[kublikhan]

None of those is related to what we were originally discussing, if cost of renewables track cost of fossil fuels.
I mention that general inflation tracks energy inflation over decades to prove my point. You point to single year energy crisis. Neither increase in energy cost, not volatility has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

Actually, my original post was: "Cheap fossil fuels make renewables less competitive." And vice versa. You were skeptical if that was true. Shifting the discussion to talk about inflation averaged over multiple decades does not prove your point. I already posted multiple sources talking about how cheap fossil fuels tend to lead to diminishing interest in renewables. Here are some more:

In the 1970s, the federal government’s renewable energy program grew rapidly to include not only basic and applied research and development (R&D), but also participation in private sector initiatives. In the 1980s, this interest waned as the price of oil fell. In constant dollar (real) terms, government spending for R&D in renewable energy declined 90 percent from a peak of $875 million in 1979 to a low of $84 million in 1990.

Historically, lower fossil fuel prices have impacted renewable energy resources like kryptonite – for example in the 1980s and 1990s, when nascent solar, wind and geothermal markets in California keeled over as North America suddenly became awash in cheap oil and natural gas.

To fully comprehend the relationship between oil prices and renewable energy, it is essential to examine the historical trends. High oil prices tend to stimulate interest and investment in renewable energy, while low prices can slow down progress. For instance, during the oil crisis of the 1970s, there was a surge in research and development in renewable energy technologies.

Renewable Energy Focus

probably won't make it till 2060 for a "wait-and-see".
Let's do 2040 and let's do USA, only. You're the optimistic type. With all the legislation, innovation, investment and energy crisis, what's the ev share and renewable share by 2040?

For the US energy needs in 2040, maybe 70% fossil fuels and 30% non fossil fuels on the conservative side. Maybe 40% non fossil fuels for an accelerated case. I have not crunched the numbers for EVs, and I want to keep such discussions in the EV thread.

[theluckycountry]

Cheap fossil fuels make renewables less competitive.

It is not self evident to me that this is actually true.

kub just adds delusion on top of delusion. Yes cheap fossil fuels make renewables less competitive, why? Because "rebuildables" that employ renewable wind and solar use fossil fuels to make less efficient forms of energy production. This is so blatantly obvious, it's the reason electricity produced by them is so much more expensive. These dollar losses, like with your sunflowers, just escalate with higher fossil fuel prices. Rebuildables will always be less competitive because they will always be built from oil and coal.

The morons that claim solar panels produce more energy (over their lifetime) than they take to build are relying on studies that unanimously compare, not energy, but the dollar cost of coal and oil and compare that to the dollar cost realized by the solar panels over the stated (unrealistic) lifespans. Electricity, sold at twice the price nearly, and that after Massive government subsidies. It's like saying airline travel is the safest form of passenger transport, yes it is, per passenger mile! But you're traveling at 700 miles an hour, which skews the statistics. If it was instead measured by passenger travel time, trains and buses would come out on top. It's a marketing metric, like everything today. There are Lies, Damn Lies, and then Statistics.

But we don't have to worry about mass airline travel, that will a thing of the past soon. It was totally abolished during covid and covid was just the test case to see how the public would react to such natural consequences to peak oil. I still know people who get Booster shots for that flu lol, what morons. It's a total cash cow for the pharmaceuticals and they can't even see it.

[kublikhan]

As I stated before, you don't have a leg to stand on when talking about others being delusional Lucky. You consistently ignore anything that threatens your delusional world view. EV sales have not actually peaked and are rising. Lucky: Lies. Ford has not scrapped it's plan to build EVs. Lucky: Lies. GM has not actually thrown in the towel on EVs. Lucky: Lies. Solar PV panels generate more energy over their lifespan they they take to create them. Lucky: Lies. Higher fossil fuel prices make renewables more competitive. Lucky: Lies. You just continue to make up BS to fit your deluded world view.

The world is set to add a record amount of renewable electricity capacity this year as governments and consumers seek to offset high energy prices and take advantage of a boom in solar power.

The International Energy Agency said high fossil fuel prices — resulting from Russia’s attack on Ukraine — and concerns about energy security had boosted the rollout of solar and wind power installations, which are expected to reach 440 gigawatts in 2023. That’s about a third more than the world added the previous year.

“The global energy crisis has shown renewables are critical for making energy supplies not just cleaner but also more secure and affordable,” said Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director.

“Governments are responding with efforts to deploy them faster,” he said. Recent incentives to install renewables introduced by the Biden administration are already driving a significant uptake in the United States.

