Battery costs have plummeted by 90% in less than 15 years, turbocharging renewable energy shift

[dalpilot]

In many respects, I would thoughtfully agree with the questions you raise, however, my socio-economics teacher from way back (whom also happens to be my Father) would also add "There is no point in this questioning without a viable and economical alternative being provided and discussed in a logical and calmly debated manner"...
So, I ask you, what do you think is an economical, environmentally friendly and fast to market alternative?
(I myself am unable to provide an alternative that does not destroy the environment, and/or create toxic material, and/or cost more than the average Earth person of can afford, and/or can be brought to market fast enough, and in enough capacity to replace existing energy provision before EOL...)

My reply to you is as long as China and India refuse to reduce their use of coal as a primary energy source it doesn't matter what Western economies do. In the US we would have a greater impact on climate change by eliminating coal and replacing it with natural gas than by electrifying the entire US automobile fleet. Personally, I put a solar system on my home and even with a 30% government tax credit I still have over a 10 year payback time frame. I'm retired and don't expect to move but not sure if I would get the cost back in the resale of my home should I move. In addition, I was told to expect a 2%/year decrease in solar cell efficiency every year I own the system further pushing down the road the time where I will recoup my investment in this technology. I still fail to see why the climate change crowd refuses to see the need for nuclear energy as essential to a carbon free future. But, what do I know, except with a MS in Chemistry, that all these "breakthroughs" that are supposed to be happening in battery technology that are a long, long way from reality (just like the 10 minute recharge when we can't even find a working fast charger that will do 30 minute recharges). I'm planning to enjoy my completely seamless transition to my mild hybrid that will get 50 mpg and not have to worry about where and when I might run out of gas (that is, almost nowhere in the USA do I have to worry about being less than 25 miles from a gas station even in the most remote sections of the US.

 

[gamerk2]

I think the problem with governments, at least the US government, is that are no consequences of failing. In the corporate world, if you fail continuously, you will be out of business or fired. In the government, you're likely to get promoted if you fail consistently. Since the government can just raise taxes or divert tax dollars to failing programs there's the likelihood that money will be wasted chasing a failed program instead of cutting your losses and moving on to something better.

In the government, I'm not so sure they learn from their mistakes.

It's more that they can't.

By LAW, as part of the monetary reforms under Bush 43, when a contract is awarded by the government they are required to give it to the "lowest technically acceptable bid", regardless of any other circumstance. It doesn't matter how much a company underbids then fails, as long as the government can't definitively prove the company "can't" do the job, they'll keep winning contracts.

Turns out, the low bidder often isn't the cheapest one.

 

[gamerk2]

My reply to you is as long as China and India refuse to reduce their use of coal as a primary energy source it doesn't matter what Western economies do.

China and India have invested more into renewables (both in terms of dollars and as a percent of their energy generation) then any other country on the planet.

So how about abandoning the false narrative and come up with a new excuse for not doing anything?

 

[gamerk2]

Why not take an economics class and find out? Production costs only set a minimum price floor; the market price is determined by capacity and the relationship between that supply and demand ... with the caveat that high marginal profits quickly attract competitors, increasing capacity.

Assuming perfect competition and price elasticity.

Competition is hard to come by; nowadays starting up in an established industry takes hundreds of billions of dollars, so it's near impossible for new players to break into established markets. So after a period of initial expansion, markets tend to contract around a handful of large players. And more often then not, there's an implicit agreement to not compete directly on price (which is bad for everyone) but instead on features.

Point being, even if my production costs drop 99%, if the market doesn't pressure me to lower my prices, I won't. And everyone else in the industry knows that too. And we're all more then happy to keep prices stable and partake in the 99% increase in profits. And so long as we never formalize the implicit agreement, the Federal government has zero anti-trust case against us.

 

[gdavid65]

Excellent points - at least for the PRODUCTION of the energy (I'm personally an advocate for the use of nuclear in Australia - doubt it'll ever happen), but what about the storage of the energy for use in devices and vehicles... Wouldn't that STILL require the mining of Lithium etc?

Australia makes excellent use of nuclear already.. that coming from that giant nuclear furnace in the sky, the one powering solar panels. Like the one above my house, that exports many more kWH than it ever imports months at a time, thereby also powering the homes around me at no cost to me. Sort of like a network of millions of micro-reactors. Only thing we really need to do is capture that energy at night, where batteries can step in.

Sodium batteries could well replace Lithium for large storage. Even if not, we are becoming one of the biggest producers of Lithium in the world.. just like NG which we did so well out of course. Country full of morons.

 

[gdavid65]

My reply to you is as long as China and India refuse to reduce their use of coal as a primary energy source it doesn't matter what Western economies do. In the US we would have a greater impact on climate change by eliminating coal and replacing it with natural gas than by electrifying the entire US automobile fleet.

You could totally cut the export of coal, as we could here in Aus. Causing the global price of coal to soar... making it totally uneconomical for India or China to continue to use that energy source, forcing them to renewables faster.

Sure, they could adapt over a number of years, bring more coal mines online, but by that point it would be much cheaper for them to have invested in renewables.

 

[gdavid65]

China and India have invested more into renewables (both in terms of dollars and as a percent of their energy generation) then any other country on the planet.

