The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

[CountDeMoney]

I think of fossil fuels as stored energy. They are basically a incredibly useful way to store really impressive amounts of energy in a form that is relatively easily turned into power.

It is like we humans have found a shitload of batteries lying around waiting for us to use.

The problem is there are a finite number of these batteries, and a finite amount of energy stored in them. Their existence has radically improved the human condition, without question, since they are "free" energy.

But this is wrong.

There is a virtually unlimited amount of batteries that exist.  The question is "how much do you want to pay to extract these batteries"?  And as technology improves, the cost of extracting these batteries decreases.

There are some very good reasons to limit our use of fossil fuels.  But "we're going to run out" is not one of them.

As the author himself points out, we simply discover new batteries.  HEY LETS SEE IF THIS BURNS

[The Minsky Moment]

The premise is not original to the author though.  There are many in the green movement that argue quite loudly that fossil fuel use is 'unethical', so it's quite natural some more rational people would want to make the counter-argument.

I've never found fight stupid with stupid to be convincing.

[Berkut]

The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever.

It will last longer than our lifetimes.

Maybe true, but not necessarily. Besides, some of us are capable of concern beyond ourselves.

But there are many other sources of "free energy" out there: the sun (through sunlight), atoms, among others.

Those other things are not free though, since we cannot actually exploit them at the moment. So relative to the cost of fossil fuels, they are actually very expensive.

[Berkut]

The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever.

It will last longer than our lifetimes.

Maybe true, but not necessarily. Besides, some of us are capable of concern beyond ourselves.

But there are many other sources of "free energy" out there: the sun (through sunlight), atoms, among others.

Those other things are not free though, since we cannot actually exploit them at the moment. So relative to the cost of fossil fuels, they are actually very expensive.

The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever. And it seems very unlikely (but not impossible) that we will find a way of obtaining a replacement for all that energy before we run out of batteries. And we've created a society that likely cannot function at its current level without access to that kind of readily available energy.

We have quite a lot of batteries.  The amount of proven reserves has increases steadily since coal and oil first began to be used in the 19th century.  In other words, for the last 100 years, our "store" of batteries has been filling up faster then we can use the batteries.  What has happened over the past decade or so is that the cost to make the newer batteries has gone up and is likely to keep going up.  So again this is really more of cost issue than a problem of literally running out.

On the other side, we do have plenty of replacements - nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geo.  For some of them - namely solar - costs have been declining nicely and are likely to continue to do so.  There are technical problems involved with much wider or ubiquitous use of clean options.  But if the world HAD to make the transition quickly it could be done.  Again the question is simply cost.

Granted - my use of the term "free" is probably better defined as "A hell of a lot cheaper than the alternatives" or even "really damn cheap relative to what you get out of it".

Compared to, for example, the cost of nuclear energy, fossil fuel energy is really damn cheap (as long as we are ignoring external costs, of course, which we mostly do).

And yes, the amount of batteries we find certainly does keep going up, but that is to be expected, since we haven't looked everywhere yet, and our ability to look in otherwise unknown places improves. But that cannot go on forever either - there is a finite number of places to look, even if we haven't defined what that finite number is...

[CountDeMoney]

Those other things are not free though, since we cannot actually exploit them at the moment. So relative to the cost of fossil fuels, they are actually very expensive.

Nuclear power plants have extraordinary build costs and initial capital requirements, but once they're online and running, they're practically free money compared to fossil fuel generation.

[Berkut]

Those other things are not free though, since we cannot actually exploit them at the moment. So relative to the cost of fossil fuels, they are actually very expensive.

Nuclear power plants have extraordinary build costs and initial capital requirements, but once they're online and running, they're practically free money compared to fossil fuel generation.

Yeah, if we ignore the incredible costs, then they are practically free.

[The Minsky Moment]

Those other things are not free though, since we cannot actually exploit them at the moment. So relative to the cost of fossil fuels, they are actually very expensive.

The EIA puts numbers on these things (levelized costs) that include capital construction costs.  In levelized kwh equivalent all in:

Combined cycle gas (no carbon capture etc): 65
Hydro: 84
Conventional coal: 95
"Advanced" nuclear: 96
Onshore wind: 85
Offshore wind: 204
Solar Photovoltaic: 130

You can see right away why coal is doomed . . .
The EIA doesn't say exactly how they calculated the construction cost on nuclear and since there has been so little new build that is obviously an area to question.  But if the US decided to get back to mass build of nuclear those costs could probably settle down. 
Onshore wind is already quite competitive.
Solar PV is still double cost of the FF alternative, but these costs are steadily declining.  For its 2040 estimate, EIA is guessing gas costs go up to the high 78-80 and solar PV down to 110. 

So yes we would have to pay more to go more renewable but it would not be cripplingly ruinous.

[alfred russel]

The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever.

It will last longer than our lifetimes.

Maybe true, but not necessarily. Besides, some of us are capable of concern beyond ourselves.

I don't understand why I am getting a snide remark like that.

Lets suppose fossil fuels last for 50 more years, still within the life span of some of us. Why worry about something so distant? We went from WWI biplanes to the moon in roughly that time period. Technology is increasing incredibly quickly and alternative fuels are a major focus of research, and as MM is posting they are already increasing affordable.

[Siege]

Natural selection.
Those who refuse to to use fossil fuel shall serve those who don't.
Until the next energy revolution.
Right now the West is being slowly selected out.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, if we ignore the incredible costs, then they are practically free.

Over 100 nuclear reactors in this country are making very good money for their masters, with substantial lower operational costs than ripping off mountain tops and poisoning aquifers.  Douchebag attitude duly noted, however.

[Berkut]

Noting that if you ignore how much things cost, they are practically free is a "douchebag attitude"? Harsh.

[Siege]

Nuclear energy is the wave of the future.
To the Singulaty, March!

[CountDeMoney]

Stop hating nuclear power, B.

Stop rooting for nuclear power, Siege.

[Siege]

Stop hating nuclear power, B.

Stop rooting for nuclear power, Siege.

You never fucking happy with nothing, are you?

[Berkut]

I don't hate nuke power at all. I am a big supporter, in fact, and find it ridiculous that we don't use a lot more of it.

I just think comments like "Hey, if you ignore how much it costs, and yeah, that is A LOT!!!!!, then nuke power is practically free!" are funny enough to be worth poking you on.