You are right of course and some may, but economics would suggest mass take up of renewable or green energy will only occur once it has a cost advantage Vs fossil fuels. So for example I could invest the money saved in solar panels and a heat pump for the house. Then I would save even more money (once it has a cost advantage). This is all for the greater good of course but the nature of investing (or saving) is that it is all about sacrificing current consumption for a higher consumption or profit in the future. There doesn't seem to be a way out of this predicament without some sort of alternative economic system!What? Why? We could also spend that money on green goals. And some will not save money with the purchase/lease of a BEV.
Wikipedia, but other sources all relate the same thing; that energy growth exceeds renewable capacity growth. Fossil fuel consumption is increasing, not decreasing. It's the inevitable consequence of developing countries increasing wealth.What's the source for the graph?
Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk
If renewables were cheaper, my power company would send me a letter inviting me to pay less every month with renewables. Instead, they sent me the opposite letter, inviting me to pay more for renewables.right now, unsubsidized renewables have an economic advantage over subsidized fossil fuels. That is why such power generation is increasing and coal fired power plants are not being built, at least not in the US. This trend has been going on for many years, hard to miss.
You're right that I didn't realize yticolev was referring to the UK when speaking to renewables beginning to displace fossil fuels, so I responded with data from the US. My overall point though applies globally, which is where the problem manifests itself.You're both discussing different countries, hence the confusion.
The situation in the UK (and the rest of Western Europe) is very different from the US. Overall electricity demand in the UK has fallen. Renewables, as a whole, are now the second largest source of power. And they're catching up with Gas.
It wouldn't be hugely surprising to see renewables overtake gas this year, in at least one quarter.
You keep asking where I'm getting data, and I'm happy to supply it, but you should hold yourself to the same standard.Not sure where you are getting that from, but if you consider health costs and environmental costs of renewables versus fossil fuel, it is not even close.
The Institute for Energy Research and the University of Texas calculated the subsidies per unit of energy produced, or cents per kWh. This is a more relevant number for comparing different energy sources as it normalizes to the amount of energy produced (see figure above).
Between 2010 and 2016, subsidies for solar were between 10¢ and 88¢ per kWh and subsidies for wind were between 1.3¢ and 5.7¢ per kWh. Subsidies for coal, natural gas and nuclear are all between 0.05¢ and 0.2¢ per kWh over all years.
I suppose I should lament people living better than they ever have since that's the fashion of the minute.Increases in longevity came from better healthcare, and most of that from a huge reduction in infant and maternal mortality. Yup, can't argue that better transportation from fossil fuels supported industrial farming and distribution leading to increased population. Which is certainly a large part of the reason why we are in the mess we are in now and is unsustainable. Perhaps you have a biblical belief in "fill the earth" command but other than religion, I don't know of other advocates for overpopulation.
Surely ROI in a given year, for an established technology vs and emergent one, is quite irrelevant? It's the ROI over the life of the wind turbine or solar panel that matters. These numbers also ignore indirect subsidies and biases within the tax system, which are worth far more to the fossil fuel industry than direct subsidies.
Deduction of operating expenses from taxation is not a subsidy when all businesses have the same advantage. A good economic system would eliminate corporate taxes altogether (consensus among economists).Surely ROI in a given year, for an established technology vs and emergent one, is quite irrelevant? It's the ROI over the life of the wind turbine or solar panel that matters. These numbers also ignore indirect subsidies and biases within the tax system, which are worth far more to the fossil fuel industry than direct subsidies.
A couple of years back, the EU commission questioned why the UK was still giving more subsidies to the fossil fuel industry than the renewable energy one. The government's response? "We don't give any subsidies to the fossil fuel industry". Direct vs indirect subsidies were the reason for the difference of opinion. The EU commission was counting billions of pounds worth of tax breaks in its figures. The UK government was only counting direct cash paid to the industry as a subsidy.
