Green Energy Revolution Megathread

[Siege]

No incentives are needed. We will demonstrate it is better then everybody will follow suit, even the local party chiefs.

Somehow I don't think you or I know what goes on in the heads of the local party chiefs.  They seem to operate in their own worlds.  What I am quite sure is that global warming doesn't feature in their calculus

Global warming is a hoax.

[11B4V]

Yes, you're a hoax.

[Valmy]

Global warming is a hoax.

Maybe. What does that have to do with what we are talking about? Didn't I already address this? Why are you randomly choosing to answer this non sequitur almost a month after it was made?

[Valmy]

I have no doubt that India is building solar and wind plants.  But unlike, say, Europe, they aren't replacing the coal plants with these new energy sources.  They are doing both.  India doubling its coal production and consumption is more than enough to offset the planned changes brought about by whatever solar and wind plants they plan to build. 

So? Before it would have been entirely Coal. Now coal is being extracted to service old technology. Soon they will not extract coal but use superior technologies for their energy needs.

I am sure at some point a few decades ago India and China were also producing massive amounts of typewriters but that was not proof that typewriters were about to dominate computers.

[Monoriu]

So? Before it would have been entirely Coal. Now coal is being extracted to service old technology. Soon they will not extract coal but use superior technologies for their energy needs.

I am sure at some point a few decades ago India and China were also producing massive amounts of typewriters but that was not proof that typewriters were about to dominate computers.

I don't think the analogy works.  Computers are clearly superior to typewriters.  The outputs they produce are completely different.  Whereas coal and solar energy are just different ways of producing the same thing, namely electricity.  They represent inputs to the system only.  As a consumer, I clearly want a computer, not a typewriter.  But I can't care less how the electricity is produced.  The only things I care are price, availability and reliability. 

[Admiral Yi]

Presumably you care whether you breathe air or chew it.

[Monoriu]

Presumably you care whether you breathe air or chew it.

Well that's the thing.  My individual actions have absolutely no bearing on the quality of the air that I breathe in.  I won't breathe better air if I stop using electricity, or install solar panels in my hyperspace rooftop, because that's the only place I can put them.   I care, but there is nothing I can do about it, hence I don't care. 

[Admiral Yi]

What can you do about the price, availability, and reliability of electricity?

[Monoriu]

What can you do about the price, availability, and reliability of electricity?

The difference is that whether the Hong Kong electricity generating capacity runs on coal, nuclear or natural gas is only a small part of the puzzle that determines the quality of the air that I breathe in.  Other major contributing factors are how much pollutants the cars and ships produce, everything that happens on the mainland side, and the direction of the wind etc. 

If the price of electricity is too high, I can use less.  That directly reduces my electricity bill.  But even if I live like a stoneage caveman, there will be absolutely no change to my air quality. 

[CountDeMoney]

A Trident II would change your air quality, you nasty little cuss.

[Valmy]

The only things I care are price, availability and reliability. 

They why are you such a fan of a system that is backwards, antiquated, and clearly inferior in all three categories?

[Monoriu]

The only things I care are price, availability and reliability. 

They why are you such a fan of a system that is backwards, antiquated, and clearly inferior in all three categories?

First I don't think coal is inferior.  It is an established technology that is relatively inexpensive, easy to set up, with a stable supply chain.  If global warming isn't a consideration, coal is a very viable choice in public policy.  Solar and wind are still not mainstream, they require specific know-how and a new supply chain needs to be set up.  I also have a lot of doubt over the claimed advantages.  Let's face it, you guys are doing it for global warming.  If that is discounted, I don't believe that coal is totally uncompetitive.   

Secondly, I am not saying "Coal is the future!!!111".  I am saying, despite the claim that a green energy revolution is supposed to be happening, many governments are still choosing coal.  Once built, the coal power stations will run for decades.  In Europe, the governments are using solar and wind to replace coal.  In Asia, they are building lots of solar panels, but an even greater amount of coal power capacity at the same time.  Whatever climate goals that you guys want to achieve may well be unattainable.     

[Admiral Yi]

Solar and wind are still not mainstream, they require specific know-how and a new supply chain needs to be set up.

Surely we can find wind and sunshine producers if we look hard enough.

[dps]

The only things I care are price, availability and reliability. 

As far as availability and reliability is concerned, with electricity, the transmission system is far, far more of a factor than any question of how the electricity is generated.  When people lose electric service, it's because some transformers blew or because a storm knocked down electric lines, not because the power station quit generating electricity.  At least, that's how it works in any country with a decent electric net.  God only knows how it works in China--probably people lose electric service because someone forgot to pay the proper bribes to the correct party chief, but that still doesn't really have anything to do with the how the electricity was actually generated.

As far a price is concerned, I'm not sure it would make any difference to the actual consumer.  All (or almost all ) of the cost of solar or wind power is upfront--once you've built the plant, the wind sunshine and wind are just there--you don't have to go explore for them or have someone mine them.  With coal, even if you are using existing mines that won't run out for decades, you've still got to pay someone to mine the stuff, not that I figure coal miners in China are getting rich or anything.

And anyway, this bit about "I only care about thing I can do something about" is bullshit in this context.  Yeah, you can somewhat control the cost of the electricity you use by cutting back and using less, but you can't do anything about the actual price of it, much less the availability or reliability.  And you can't do anything about how China chooses to produce electricity, either, so if you only care about things you can do something about, why are you so opposed to new technologies?

[Monoriu]

The only things I care are price, availability and reliability. 

As far as availability and reliability is concerned, with electricity, the transmission system is far, far more of a factor than any question of how the electricity is generated.  When people lose electric service, it's because some transformers blew or because a storm knocked down electric lines, not because the power station quit generating electricity.  At least, that's how it works in any country with a decent electric net.  God only knows how it works in China--probably people lose electric service because someone forgot to pay the proper bribes to the correct party chief, but that still doesn't really have anything to do with the how the electricity was actually generated.

As far a price is concerned, I'm not sure it would make any difference to the actual consumer.  All (or almost all ) of the cost of solar or wind power is upfront--once you've built the plant, the wind sunshine and wind are just there--you don't have to go explore for them or have someone mine them.  With coal, even if you are using existing mines that won't run out for decades, you've still got to pay someone to mine the stuff, not that I figure coal miners in China are getting rich or anything.

And anyway, this bit about "I only care about thing I can do something about" is bullshit in this context.  Yeah, you can somewhat control the cost of the electricity you use by cutting back and using less, but you can't do anything about the actual price of it, much less the availability or reliability.  And you can't do anything about how China chooses to produce electricity, either, so if you only care about things you can do something about, why are you so opposed to new technologies?

I don't think I am opposed to new technologies, otherwise I'll still be using a typewriter and I won't be typing on an internet forum    I think we should use computers instead of typewriters.  We should use fuel sources that are cheaper and more reliable.  People keep saying that solar and wind are better, but I am not entirely convinced.  Governments aren't stupid.  People have abandoned typewriters for computers for good reason.  But it seems to me that many governments in Asia are still on the side of coal.  I think there are good reasons for that decision rather than simply "they are opposed to new technologies".  Because it is blatently obvious that the people who advocate solar and wind have an ulterior motive in combating global warming.  The fuel that, say, Hong Kong chooses should be based on cost and reliability considerations, not carbon emissions.  If the numbers add up and it is cheaper and easier to use solar, I'm all for it.  But so far I am not convinced that solar and wind beat coal or other fossil fuels on cost and considerations other than global warming.