happens in 2075 or 2125, but those arguments are just semantics; ultimately, the cost is the same, and that cost should be accurately reflected in the price of a watt of fossil fuel energy 

 

 

[WolfStock1]

46 minutes ago, Brewbeer said:

that source is not credible and should not be trusted on this topic

again, it's 10 to 1

we need to be clear about this:  at humanity's present fossil fuel burn rate, sea level is going to rise substantially, the science is clear and the scientific community is in  agreement.  Miami is definitely going under water.  We can argue about whether it happens in 2075 or 2125, but those arguments are just semantics; ultimately, the cost is the same, and that cost should be accurately reflected in the price of a watt of fossil fuel energy 

 

 

 

Miami being "under water" in 2075 or 2125 is the kind of absurdly-hyperbolic alarmism that I allude to in my other post.    Sea levels have risen about 6 inches in a century, and you're proposing that Miami might be "under water" going forward in less than that time?   Seriously?   Can't you see how ludicrous this is?

And no - the costs aren't the same.  Infrastructure generally turns over every few decades or so.   Miami as a whole is only 125 years old, and didn't really exist anywhere close to its current form until after WW2 70-80 years ago.   Having it be destroyed over the course of say 30-50 years would be *way* more expensive than having it be destroyed over the course of say 300 years, because over the course of 300 years it would essentially be replaced anyhow (without any sea level rise) due to natural aging and replacement.   Sea-level-induced replacement (inland and/or higher) would essentially be free.

This discussion assumes, obviously incorrectly, that Miami wouldn't attempt to remediate via sea walls and the like.   Even simply raising up the land and building new islands is not that hard - just look at the UAE.

Regarding sources - IMO a research organization presenting a raft of sourced facts and figures is a lot more credible than some random poster on a message board.

[Brewbeer]

55 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

Miami being "under water" in 2075 or 2125 is the kind of absurdly-hyperbolic alarmism that I allude to in my other post. Sea levels have risen about 6 inches in a century, and you're proposing that Miami might be "under water" going forward in less than that time?   Seriously?   Can't you see how ludicrous this is?

it's easy for those of us who live several tens or hundreds of feet above sea level to say this sort of stuff, but doing so is denialism with respect to the real flooding that already occurs in Miami neighborhoods (and other sea level locations around the world), flooding that has increased in extent, frequency and intensity over the years, even during fair weather.  and let's not forget that Miami is underlain by porous limestone - the ocean will come in underneath any wall that is built.  while rich people can afford to move to higher ground and/or hire companies to raise their ground, that isn't affordable for 90% of the people

from the perspective of the person who lives in that house in that neighborhood in the Miami suburbs dealing with increasing frequency and intensity of flooding at their house and neighborhood, my post doesn't seem "alarmist" or "absurdly-hyperbolic" or "ludicrous" at all.  It's real.  What do they think?  How much of their neighborhood needs to be impacted before they consider their property to be affected ?  How much of the population / land area of the city needs to be impacted before there is acknowledgement the health of the city is being threatened ?  is it 90% ?  75% ?  50% ?  And Miami is only one city; there are dozens of low-lying coastal cities across our country and world that are going to see major impacts as coastlines advance 

to bring this back to the point of the discussion:  how much of Miami needs to be inconvenienced/undesirable/uninhabitable before we acknowledge that the cost of climate change is a factor in the cost of a watt of fossil fuel derived power ?

 

 

[Brewbeer]

Prediction:  humanity isn't going to acknowledge, and really get serious about this issue, for at least 50 years, and I won't live long enough to see it happen.  It's going to take "some sizable percentage of Miami becoming too inconvenient" before there is serious societal change in how we view consumption of fossil fuels and how that is changing our planet  

I think Don or Tip has previously posted about this conundrum of the human condition:  even though humanity has advanced to the point where we can confidently and purposefully choose to shape our future, our evolutionary DNA makes humanity, as a whole, reactionary

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, Brewbeer said:

Prediction:  humanity isn't going to acknowledge, and really get serious about this issue, for at least 50 years, and I won't live long enough to see it happen.  It's going to take "some sizable percentage of Miami becoming too inconvenient" before there is serious societal change in how we view consumption of fossil fuels and how that is changing our planet  

