Recent searches
Search options
I have an oped in the @nytimes about the renewable energy transition. Gift link:
It's long been said by my conservative friends that the "only solution to climate change is to develop technologies that are cheaper than fossil fuels and can address climate change without additional cost."
When that happens, people will follow their self interest and switch to renewable energy.
The first part has happened! Renewable energy is now cheaper in many applications than fossil fuels.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than
And, indeed, we see the market switching.
https://www.climatecentral.org/report/solar-and-wind-power-2024
But the idea that fossil fuel interests would let the market beat fossil fuels is ridiculous. This is possibly the richest and most powerful industry in the history of the world and they will fight tooth and nail to keep us using fossil fuels.
One of the ways they're fighting back: they have pivoted from spreading climate misinformation to spreading renewable energy misinformation.
In fact, many of the people who used to spread climate misinformation are now spreading energy misinformation.
This misinformation then acts as the basis for local people to oppose renewable energy projects and for legislators to write laws that disadvantage renewable energy.
Some of the most egregious misinformation comes from "free-market" libertarian think tanks. Apparently, they define "freedom" as the freedom to force the rest of us to use fossil fuels.
Solving this will require us to push back on energy misinformation just like we've pushed back on climate misinformation over the past 20 years.
It's going to be a slog, but it has to be done.
@andrewdessler
"Alarmingly, fossil fuel interests are also looking to dictate how schoolchildren learn about the environment. Children are some of the most powerful messengers when it comes to climate awareness, so fossil fuel promoters are keen to shape their understanding from the start. They have succeeded in getting the Texas State Board of Education to reject textbooks that accurately depict the effects of climate change and extreme weather."
@andrewdessler :snap: this is one of the more dis-heartening facts about the arena of climate action for me as a citizen. (Thanks for your climate and weather explanations and posts.)
@andrewdessler The article addresses "externalities," but like most other assessments of fossil fuel costs, doesn't mention the labor cost of cleaning the schmutz ffs leave on every surface.
@andrewdessler @nytimes why have competition when you can capture regulators
@andrewdessler @nytimes can you tie this op-ed to the recent community solar ruling by the CPUC or in fact the whole NEM 3.0 fiasco?
With all this noise, how do we pick out the true stuff like the duck curve?
Excellent article!
Thank you for sharing it.
Thank you for writing it.
Thank you for getting it published.
cc: @nytimes
@andrewdessler @nytimes
Great piece. Applies to most countries outside of USA as well.
@andrewdessler @nytimes
Well said! This is exactly right. Not everyone is in board with making the much-needed switch to clean energy, even if they purport to be adherents to "the market".
@andrewdessler @nytimes You are correct that low duty cycle gas generation is expensive. The ten percent gas grid you describe will be under huge economic pressure to become a zero percent gas grid. And, with smaller overall revenue, the gas industry will be sponsoring less public corruption.
@andrewdessler @nytimes Even mid-merit gas can be more expensive than solar plus storage. At even lower duty cycle this becomes crippling for gas. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/04/22/solarstorage-can-outcompete-mid-merit-gas-units-not-just-peakers/