ICE's can also be carbon-neutral if they utilize carbon-neutral fuel like bio-fuel, fuel made from Algae, or one of several "E-fuels" like the process being developed by Audi. Audi claims they can even be carbon-negative.I suppose that one argument about the ultimate source of electricity (to power a car specifically) is that, unlike an ICE (which, given the current state of things, is at least 90% dependent on fossil fuel - it can't use anything else realistically; the best we can use without modification is maybe 10% bio-fuel), an EV doesnt care where its power comes from - as long as it's power. So, those indivuduals with the will and money can install solar arrays; those "in charge" can invest in alternative sources of electricity. etc... In either case, with no modification needed, even to a possibly old vehicle, EVs can be made "greener" by action elsewhere, whereas ICEs can't. In my case, although I have no direct green source at home, I subscribe to a 100% "green" domestic electricity scheme. Yes, I know that my actual power supply is just the same mix as every other - but having my consumption fully offset at the other end by "green" input is as much as I can do.
Potentially, but that tech isn't available yet. And also unless we have an absolute abundance of non fossil fuel energy, using vast amounts of electricity in inefficient conversion processes, rather than just sending it down a power grid and into a battery is not a sensible use of using that energy. This is where fuel cells car really fall down. The opportunity cost of not using that non fossil derived electricity in the most efficient way possible needs to be considered too. Eg the next step with renewable energy needs to be for heating homes and buildings that are currently heated with gas and oil. Currently it isn't cost effective unless combined with heat pumps etc, but there is huge opportunity as renewables ramp up to power all this with renewable energy to have an even greater co2 impact than making synthetic fuels.ICE's can also be carbon-neutral if they utilize carbon-neutral fuel like bio-fuel, fuel made from Algae, or one of several "E-fuels" like the process being developed by Audi. Audi claims they can even be carbon-negative.
This is a good point (in that objects that cost a lot of money are typically resource intensive to make). However it ignores the detail of where that money is going. For example, even if a Tesla is more expensive than a F-150, some of that money ends up funding advanced R&D necessary for even better EVs and green technology.Here I'll point out that total cost often corresponds to environmental impact. Expensive things take more resources generally speaking, and there is a very direct link between wealth and consumption, and especially oil consumption. Probably an indicator of which vehicle is most environmentally friendly comes down to total cost of ownership over the life of the vehicle. That would factor in the initial purchase price and all the consumables like fuel and electricity.
The devil is always in the details, but my general statement generally holds up. If we're curious how much consumption a population or individual has, we can be fairly confident it's roughly in proportion to their wealth. Wealth is opportunity to consume, whether that's consuming things like large houses, or traveling/vacationing, etc. Nearly everything we do has some dependence on fossil fuels. The real trick will be to decouple wealth (everyone's wealth, not just Big Oil) from fossil fuels.This is a good point (in that objects that cost a lot of money are typically resource intensive to make). However it ignores the detail of where that money is going. For example, even if a Tesla is more expensive than a F-150, some of that money ends up funding advanced R&D necessary for even better EVs and green technology.
This is true to an extent, but mostly because GM has not invested sufficiently in their technology to bring prices down enough to make their EVs profitable. Certainly if a company does not invest the initial R&D in any product it will not be desirable. There's a reason why Tesla is able to sell their vehicles at a premium and without the federal subsidy and GM is not. If anything, GM had a huge head start in this area with the EV1 development in the 90's and general manufacturing know-how that Tesla lacked.From my perspective, purchasing an EV primarily accomplishes 1 thing, and that is to signal interest to the market. GM and other companies aren't using the money from EV purchases to continue related research. In fact, GM is most likely losing money on every sale considering their steep discounting. Funding for their research is made possible because they have a successful and profitable ICE business. The amount they will invest in EV R&D depends on how much they perceive the need to do so... which leads back to my conclusion that purchasing an EV signals the demand for these vehicles. The actual cash that is involved in the transaction is fairly insignificant in the scheme of their manufacturing income.