The report forecast that several European countries, including Spain, Germany and Ireland, will see wind and solar’s combined share of their overall annual electricity generation top 40% by 2024.

Renewable energy surges, driven by solar boom and high fuel prices, report finds

The first truly global energy crisis, triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has sparked unprecedented momentum for renewables. Fossil fuel supply disruptions have underlined the energy security benefits of domestically generated renewable electricity, leading many countries to strengthen policies supporting renewables. Meanwhile, higher fossil fuel prices worldwide have improved the competitiveness of solar PV and wind generation against other fuels.

Renewable capacity expansion in the next five years will be much faster than what was expected just a year ago. Over 2022-2027, renewables are seen growing by almost 2 400 GW in our main forecast, equal to the entire installed power capacity of China today. That’s an 85% acceleration from the previous five years, and almost 30% higher than what was forecast in last year’s report, making it our largest ever upward revision. Renewables are set to account for over 90% of global electricity capacity expansion over the forecast period.

IEA: Executive summary

The fossil fuel price crisis has accelerated the competitiveness of renewable power. Around 86 per cent (187 gigawatts) of all the newly commissioned renewable capacity in 2022 had lower costs than fossil fuel-fired electricity.

IRENA’s Director-General Francesco La Camera said: “IRENA sees 2022 as a veritable turning point in the deployment for renewables as its cost-competitiveness has never been greater despite the lingering commodity and equipment cost inflation around the world.”

IRENA’s Director-General Francesco La Camera said: “IRENA sees 2022 as a veritable turning point in the deployment for renewables as its cost-competitiveness has never been greater despite the lingering commodity and equipment cost inflation around the world. The most affected regions by the historic price shock were remarkably resilient, in large part thanks to the massive increase of solar and wind in the last decade.”

Renewables Competitiveness Accelerates, Despite Cost Inflation

High coal and fossil gas prices in 2021 and 2022 will also profoundly deteriorate the competitiveness of fossil fuels and make solar and wind even more attractive. With an unprecedented surge in European fossil gas prices for example, new fossil gas generation in Europe will increasingly become uneconomic over its lifetime, increasing the risk of stranded assets.

Renewable Power Remains Cost-Competitive amid Fossil Fuel Crisis

[mousepad]

I already posted multiple sources talking about how cheap fossil fuels tend to lead to diminishing interest in renewables.

Yes, diminishing interest. That has nothing to do with initial claim of "competitiveness".

Currently, almost all work is powered by fossil fuel. If fossil fuel goes up, so does everything else. Including solar panels. Now, please, don't get started on the short term blips, again. Once the world is powered by majority renewables, then you can argue that we are decoupled from fossil. No later than that it will become obvious if renewables can carry their own load while providing enough surplus for a cozy modern life.

[kublikhan]

Yes, diminishing interest. That has nothing to do with initial claim of "competitiveness".

Currently, almost all work is powered by fossil fuel. If fossil fuel goes up, so does everything else. Including solar panels. Now, please, don't get started on the short term blips, again. Once the world is powered by majority renewables, then you can argue that we are decoupled from fossil. No later than that it will become obvious if renewables can carry their own load while providing enough surplus for a cozy modern life.

You continue to make the same mistake. All work is powered by fossil fuels, true. However not all work consumes fossil fuels at the same rate. Work that consumes fossil fuels at a higher rate(such as a coal or natural gas plant) than other work(such as solar PV) will be at a competitive disadvantage when fossil prices rise. This is not limited to energy. Say you have two business rivals competing with each other. Now both are slammed with one of their inputs suddenly rising in cost. One business owner decides to ride it out and hope for the best. The other changes his process to reduce his consumption of the high cost input item. The second business owner is now at a competitive advantage because he is consuming less of the high-cost input. This is exactly the case with fossil fuel plants vs solar PV. Most of the total cost of fossil fuel plants is for the raw fuel itself. So they are hit disproportionately harder when those fuel costs go up. We don't have to sit around and see if this is true or not because we have already seen the results with a huge surge in renewable construction. This is not just my conclusion. This is the conclusion of people who study these systems for a living.

higher fossil fuel prices worldwide have improved the competitiveness of solar PV and wind generation against other fuels.

Renewable capacity expansion in the next five years will be much faster than what was expected just a year ago. Over 2022-2027, renewables are seen growing by almost 2 400 GW in our main forecast, equal to the entire installed power capacity of China today. That’s an 85% acceleration from the previous five years, and almost 30% higher than what was forecast in last year’s report, making it our largest ever upward revision. Renewables are set to account for over 90% of global electricity capacity expansion over the forecast period.