I think Don or Tip has previously posted about this conundrum of the human condition:  even though humanity has advanced to the point where we can confidently and purposefully choose to shape our future, our evolutionary DNA makes humanity, as a whole, reactionary

We have both discussed it. It’s laughable to think that sea level rise in Miami has zero cost. By 2100, the sea will be 0.7-1.1 meters above its 2000 level (intermediate-low to intermediate scenarios) for the Southeast. By 2150, the numbers are 1.1-2.1 meters. There is no magical solution to avoid the ocean’s reclaiming land at such changes.
 

Source: https://earth.gov/sealevel/us/internal_resources/756/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf

[wokeupthisam]

7 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Exactly.

They dismiss the simple watt-for-watt comparability of energy sources because they still imagine a world where fossil fuels are the superior source of energy. They rage against any acknowledgment of implicit subsidies, because recognition of those costs reveal how the playing field has been tilted toward fossil fuels for generations. They pretend the economic, environmental, and social costs of engineering a hotter planet are $0, because only that fiction allows them to erase the mounting bill for continuing to choose to burn carbon at a massive scale. A $0 assumption also allows them to set aside the profound ethical choices involved in continuing to reject less expensive and cleaner alternatives for fossil fuels.

Trapped in a worldview shaped by the sunk-cost fallacy, they insist that yesterday’s benefits justify tomorrow’s risks. They cling to the comforts of the past as if nostalgia could grant immunity from the consequences for their shortsighted choice. In doing so, they gamble the future on the belief that the benefits of yesterday’s energy can somehow cancel out the costs of the world it is relentlessly warming.

All this, or... 'they' simply call out gaslighting posts with one-sided 'analyses' for the empty harangues that they are.  LOL

 

[WolfStock1]

3 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

it's easy for those of us who live several tens or hundreds of feet above sea level to say this sort of stuff, but doing so is denialism with respect to the real flooding that already occurs in Miami neighborhoods (and other sea level locations around the world), flooding that has increased in extent, frequency and intensity over the years, even during fair weather.  and let's not forget that Miami is underlain by porous limestone - the ocean will come in underneath any wall that is built.  while rich people can afford to move to higher ground and/or hire companies to raise their ground, that isn't affordable for 90% of the people

from the perspective of the person who lives in that house in that neighborhood in the Miami suburbs dealing with increasing frequency and intensity of flooding at their house and neighborhood, my post doesn't seem "alarmist" or "absurdly-hyperbolic" or "ludicrous" at all.  It's real.  What do they think?  How much of their neighborhood needs to be impacted before they consider their property to be affected ?  How much of the population / land area of the city needs to be impacted before there is acknowledgement the health of the city is being threatened ?  is it 90% ?  75% ?  50% ?  And Miami is only one city; there are dozens of low-lying coastal cities across our country and world that are going to see major impacts as coastlines advance 

to bring this back to the point of the discussion:  how much of Miami needs to be inconvenienced/undesirable/uninhabitable before we acknowledge that the cost of climate change is a factor in the cost of a watt of fossil fuel derived power ?

 

 

 

Wow.   Just wow.

I have news for you - I used to live in South Florida, and visited Miami regularly, and I have family that live on the west coast in Florida and still visit there regularly.   It's nothing like you characterize.   The primary source of flooding we generally saw was due to occasional heavy rains - not some kind of creeping ocean.    You're quite the drama queen.   You know nothing about the interactions of cities and oceans.

Is there sometimes flooding from hurricanes?   Yes there can be (I was there during Andrew).   But it's always been the case - it's nothing new, and it's nothing horribly destructive and regular as you present.    I'm quite sure that *you* do not and have not lived in such a place.

If it was so bad - why do you think so much construction is going on there?   Wouldn't people be moving *away* from there, instead *into* Miami (and Florida overall)?   Miami's population has increased over 20% just in the last 20 years.   I guess those people must be dolphins or something.   I realize the NFL team is the dolphins - but I'm pretty sure the people that live there aren't *actually* dolphins.

