Economics may take us to net zero all on its own

[smegal]

https://www.ft.com/content/967e1d77-8d3 ... BYuQ%3D%3D

[GarethC]

When building new renewable electricity plants is cheaper than running -existing- fossil fuel power stations, as it quite often already is in favourable locations, when added to the other issues with fossil fuels, that's hugely compelling on a global scale. I keep wondering how low costs can go. Global production continues to grow rapidly. If they become even cheaper, so much the better. It may become a flood of new capacity.

In another positive story, I saw a chart of global BEV sales over the last two years. The growth rate is absolutely staggering.

[AE-NMidlands]

When building new renewable electricity plants is cheaper than running -existing- fossil fuel power stations,

I have seen this statement before and it is a shame it is not being rephrased. I think I know what it means. An economist friend (right-wing, sceptic) says it is illiterate and meaningless, comparing apples and pears.

I think it means that "You can build and run a renewable generator (including paying off all the build costs - and the depreciation?) for less than it costs to just run a ff plant." However, nationally we have to recognise that there is an additional cost, of maintaining a back-up supply. I don't think it would be a problem because storage ought to be able to pay for itself, buying at times of surplus and releasing during peak hours. There are still construction and depreciation costs though, so you need a pretty good margin.
A

[GarethC]

Well, I am, (or at least was for many years) an economist, and, while not a perfect comparison I'll admit, it's not far off at all and very meaningful. Or rather, if we have to include all costs (fully loaded as it were), then we should also include the cost of climate damage or mitigation resulting from fossil fuel burning. And account for the subsidies fossil fuels enjoy. And sure, we can do it on that basis, and the argument for renewables goes from compelling to absolutely irrefutable.

[NikoV6]

In another positive story, I saw a chart of global BEV sales over the last two years. The growth rate is absolutely staggering.

Something a lot of mainstream investment "analysts" have completely missed.

80% new car sales 2030 BEV

[GarethC]

Here it is. An article about Tesla ostensibly, but if the numbers are correct quarterly sales of BEVs (I -think- excluding PHEVs) have grown by a factor of six. In just two years...

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/24/te ... rew-180-2/

[Mart]

When building new renewable electricity plants is cheaper than running -existing- fossil fuel power stations,

I have seen this statement before and it is a shame it is not being rephrased. I think I know what it means. An economist friend (right-wing, sceptic) says it is illiterate and meaningless, comparing apples and pears.

I think it means that "You can build and run a renewable generator (including paying off all the build costs - and the depreciation?) for less than it costs to just run a ff plant." However, nationally we have to recognise that there is an additional cost, of maintaining a back-up supply. I don't think it would be a problem because storage ought to be able to pay for itself, buying at times of surplus and releasing during peak hours. There are still construction and depreciation costs though, so you need a pretty good margin.
A

I like the statement. My understanding is that new RE generation is cheaper than existing FF generation, even if the old powerstation has fully amortized its build costs (CAPEX). Effectively, RE generation with CAPEX and OPEX costs, is still cheaper than the OPEX costs of a FF power station.

My understanding is, though I may be wrong, that the comparison is before including all of the externality costs of the FF generation too.



Separate comment - But back in 2012, on the MSE forum, I started going head to head with those arguing against PV subsidies, and calling them immoral, (who were of course also nuclear supporters). Apparently a subsidy paid by all, that only goes to those that take part is immoral? I thought that was pretty much the definition of a subsidy, but I digress. [Just to be clear, this was early 2012 before the HPC announcement, so they claimed that nuclear would never need any more subsidies.]

So my argument at the time, was that wealthy countries such as the UK (and led by Germany and Italy with their earlier FiT schemes) could afford to kickstart the PV revolution, create artificial increased demand, which in turn creates additional supply, leading to the learning curve / Wrights law, where technology costs reduce by X% for every doubling in supply. Thus our subsidy investments, meant that poorer countries that couldn't afford subsidies, would soon be able to afford the technology itself.

I specifically mentioned India repeatedly as it had announced a huge increase in coal power stations, but later reversed course, reduced the amount of coal generation (not zero, but less), whilst massively rolling out PV and wind. We ('we' being subsidy countries) effectively headed them off at the pass, to use some playful language, and helped create an alternative route for them to economically take.

The biggest win for investment in RE in the west, may well be the avoided emissions in the developing world, thanks to RE cost reductions.

And RE costs have fallen further and faster than even my overly positive brain thought was possible.

[Ken]

Yes it can in theory and technically but i dont see it economically. As we get close to zero who is going to build any RE which will have a very low capacity factor. Many very large users of leccy eg mining cos are installing an amount of RE up to a certain % depending on their curcumstances but never 100% , or in fact higher which it would need to be. They are finding the ROR balance point. For sure as RE becomes cheaper that balance point will shift.

Look at it personally. My 4.5kwp PV produces over the yr enough for my yearly requirements but if i wanted to be net zero even in December than i would need a PV size perhaps 50kwp and 50kwh batts. Quite simply not going to happen "on its own"

In the end i think we will be subsidising gas power and storage to stay open on standby to cope with the extremes. We will see.