Bloomberg Announces Effort to Ensure U.S. Honors Paris Agreement Commitments
bloomberg.org
bloomberg.org
Batteries are down to $66/kWh in China, for actual costed-out BESS projects. https://www.ess-news.com/2024/12/09/powerchina-receives-bids...
The nations that win this race will dominate the future. From a geopolitical perspective you either run this race to a future with abundant energy, or you become a second-tier power.
The biggest problem right now is that the new administration is trying to actively block those goals. They're talking about government tariffs and they've already halted new leases on offshore wind. So this isn't about government subsidizing things, it's government blocking the market from doing what it wants to.
> They're talking about government tariffs
So this has been previously unblocked, but in the past week that’s when the difficulty started?
Every coal generator in the US besides the one in Dry Forks, WY is more expensive than new renewables to run, but those costs get pushed to ratepayers so there is no incentive to retire them faster. You can see this up close with IMEA [1] and the City of Naperville (in Illinois) about to extend their agreement to continue to procure coal fired generation with no competitive bids [2] [3]. This enables the prolonged operation of one of the most polluting coal generators in the country, Prairie State Generating Station, in southern IL [4] [5]. Compare this to the City of Chicago, that has switched to 100% renewables using a power purchase agreement for ~70% of their demand and credits for the remainder [6] [7].
So, while the economics of renewables and storage are favorable, you still have twist arms with the courts and policy because of entrenched interests that are not exposed to the costs of prolonged fossil generation. "Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome."
[3] https://saynotocoal.com/naperville-gets-80-of-its-electricit...
[4] https://pirg.org/illinois/edfund/media-center/new-data-illin...
[5] https://www.gem.wiki/Prairie_State_Energy_Campus
[6] https://grist.org/cities/chicago-renewable-energy-black-diam...
[7] https://swiftcurrentenergy.com/project/double-black-diamond-...
They are on the hook for paying off the construction loans (which ended up being something like triple what they were promised) and are on the hook for any operating costs not covered by sales of the generated electricity.
The least bad option all these cities have is to force their residents to buy the electricity it generates. Naperville is lucky enough to be a pretty wealthy city with good bond ratings; relatively speaking its residents are less screwed than many others.
For the Chicago government, it’s a political project. They are happy to take losses.
Let me just restate the original point made in this thread. Are solar and wind cheaper in these areas where coal is still operating or not?
https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Coal...
> This report finds 99 percent of the existing U.S. coal fleet is more expensive to run compared to replacement by new solar or wind. Replacing coal plants with local wind and solar would also save enough to finance nearly 150 gigawatts of four-hour battery storage, over 60 percent of the coal fleet’s capacity, and generate $589 billion in new investment across the U.S. Our report provides policy recommendations to facilitate a just transition through the Coal Cost Crossover.
Lazard LCOE+ 2024 report, PDF - https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
New solar plants expected to support most U.S. electric generation growth - https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64364 - January 24, 2025
So, if you want to argue these decisions are about politics and ideology, that is a choice. The economics are clear. The report I cite above is ~2 years old, the favorable economics of renewables and batteries has only increased since then due to rapid cost declines of both.
> New Inflation Reduction Act clean energy incentives and financing and potential strengthened U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pollution standards mean the economic risks for existing coal — and the communities that depend upon them economically — will only get worse
The second link is also about the inflation reduction act.
The EIA link is also a market prediction of where investment will be made, which also takes into account subsidies.
Post your best link that makes your point. My conclusion right now is you litter in links to appear authoritative.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/06/climate/coal-... | https://archive.today/Egwuc
> But along with market forces, utilities could also take advantage of changes in environmental regulations to keep coal stations open, especially in coal-friendly states like Wyoming, where two-fifths of U.S. coal is still mined.
> “For an investor-owned monopoly utility, it’s not costing them to keep running the plant, necessarily, it’s costing the ratepayers who are paying for that,” Dr. Solomon said. “Politically, there’s a lot of support for coal in Wyoming and Utah where Rocky Mountain power is operating so I think they just don’t feel a ton of pressure to move to cleaner energy sources.”
Global Cost of Renewables to Continue Falling in 2025 as China Extends Lead - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976388 - Feb 2025
https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-cost-of-renewables-to-con... | https://archive.today/pJ0lb
> According to a latest report by research provider BloombergNEF (BNEF), new wind and solar farms are already undercutting new coal and gas plants on production cost in almost every market globally.
> “New solar plants, even without subsidies, are within touching distance of new US gas plants. This is remarkable because US gas prices are only a quarter of prevailing gas prices in Europe and Asia. It really raises the bar on what is possible even in the current market, said Amar Vasdev, lead author of the report. “This opens up the likelihood that solar will become even more compelling in the coming years, especially if the US starts exporting liquified natural gas and exposes its protected gas market to global price competition.”
> “China is exporting green energy tech so cheaply that the rest of the world is thinking about erecting barriers to protect their own industries, said Matthias Kimmel, head of Energy Economics at BNEF. “But the overall trend in cost reductions is so strong that nobody, not even President Trump, will be able to halt it.”
I'm not American but wow, the country is corroding itself from inside
This happens in countries from time to time. In China there’s a whole history of dynastic collapse and renewal going back thousands of years.
It tends to be a shitshow for a while until a new political reality takes hold. It will not be unipolar. MAGA only got at best half the vote, and half the country didn’t even vote, so really they’re at best a quarter to a third of the population. Huge open niches are out there for a competently run non-tone-deaf centrist (aka actually conservative) party and stuff on the left. Maybe actual libertarianism too, but not using that name since that’s been taken by wackos for a long time.
I worry in the short to medium term for marginalized groups in America, important work happening in America like Starship (especially as Elon spirals), and anyone living in a state like Taiwan, Ukraine, South Korea, etc. that depends in part on US support to maintain its integrity. Other large states will probably be doing some land grabbing. The US might too depending on how things play out. It will be a period of instability.
It is true that neither Trump and Vance nor Harris and Walz were able to muster even 50% of the vote. But that’s because of the existence of more extremist options on the ballot, not because of the presence of less extremist options. Certainly not because of any supposed centrism. (Not that centrism would work in any case when the policies being moderated by the centrism are so ill conceived from the outset.)
We’re in a bad spot, but it’s not because of politicians, it’s because of us.
This is a both sides argument when in fact there’s very real, very well funded movement to oppose and suppress any left wing groups from getting any real traction. Remember the Occupy movement or the defund the police movements or Bernie’s run for president? Very real political movements that got torn apart in the media very quickly as well as institutional crackdowns on the people involved. The Jan 6 riots by comparison got significantly more lenient treatment and has now been completely absolved. The US for better or worse has never had a successful left wing movement but not for lack of trying.
>requiring affirmative action
Which is it? It can’t be both. (It’s the latter, duh.)
He could have easily become wealthy via industries like oil, insurance or hotels.
Instead he's dumping hia money into projects, which he thinks are visionary, even if they're likely to go belly up.
Like (self-driving) electric vehicles, vacuum trains, massive scale satellite internet, factory automation, grid-scale batteries, UBI, free speech, the X Æ A-12 project, ...
Not even thunderf00t believes he's malicious and it's hard to find anyone more obsessed