Solar power expected to dominate electricity generation by 2050—even without more ambitious climate policies::In pursuit of the ambitious goal of reaching net-zero emissions, nations worldwide must expand their use of clean energy sources. In the case of solar energy, this change may already be upon us.
Its not directly in the article but the primary reason Solar is its a lot cheaper than electricity production from fuel, something like 1/4 - 1/10 the price depending on where in the world you are. An energy company is basically foolish to invest in oil based electricity production when Solar is so competitive and cheap and easy to maintain. Wind is a little cheaper where there is good airflow but the maintenance cost is higher especially for offshore. Both however are so much cheaper than Nuclear and especially than oil/drilling fuels that its hard to see much real investment in those older technologies.
There has been a lot of recent complaints around the UK’s granting of further drilling rights in the North sea for Oil. I think the companies taking those up haven’t yet come to terms with the fact there is a good chance those ventures drive their companies to bankruptcy because they wont be competitive as EVs and Solar/Wind take over due to cost savings.
The cost of solar and wind is becoming so attractive, it’s hard to see why anyone would do otherwise.
The elephant in the room (at least for the US; I’m not as familiar with UK policies) are the subsidies. It sparks new investments because many of the incentives are specifically related to new projects. Other ones mess with the valuation of the equipment, making long term tax burden much lower. It’s not the only energy industry to receive subsidies. But it’s pretty asinine to continue to support the one that’s destroying our world.
“In one case, it’s going to profit, amplifying the incumbent status of the oil and gas industry. In another, under more aggressive decarbonization policy and low oil and gas prices, it’s actively working against the climate goal by spurring additional production.”
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/subsidies-really-do-matter-to-the-us-oil-gas-industry-one-in-particular
UK we do a reverse subsidiary system, the most expensive method of production sets the per unit price for all methods. So we effectively apply tariffs to the consumer for renewables as they are usually our cheapest method of producing energy. Yes its as fucking stupid as it sounds, and yes it is on purpose that we have yet to address this.
It kind of makes sense at the start as it incentivized companies to invest in renewables and it was much more expensive to produce back then, but now it has become a lot cheaper for renewables it should be urgently fixed as we still have excessively high energy pricing. However we have a Prime Minster who thinks being anti green means votes so we get the opposite.
Thanks for sharing that info. Definitely sounds like it might have been a good idea in the past but now overdo for a change. Sad that the current PM wants to continue destruction to get votes.
Seems like a good example of how policies need to be implemented with a forward-thinking mentality. Can’t rely on future changes.
I keep telling people that the economics of nuclear - especially new plants - just doesn’t work, but here and on Reddit it seems to be a very bitter pill that many are not ready to swallow.
The time of nuclear energy has come and gone. We missed it.
I’m not some anti-nuclear energy hippie. I took nuclear reactor design courses at uni. But you just can’t make money that way anymore.
Yup. The pro-nuclear lot have gotten stuck with talking points that were valid against Greenpeace in the 90s. I argued the same way for many years. However, I also saw how the numbers have changed over the decades. There’s a reason nobody with money to invest in the energy sector wants to bother with nuclear at all; the US government has been willing to sign off on new nuclear plants, but nobody is trying. Nor is there any reason to subsidize it when those same subsidies could go towards storage for solar and wind.
The places we maybe want to subsidze it is in non-traditional places (ships) and reusing our old nuclear waste. Not the grid as a whole, though. The opportunity cost would be terrible.
Is it though? I rather would have renewables. But if you look at the LCOE then it isn’t that bad at all
Really?
Yes really.
Molten salt reactors are not significantly cheaper to build own or operate, on the contrary. I’m making an economic argument here.
If you put economics before the environment then sure, nuclear’s not viable, never was.
And oil’s only viable because of mass subsidies and tax exemptions.
Wait what? Surely nuclear gets less viable if you factor in the cost of cleaning up after yourself.
That, and massive externalization.
Those molten salt reactors can run on what the current reactors create as nuclear waste. They actually help with the cleanup process by breaking the radioactive waste down to a few very short lived ions that cease to be radioactive quite quickly. The other nice part about them is that you can’t make weapons with them.
I’m in favor of subsidizing nuclear reactors that can reuse waste. That’s a better idea than the current strategy of letting it sit around, or the potential future of burying it and hoping nobody digs it up again millennia from now.
There is little other reason to bother with nuclear anymore.
I’m familiar with the technology. It’s great.
It won’t get built because you can’t make money off it without running the risk of government changing its mind as soon as you’re done building the thing.
See also, theme park Kalkar.
And these numbers don’t even take into account the question of what will happen to fossil fuel companies if society / states start to make them accountable for even a tiny fraction of the environmental damage their business model has caused.