• echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    This article is about profitability, not cost to net zero. They are very different things. It also ignores the cost of scale, go all in on say solar today and that doesn’t make more panels available, the increased demand would raise prices and suddenly its not so profitable.

    Nothing is as simple and easy as people want it to be.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      However, the researchers show that in terms of cost and speed, renewable energy sources have already beaten nuclear and that each investment in new nuclear plants delays decarbonization compared to investments in renewable energies. “In a decarbonizing world, delays increase CO2 emissions,” the researchers pointed out.

      They talk about profit to get the attention of money people, but the ultimate goal is decarbonization. Hell, the title of the source article is “Why investing in new nuclear plants is bad for the climate”.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Two of the researchers are economists, and the third is an environmental economist. I’d rather get my opinions on decarbonization and nuclear energy from actual scientists and people who run research reactors.

        It’s just money people talking to money people. I don’t trust an economist to make a value judgment on science when all they’re looking at is profit. I actually actively distrust them. They’re interested in investments and profit – nuclear has an undeserved stigma and it makes its profit in the long term, not the short term that they all seem to love.

    • gnygnygny@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Solar price still decreasing and the demand never been so high. That’s the faster energy deployment.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Demand has never been so high. If we wanted to go all in on solar and get to net zero on it, that demand would be 100x higher.

        Right now, the driving reason behind solar prices going down is to encourage more demand. If that demand were to jump suddenly, then that driving reason is gone, and suddenly it makes more sense to charge more as supply can’t keep up.

        Maybe you’ll understand the point better now.

        • gnygnygny@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was speaking about the market, the solar panel price. Many developing countries now invest in solar power to meet their energy needs with the cost of solar energy technologies decreasing and the availabilities of governments subsidies. The Ukrainian conflict may have an impact on the market but nothing is sure.

          The path to Net Zero is mainly Solar and Wind. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right now, the driving reason behind solar prices going down is to encourage more demand. If that demand were to jump suddenly, then that driving reason is gone, and suddenly it makes more sense to charge more as supply can’t keep up.

    • rusticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wait, do you really expect us to believe that increasing solar will increase its price? Have you looked at the cost of solar over the past decade? Do you understand the economy of scale as it applies to all 3 (solar, wind, and batteries) because I don’t think you do.