California is first in world to ban new diesel trucks

[El Presidente]

Just now, NSXCIGAR said:

Degree matters. US subsidizes fossils $20 billion. Renewables $634 billion.

Timeframe matters: Subsidies over the last ....say.....40 years for fossils. 

[NSXCIGAR]

8 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Timeframe matters: Subsidies over the last ....say.....40 years for fossils. 

Subsidies have been far greater for renewables at least in the US for a decade. By multiples. It's catching up in absolute dollars.

That said, all that reveals is that fossils aren't profitable either which I'm not suggesting they are. There's no private investment in fossils either. I suppose coal-fired might be profitable but good luck with that in the west. 

Really it's a battle of what is the least non-profitable and at this point it's pretty much nuclear.

[Bijan]

13 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Really it's a battle of what is the least non-profitable and at this point it's pretty much nuclear.

Least not profitable to convert to 100% carbon free right now.

Otherwise least not profitable is renewables plus natural gas. Plus nuclear whenever some level of government can snatch a few tens of billions from another level of government.

Edit: carbon emissions can be seen as a cost. Natural gas has the least carbon emissions of fossil fuels, so it's the least costly from that perspective.

[MrBirdman]

1 hour ago, Bijan said:

As I said nuclear fission is a boondoggle only surpassed by nuclear fusion. The difference is that fusion is a forever solution that is practically ideal (if it ever becomes viable).

Yeah, a lot of fusion research is being publicly funded but it’s worthwhile because, as you say, it’s essentially an inexhaustible source of energy (even fission reactors aren’t truly renewable since the world’s supply of U-235 is limited). Yeah, it’s the tech that’s been “20 years away” for the past 50 years but they have finally had some big breakthroughs. Still an uncertain future by the fact that progress is being made is a good sign. 

[NSXCIGAR]

35 minutes ago, Bijan said:

carbon emissions can be seen as a cost. Natural gas has the least carbon emissions of fossil fuels, so it's the least costly from that perspective.

I'm only looking at raw profitability. Obviously coal-fired is relatively cheap but if putting a "cost" on carbon emissions that would be very "expensive".

[MrBirdman]

13 hours ago, Bijan said:

Least not profitable to convert to 100% carbon free right now.

That might be true if there was the electricity infrastructure to support it. Other than hydroelectric, most renewable energy is not on demand. Converting consumption to carbon-free will require grid improvements and new battery storage technology. But that won’t be an issue until grids are much more renewable-intensive than they are now, so we should be transitioning to renewables as much as possible.

 

13 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm only looking at raw profitability. Obviously coal-fired is relatively cheap but if putting a "cost" on carbon emissions that would be very "expensive".

It’s not just the carbon emissions - coal is extremely dirty apropos other pollutants, and a hugely disproportionate contributor to respiratory disease (most of which gets paid for on Medicare’s dime).

[Bijan]

13 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

That might be true if there was the electricity infrastructure to support it. Other than hydroelectric, most renewable energy is not on demand. Converting consumption to carbon-free will require grid improvements and new battery storage technology. But that won’t be an issue until grids are much more renewable-intensive than they are now, so we should be transitioning to renewables as much as possible.

That's what I meant, nuclear is the cheapest option to go 100% carbon free at present because of grid and demand. But it's still absolutely astronomical, and temporary.

Edit: otherwise renewables to cut need for on demand sources, plus lowest carbon on demand being natural gas, nuclear here and there were there is money to fund it without crippling the state with debt.

 

13 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

But that won’t be an issue until grids are much more renewable-intensive than they are now, so we should be transitioning to renewables as much as possible.

We are saying the same thing it seems 🙂

[DaBoot]

The problem is you’re thinking logically on what California does…… 

[MrBirdman]

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Degree matters. US subsidizes fossils $20 billion. Renewables $634 billion.

4 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Timeframe matters: Subsidies over the last ....say.....40 years for fossils. 

@NSXCIGAR’s numbers are also misleading, since you’ve quoted the annual subsidy for fossil fuels and the projected 10-year spend on renewable energy (which is actually more like $400 billion). Not to mention that the fossil fuel industry is still getting subsidies at a time of very high profitability. 

And it doesn’t account for their greater, unquantified environmental externalities which we’re all subsidizing.

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, MrBirdman said:

@NSXCIGAR’s numbers are also misleading, since you’ve quoted the annual subsidy for fossil fuels and the projected 10-year spend on renewable energy (which is actually more like $400 billion). Not to mention that the fossil fuel industry is still getting subsidies at a time of very high profitability. 

And it doesn’t account for their greater, unquantified environmental externalities which we’re all subsidizing.

You're correct for the most part but including 2021 forward it's closer to $1 trillion over that period. 2021 was $114B and 22 is around $200B. Then the Biden bill is $400B in just tax credits. I haven't read through it but I would expect at least a few more hundred billion in direct subsides. 

But it appears that annual subsides for fossil and renewables are about equal at this point at least in the US.