Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

Price often condenses information and provides clarity.

For a while, solar/wind proponents have operated with two simultaneous but generally conflicting narratives.

-One narrative is that solar/wind are more environmentally friendly and should be subsidized. To the extent that they don't grow sufficiently fast, it's because we're not doing enough to artificially boost their adoption.

-The other narrative is continually remind how cheap solar/wind have become. Proponents will post charts/studies showing that solar/wind are cheaper than other types of energy, and that it "just makes sense now". In practice, a lot of caveats are often excluded.

The thing is, price usually cuts through confusion on these types of matters. Especially price over a significant amount of time and space, rather than just price in a snapshot of time and locality.

If solar/wind are indeed cheaper than other energy sources, why aren't they being built in place of others? Why isn't it a no-brainer for any megacorp to just install terawatts of them all over? For example, the percentage growth of solar power in India over the past 5-10 years is impressive, but in terms of raw numbers, way more coal power was brought online during that period than solar. The answer is often that they're *not actually* cheaper in an all-inclusive sense. And if they're not cheaper, why is that? The answer is often because they're more materially intensive, less durable, and not as environmentally friendly as many proponents argue, either. That cost (panels, turbines, batteries, maintenance, decommissioning, and replacement) is going somewhere, and usually quite materially.

That's not to say that solar/wind don't have uses (they do), but their usage is often hamfisted into places where they're not the most economic choice, and where they are not the most economic choice, it's often because they're not necessarily the most environmental choice either.

Price is often ignored or fudged in analysis, but it really does provide a powerful signal in aggregate that's worth paying attention to.

Solar power satellites that beam down energy via microwaves anywhere in the world solves this but like most energy alternatives it undermines the energy monopolies.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

It’s expensive and nontrivial to do, though. In a far enough future we might have more of it (I did a deep dive on this for sci fi purposes).

There are multiple countries in the world; there are no global energy monopolies. Any sufficiently capitalized company can work on this and undercut others. China in particular is a very pragmatic jurisdiction when it comes to energy and their answer is usually “all of the above, at scale, and cheaply”. So if a company invents something cheap like that, China would be a massive customer. So would many others.

It’s much more affordable today thanks to private companies like SpaceX. I read before that the costs wouldn’t be too dissimilar to a large nuclear plant. Doesn’t OPEC control oil supply? And what about the pipeline politics? There must be some sort of energy cartel?

OPEC controls a minority of oil, but a sizable chunk, which collectively helps them keep the price higher than it otherwise would be if they didn’t coordinate.

In other words, OPEC theoretically incentivizes non-oil energy sources by increasing the cost of oil. It doesn’t hinder other energy sources.