IEA: Executive summary

The fossil fuel price crisis has accelerated the competitiveness of renewable power. Around 86 per cent (187 gigawatts) of all the newly commissioned renewable capacity in 2022 had lower costs than fossil fuel-fired electricity.

IRENA’s Director-General Francesco La Camera said: “IRENA sees 2022 as a veritable turning point in the deployment for renewables as its cost-competitiveness has never been greater despite the lingering commodity and equipment cost inflation around the world.”

Renewables Competitiveness Accelerates, Despite Cost Inflation

Are you giving this point scant attention because it is 'short term'? Fossil fuel prices are volatile by their nature. And the economic pain hits hard during that 'short term'. And that economic pain can end up becoming a driver for changes to energy systems, even if prices later come down. We saw this recently with accelerated deployments of renewables. Even though fossil fuel prices have largely come down from their 2022 highs, renewable deployments rose even higher in 2023. When the energy crisis hit in the 70s, France retooled their power sector to nuclear. Even though fossil fuel prices eventually collapsed in the mid 80s through 90s, France's power sector remained predominately nuclear. So even 'short term blips' can end up having long term repercussions.

However I did not claim we are decoupled from fossil fuels. In fact, I said the opposite. You asked me where the US would be at in 2040. I said 70% of our energy would still come from fossil fuels. This to me does not say 'decoupled'. It seems to me you took a simple observation I was making on the price competitiveness of renewables and took it much farther than I did. Just as fossil fuels have hidden costs(climate change, pollution, depletion, etc), so too do renewables have hidden costs. Their intermittent nature being one of the biggest, IMHO. To me it seems a bit unfair to compare price competitiveness on levelized costs alone when fossil fuels and nuclear provide stable baseload power while most renewables provide less value per GW because of their intermittent nature. And then you have to compensate for that by adding energy storage and backup power. Did you know that unlike the US which largely uses natural gas for backup power, China is using coal power plants for backup power? China says they need lots of coal backup for renewables. This creates a perverse incentive for China to add more coal power plants the more solar and wind it has. Now China also has a fragmented grid that exacerbates this problem, but it is still and issue and very far from 'decoupled' from fossil fuels.

[mousepad]

All work is powered by fossil fuels, true. However not all work consumes fossil fuels at the same rate. Work that consumes fossil fuels at a higher rate(such as a coal or natural gas plant) than other work(such as solar PV) will be at a competitive disadvantage when fossil prices rise.

To do any work requires energy. And practically all energy today is provided by fossil. The carpenter that drives a nail into your 2-by-4 requires food. That food is grown at a cost of 10 calories of fuel for 1 calorie of food. Same for the paper pushers, same for anything that is built, done or made. Including solar and windmills and the coffee you drink. So once general inflation follows the cost of renewables instead of the cost of fossil fuel I will know renewables can carry their weight and then some. But we're not there yet and till then all claims are speculation.

We don't have to sit around and see if this is true or not because we have already seen the results with a huge surge in renewable construction.

Yes, can't disagree. But that is no proof for renewables able to carry their own weight.

This is the conclusion of people who study these systems for a living.

I think that is probably the best argument to be suspicious of it all. Too-cheap-to-meter and other wild claims by attention seeking paper producing pseudo university types.
First they claim in endless studies how cheap renewables are. Yes Lazard, I'm talking to you!! and once it didn't work out that well, they start to rationalize this gem:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmurra ... 873ea061d5

The Paradox of Declining Renewable Costs and Rising Electricity Prices

In fact, I said the opposite. You asked me where the US would be at in 2040. I said 70% of our energy would still come from fossil fuels. This to me does not say 'decoupled'. It seems to me you took a simple observation I was making on the price competitiveness of renewables and took it much farther than I did. Just as fossil fuels have hidden costs(climate change, pollution, depletion, etc), so too do renewables have hidden costs. Their intermittent nature being one of the biggest, IMHO. To me it seems a bit unfair to compare price competitiveness on levelized costs alone when fossil fuels and nuclear provide stable baseload power while most renewables provide less value per GW because of their intermittent nature. And then you have to compensate for that by adding energy storage and backup power. Did you know that unlike the US which largely uses natural gas for backup power, China is using coal power plants for backup power? China says they need lots of coal backup for renewables. This creates a perverse incentive for China to add more coal power plants the more solar and wind it has. Now China also has a fragmented grid that exacerbates this problem, but it is still and issue and very far from 'decoupled' from fossil fuels.

