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.

I worked on a phase 0 grant submission team in a college class a couple years ago on the operations and finance end with other teams in other schools - CS/engineering, etc - for an underwater energy storage system.

Essentially everything was faked. The math didn't check out and the engineering students called this out over and over. It just didn't work and even if it did they would almost never recoup their costs. But grant approved, CEO who worked with us all who was very bright always brushing us off if we touch if real cost outside of being almost fully subsidized. His firm has been doing this with gas and solar since the 90s, seemed pretty cool till you see how the sausage is made. To be honest a lot of what his firm made was real functional stuff, but this cash grab while Biden was throwing around wind money was crazy.

It was absolutely wild to realize all this was just a game

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

not on the same scale, but on highschool once a kind teacher that really liked solar asked us (it was a technical school with electricity specialization) to calculate the cost of putting solar panel on her house so it'd have 24/7 solar powered electricity.

so solar + batieres + the cost of installing it all. She was a philosophy teacher, so she expected to be more expensive.

it turned out to be a disputatious amount more expensive, to the point that it'd have been cheaper to buy a new house after using it for 10 years levels of more expensive since Argentina didn't give any subsidies and we'd had had to import almost all of it. (so extra cost of tariff)

Solar surely must have improved ever since (we did that around 2010) but i doubt it became good enough even now xD

Assuming a null hypothesis that interventions in the free market introduce inefficiencies is a great way to not be surprised.