• tmjaea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    What is your understanding based on?

    Regarding production batteries might be more expensive, but they can be charged some thousand times without any additional cost

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Just from looking at some government studies. This doesn’t necessarily compare longer-term costs, but it does give some direct comparisons between storage options.

      I’m certainly no expert here, but just throwing out some rough estimates of battery degradation, it doesn’t seem to be cost-effective vs natural gas, which is already only slightly more expensive than solar. So solar plus battery storage seems to be significantly more expensive than natural gas.

      It’s certainly more complex than that (i.e. you’d need less generation if battery backup is plentiful), but that’s the data I’m looking at.

      • tmjaea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        But how can one consider natural gas? The whole point is to avoid getting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?!

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, the point is to put less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Natural gas is way cleaner than coal, and it’s quite a bit cheaper (from what I can tell) vs battery storage. Everything has a cost tradeoff, and the cost tradeoff for natural gas is very attractive right now. Maybe we’ll develop some really inexpensive energy storage (sodium batteries look promising), but regardless of what we come up with, there will be a transition period where we roll it out, and natural gas is a fantastic alternative until that’s done because supply lines are already in place.

          • tmjaea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            It might be cheaper but that is a pure capitalistic point of view. And capitalism is what brought us to our worlds current state

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yes, the current state is a pretty near constant improvement on standard of living and a pretty steady decrease in greenhouse emissions (at least in the US) despite rising population and access to gadgets. Electric vehicles exist because capitalists found a niche and exploited it at a time when battery densities could finally support a reasonable range. Rooftop solar exists because people care and can afford to place them on their houses. Governments came in later to help encourage those, but the tech existed before the subsidies did.

              Capitalism isn’t the enemy, it’s merely a force that can be channeled to create a lot of good in the world. If a society sets up the right incentives, capitalism is incredibly efficient at meeting the demand.

              So we shouldn’t be destroying the economy to combat climate change, we should be channeling the economy to combat climate change. For example:

              • carbon taxes on everything - coal would get taxed out the nose, while solar would pay pretty much nothing, with natural gas falling somewhere in the middle
              • eliminate subsidies and loopholes - charge big trucks significantly more for damage to roads, which makes things like fracking a lot less attractive (if they have to pay to repair the roads they tear up, costs go way up)
              • remove protections for corporations - arrest execs instead of just issuing fines for irresponsible, greedy behavior that hurts people

              Most of the reason renewables are less attractive vs fossil fuels is because fossil fuels don’t need to pay for negative externalities like pollution. If we add that in, the market will adapt and change their operations to reduce costs.