Again, I agree with you. However, the complexity of it all does prevent me to come to a conclusion. That's why I say we have to wait and see. Once a large geographic region including mining and old-skool heavy manufacturing and high tech is powered by a significant amount of renewables (let's say 50%) while maintaining an expected standard of living, at that point I will sway to your direction. A blurp like germania that outsources most of it's heavy industry while relying on backup electricity from france/poland/bulgaria and charges 40 euro cents for 1kWh don't count.

[kublikhan]

I am not talking about crystal ball predictions of the future. I am talking about observations of the past. And we have already seen high fossil fuel prices drive up renewable deployments. IE, renewable competitiveness increases during periods of high fossil fuel prices. However just because renewables got more competitive, that doesn't necessarily mean they are the best value overall. Perhaps their starting position was high uncompetitive. Now with high fossil fuel prices, slightly less so. For example: Even if renewables appear on first glance to be the better option because of better levelized costs, once you add in hidden costs for backup power, battery storage, etc they make not look like such a great value anymore.

Also, I think you are being too harsh on Lazard. Lazard actually warns about that dangers of using only levelized costs comparisons between fossil fuels and renewables without accounting for hidden costs. The EIA warns about this as well. It is not their fault that talking heads take the simplistic numbers churned out and turn them into renewable fluff pieces that exclude all the caveats. Here is Lazard's warning:

“Direct comparisons to “competing” renewable energy generation technologies must take into account issues such as dispatch characteristics (e.g., baseload and/or dispatchable intermediate capacity vs. those of peaking or intermittent technologies).

Despite convergence in the LCOE of certain renewable energy and conventional generation technologies, direct comparisons must take into account issues such as location (e.g., centralized vs. distributed) and dispatch characteristics (e.g., baseload and/or dispatchable intermediate capacity vs. peaking or intermittent technologies)”

It is similar to the warning given by the EIA:

Actual plant investment decisions consider the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project, which involve many other factors not reflected in LCOE (or LCOS) values. One factor is the projected utilization rate, which depends on the varying amount of electricity required over time and the existing resource mix in an area where additional capacity is needed. A related factor is the capacity value, which depends on both the existing capacity mix and load characteristics in a region. Because load must be continuously balanced, generating units with the capability to vary output to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units that use intermittent resources to operate (resource-constrained technologies). We list the LCOE values for dispatchable and resource-constrained technologies separately because they require a careful comparison. We include the solar PV hybrid LCOE under resource-constrained technologies because, much like hydroelectric generators, solar PV hybrid generators are energy-constrained and so are more limited in dispatch capability than generators with essentially continuous fuel supply.

In AEO2022, solar LCOE, on average, is lower than natural gas-fired combined-cycle (CC) LCOE in 2027. However, more CC generating capacity is installed than solar PV between 2025 and 2027. We project more CC capacity to be installed than solar PV capacity because the relative value of adding CC to the system is greater than for solar PV, which LCOE does not capture.

[theluckycountry]

... and once it didn't work out that well, they start to rationalize this gem:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmurra ... 873ea061d5

Most energy observers recognize that the cost of renewable energy has declined dramatically in the last decade.

Well of course it's declined! Japan and Germany no longer make the quality and all that's left is a 'Flex' facility in Canada (if it's still in business) and all the Chinese trash.

"I've Been Totally Ghosted": After Install, Solar Panels Become Maintenance Nightmare
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ive-b ... -nightmare

This is not a one-off and many people don't even realize their systems are under-performing due to failed panels. I have been working with hobby solar systems since 2000, since BP Australia made them, I have a few large Sharp panels, some have never seen the sky, they were built for 25 years of service, but the Chinese ones? In our Woke society it's politically incorrect to say Chinese product is substandard but you get what you pay for, plain and simple. I bought Flex panels and German ABB inverters but even ABB has only a 10 year warranty. What then? Renewable? Sure, if you have the money, and the OIL, to keep renewing them.

It took decades for the public to wake up to the scam of free electricity from fission, decades more to see that Fusion was a pipe-dream. They will see through this scam in the next decade too, you can't circumvent the laws of physics. You can't get more energy out of a system than you put in, that's pop-science, that's perpetual motion machines. Solar and wind consume vast amounts of raw energy released from coal oil and gas to build and will never generate enough energy in and of themselves to perpetuate the construction chain.