So how about abandoning the false narrative and come up with a new excuse for not doing anything?

It's a little like kids in the playground isn't it? "But Jonny over there isn't getting punished, so why should I do anything?".

It is a sad state of the world if nobody does anything because they think it's more important somebody does something else before them....

Leadership is all about setting examples.. Who is the leader, and who is the follower??

 

[Endymio]

China and India have invested more into renewables (both in terms of dollars and as a percent of their energy generation) then any other country on the planet.

Utterly false. Even counting hydroelectric, China only generates 28% of their total electricity from renewables. Removing hydro from the equation, it drops to a mere 14%. But even this flaccid figure is misleadingly positive, as most of the rest of China's electricity comes from coal: a whopping 69%. (It's only 21% in the US). And, of course, coal generates far more CO2 per MW-hr than any other source.

Furthermore, while other nations are phasing out coal, China is building dozens of new coal plants within its own borders, as well as financing and constructing more than 100 coal plants in other nations.

 

[Endymio]

Assuming perfect competition and price elasticity.

You misunderstand both terms. The law of supply and demand operates in all cases: there is no such thing as a perfectly elastic (or perfectly inelastic) price in the real world. Nor is perfect competition required either -- even under monopolistic competition, a producer's maximal profits come not at the highest possible price point, but where marginal cost equals marginal revenue.

Competition is hard to come by; nowadays starting up in an established industry takes hundreds of billions of dollars

Funny, Tesla built it's Gigafactory -- the largest in the world -- for less than 1/10 your figure. And there are more than 100 other Li-Ion battery makers in existence, many of which who started up with less than 1/1,000 of the "hundreds of billions" you mention.

Point being, even if my production costs drop 99%, if the market doesn't pressure me to lower my prices, I won't.

This is where you misunderstand basic economics, and the terms you used above. Even in monopolistic competition, if production costs drop, the isoprofit curves shift, meaning the point of maximum profits occurs at a higher point on the P-Q curve.

In simpler terms, if a manufacturer sees a massive drop in production costs, they can generate *more* profit by increasing total sales and growing the market. And they do that by reducing prices.

 

[monkeylove]

The problem is that the world economy needs costs to go even lower and not just more affordable compared to coal, gas, etc. That's because it's a competitive, capitalist economy, and thus needs not just continuous economic growth but even faster growth.

For example, the U.S. has only around 5% of the world's population but needs to consume 20% of world oil production, and partly to power a quarter of the world's passenger vehicles and light trucks. Convert those to EV, and it has to increase its electricity supply by at least 40%. Use nuclear power for much of that, and it will need more than the total number of reactors worldwide.

And that's just for 5% of the world's population, which also needs the 95% to be like it because it turns out that it can only pay for such a lifestyle if its income and returns on investment continue to rise. And those rise if there are more sales of goods and services to others.

Which brings me back to the start of my post, not to mention the fact that much of these are being produced by for-profit companies in competition with each other and whose goal is to maximize profits. Which means maximizing production, and with that consumption.

With that, turbocharging won't be enough. We need warp speed. That is, we need to meet a global lifestyle that will require the equivalent of three more earths, and in only two decades.

Or else...well, why do you think world's been producing and deploying armaments at an incredible rate across the last three decades?

And then it gets worse: not only oil but even minerals face diminishing returns, or ever-increasing amounts of energy needed to get ever-decreasing amounts of new oil and minerals, and of lower quality.

That's why for the oil industry capital costs (which is part of the topic of the article given in the OP) have tripled each period in exchange for only around half of increase in new oil produced. And the same thing is happening to minerals because (a) the world is finite and (b) gravity.

And then when we have more economic activity we also have more pollution, which we have to fix but with increased energy and materials costs.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Economies of scale, and *exactly* why governments should underwrite useful technologies/products in order to allow them to become affordable in the market, rather then waiting literally *decades* for economies of scale to catch up.

Except, while the market "underwrites" the most *useful* technologies and products, governments "underwrite" the most *politically expedient* technologies and products.

And since the government is taking its money from the market, its "underwriting" reduces the efficiency of the system (I.e., the benefit created per dollar spent) as a whole, resulting in a smaller amount of societal benefit. But they do get more votes for their heroic redistribution of wealth.

 

[toooooot]

Furthermore, while other nations are phasing out coal, China is building dozens of new coal plants within its own borders, as well as financing and constructing more than 100 coal plants in other nations.

Understandable, producing half of all the goods for world use requires electricity.

 

[waclark]

China and India have invested more into renewables (both in terms of dollars and as a percent of their energy generation) then any other country on the planet.

So how about abandoning the false narrative and come up with a new excuse for not doing anything?

China produces nearly double the CO2 that the US produces. And who says we're not doing anything? When looking at investments in China, it's all coming from the government, but in the US, there is another $100B being invested by private enterprise. So, yea, China spends more, but they also emit more greenhouse gasses than the US.

China says they won't be carbon neutral until 2060 where many other countries have committed to 2050 as a goal. If you look at WW emissions, China, India, and Russia put out about 40% where the US is about 11% (according to Wiki). Furthermore, since 1990, the US has been pretty flat, maybe down about 3% where China and India are both up, China up 385% and India is up 275%. That's not the direction they should be going.