Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_ire1b3l wrote

Reply to comment by Careful_Square1742 in Why Bernie rocks! He's not wrong. by DCLexiLou

That makes a lot of sense. Due to the EROI, it's almost never cheaper (at least right now) to go with renewables.

I think flipping the subsidies makes sense. Even if the goal is not switching to renewables, the fact we still subsidize such a highly profitable industry (oil) is baffling.

1

Careful_Square1742 t1_ire2uau wrote

the tax incentives for renewables is the only thing that makes renewables make financial sense. fortunately the incentives just got extended.

renewables are close to cost parity with expensive fossil fuels like coal, but not natural gas - yet. I can heat my home for $700/ year on the VT gas network, but it'll cost me twice that to use a heat pump.

if I lived outside the gas network and used LP or oil, a heat pump would be far cheaper, even when you factor in needing backup heat on the coldest days.

on utility scale, however we've got a way to go. now if we stopped subsidizing coal and gas, the cost would skyrocket and push us towards a renewable system.

the cost of changing has to be less than the cost of staying the same, and we keep fossil fuels artificially cheap. we are our own worst enemy

2

Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_ireec59 wrote

To your last point: "the cost of changing has to be less than the cost of staying the same..."

Part of the issue here is we only look at the short-term dollar signs. We don't assign any cost to maintaining the status quo and heating up the planet. Increased storms (and storm damage), lowered crop yields, droughts, etc. These costs annually will be in the billions in the coming decades.

In that sense, low-carbon energy is far cheaper than fossil fuels even without the subsidies.

1

Careful_Square1742 t1_irehhji wrote

you're absolutely right.

someone needs to do a net present value calculation on a trillion dollar investment's return vs 50 years of climate change at 8% (what was considered to be a decent return in the market a couple years ago)

the challenge will be getting consensus on what the cost of climate change is annually, since a good sized chunk of the us population doesn't think it's real.

2

Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_irev4mt wrote

Exactly. Calculations like that need to be ran based on data available and incorporated into policy.

Fortunately companies are beginning to see the threat in the long-term, which is good to see. Companies think longer term than most people or politicians, so I see some hope there.

Case in point: several auto manufacturers have pledged to no longer sell ICE cars in 10-15 years. That's certainly not from regulatory pressure.

1