Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

idontneedfame t1_j6s0r3s wrote

Reply to comment by generic-web-user in No coal comeback: Europe’s renewable energy transition is in hyperdrive by Straight_Ad2258

renewable energy is cheaper to produce so the free market will lead to lower costs for everyone unless the free market isn't actually free because companies are conspiring against consumers to siphon off their money. well, good luck

37

imhere4themcomments t1_j6ut38c wrote

What kind of renewable energy is cheapest to produce? Most require large up front investments and lots of mining for batteries (energy storage) and solar panels and things of that nature. Curious what you see as the cheapest easiest way to produce clean energy.

0

kms2547 t1_j6v75l3 wrote

>What kind of renewable energy is cheapest to produce? Most require large up front investments

Whereas you can cheaply put an oil refinery together with some duct tape and moxie!

3

idontneedfame t1_j6wcagc wrote

According to Wikipedia, it's onshore wind. The large up front investments are true and the amortization period is longer than for fossil fuels but compared to the societal and long term/eternal costs of using fossil fuels and nuclear energy, the costs are neglectable

2

WikiSummarizerBot t1_j6wcbfr wrote

Cost of electricity by source

>Different methods of electricity generation can incur a variety of different costs, which can be divided into three general categories: 1) wholesale costs, or all costs paid by utilities associated with acquiring and distributing electricity to consumers, 2) retail costs paid by consumers, and 3) external costs, or externalities, imposed on society. Wholesale costs include initial capital, operations & maintenance (O&M), transmission, and costs of decommissioning. Depending on the local regulatory environment, some or all wholesale costs may be passed through to consumers.

Energy return on investment

>In energy economics and ecological energetics, energy return on investment (EROI), also sometimes called energy returned on energy invested (ERoEI), is the ratio of the amount of usable energy (the exergy) delivered from a particular energy resource to the amount of exergy used to obtain that energy resource.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

1

imhere4themcomments t1_j6wkxgl wrote

“Costs are neglectable”. So will the bank forgive my loan on renewables? How silly are these comments?

1

idontneedfame t1_j6wng74 wrote

well, if you have a "loan on renewables", you won't be paying money towards electricity production so you could use the money you saved to pay off your bank.

Neglectable in this case means that your long-term cost of conventional energy consumption is (very roughly) the same (give or take a few hundred over your lifetime, there are calulators online) as the cost of installing your own pv system.

if you want go to all the way and calculate the total economic value (think energy independency, avoided CO2 emissions, cleaner air, a future for your kids etc) producing your own power will be a lot cheaper.

2

imhere4themcomments t1_j6woehz wrote

You’ll just be in debt your whole life often giving your home as collateral so you’ll be unable to move or pay for kids college or other necessities but I get what you’re saying. If you’re willing to go into debt and sacrifice other things for it (and you’re fortunate enough to get approved for a loan) then sure.

1

idontneedfame t1_j6wv8iu wrote

you're right, this is obviously only something for people privileged enough to have their own house, good credit etc.

0

zgembo1337 t1_j6tahof wrote

What do you do on windless nights?

And why the fuck is everyone so aftaid of nuclear?!

−1

Virtus_Curiosa t1_j6th3p4 wrote

Renewable energy comes from more sources than just wind. Hydroelectric, solar panels, biomass, and geothermal to name a few.

Also a large part of the development of renewable energy sources is long term storage of that energy eg: batteries. So they charge up when the production peaks and get drained over time. ideally there would be a large enough buffer for the energy to remain consistent as the fluctuations in production ebb and flow.

Fukushima and Chernobyl. It's risk vs reward with nuclear energy. It's powerful and relatively clean energy, but when (not if) stuff goes wrong it can go REALLY wrong. Radiation is scary. People are completely right to be afraid of it. That said, you can be afraid of something and still realize it's usefulness and take appropriate precautions toward its use, learn from the mistakes made in the past and make a better system.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

It's a big list.

7

SeeminglyBlue t1_j82x4f2 wrote

compare that to coal accidents. nuclear is some of the safest energy we have.. the only reason people get scared is because of a massive disinformation campaign on the part of coal (whose power stations release more than 100 times the radioactive material per year than nuclear). when you start to compare the amount of lives lost and habitat destruction from fossil fuels, you learn that nuclear is a teddy bear compared to them.

1

Inariameme t1_j6u9cha wrote

it's called stored energy and there are a lot of creative ways to go about it

3

blackdragonstory t1_j6ste0n wrote

You know damn well it's gonna be expensive. They might make it cheaper than gas just to get the point of being cheaper but there is no way they won't get rich out of this if it becomes the standard.

−2