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

Stepping back - I would like to say, believe it or not, that I'm not anti-renewable-energy, by any stretch.  It will eventually be inevitable and necessary, and will be a good thing in the long run.

I'm being devil's advocate here because I see a big sales job being done - some would say a con job even - in overstating the progress of renewables, and in understating the downside costs of the big renewable push, in terms of the hit it's causing on the prosperity of our society.   The migration to renewable is going to take a long time - likely well over a hundred years IMO if not two hundred, and it's going to cause significant and unavoidable pain.  We have been in a golden age of easy energy with fossil fuels, and it will end.   Fossil is simply easier than renewables, because of physics - primarily energy density; with us living within a few hundred years period reaping the benefits of millions of years of natural storage and compaction of energy into tiny masses of burnable stuff.   It will eventually be gone, with us having to transition to renewables.   (Short the other alternative which is extinction or at least near-extinction of humans)

In pushing the transition to renewables as hard as we are we are though - before the transition would otherwise happen organically, we are only serving to increase that transition pain.   And I'm talking net pain; after any benefit to slowing MMGW (which IMO is negligible) is included in the equation.

Don't agree. Renewables are manufacturing technologies, like TVs or cellphones, and get cheaper as cumulative production increases. Subsidization was necessary and worthwhile while renewable cost was higher. The cost of the subsidies is minor vs the long-term benefits of sustainable, abundant, cheap and carbon-free energy. China has provided the largest subsidies and is reaping the largest benefits. We should have subsidized more not less.

Renewables have already caught up with fossil fuels in cost and will only get better with time. The transition to renewables is accelerating and will take decades, not centuries. Its inevitable now that renewable costs are lower than fossil fuels. 

https://electrotechrevolution.substack.com/p/rewiring-the-energy-debate?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

[WolfStock1]

27 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Don't agree. Renewables are manufacturing technologies, like TVs or cellphones, and get cheaper as cumulative production increases. Subsidization was necessary and worthwhile while renewable cost was higher. The cost of the subsidies is minor vs the long-term benefits of sustainable, abundant, cheap and carbon-free energy. China has provided the largest subsidies and is reaping the largest benefits. We should have subsidized more not less.

Renewables have already caught up with fossil fuels in cost and will only get better with time. The transition to renewables is accelerating and will take decades, not centuries. Its inevitable now that renewable costs are lower than fossil fuels. 

https://electrotechrevolution.substack.com/p/rewiring-the-energy-debate?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

 

One thing I often talk about is "low hanging fruit".    It depends on the technology, but very often trend bias applies when predicting future growth (the same thing that often happens with stocks, BTW).

Looking at EV sales as example:

 

 

Note that that prediction was made in what appears to be 2022 or 2023.  

However here is what has actually happened after that (in the two largest states, which have online dashboards with mandates):

 

After the low-hanging fruit (rich people with easily-accessible charging at home or work) buying a second car was picked - sales are now falling - not continuing the upwards trend predicted.

Same is true for solar and wind electricity generation.   Note where all the larger solar and wind farms are - it's a lot easier to be less expensive when you install them in the easy low-hanging-fruit places to supply local electricity.   Not so much when you need to feed the entire grid.

 

 

 

 

 

[chubbs]

16 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

One thing I often talk about is "low hanging fruit".    It depends on the technology, but very often trend bias applies when predicting future growth (the same thing that often happens with stocks, BTW).

Looking at EV sales as example:

 

 

Note that that prediction was made in what appears to be 2022 or 2023.  

However here is what has actually happened after that (in the two largest states, which have online dashboards with mandates):

 

After the low-hanging fruit (rich people with easily-accessible charging at home or work) buying a second car was picked - sales are now falling - not continuing the upwards trend predicted.

Same is true for solar and wind electricity generation.   Note where all the larger solar and wind farms are - it's a lot easier to be less expensive when you install them in the easy low-hanging-fruit places to supply local electricity.   Not so much when you need to feed the entire grid.

 

 

 

 

 

The chart I posted has global numbers. The US is lagging. We have large import duties on solar, and EVs from China making our costs higher than the rest of the world.