I mean, I recall seeing a ton of press a while back that the percentage of the Texas power grid that was renewable keeps growing because it’s more economically viable than traditional power plants.
So, like, he may not be wrong. Solar and wind just keep getting cheaper. It’s not like businesses will spend extra money to burn coal, just to spite the environment.
Absolutely agree that, at this point, he’s probably right, especially if he were to go all-in on the free market aspect and cut 100% of fossil fuel subsidies. However, it does bug me that he’s clearly ignoring how that “free market economy” produces those oil/gas/coal company vultures to begin with. The primary issue I have against vanilla libertarianism is their insistance that deregulation is a solution to everything when we’re living in a time that’s obviously worse off because of companies and individuals who weren’t being properly regulated.
Did you mean to reply to me? I don’t see how that is relevant.
Like, sure, oil and gas companies are corrupt and doing immoral things to prop up their industry.
But if a coal plant can sell me electricity for 5¢/kwh and the windmill company can sell it to me for 2¢/kwh, I don’t care what immoral stuff they try, the consumer is gonna buy the cheaper option.
Historically fossil fuels have been the cheaper option, and most of the immoral stuff was to avoid bad press. That strategy doesn’t work if you’re the more expensive option. The market will in fact work for the best in that scenario.
Which isn’t to say the free market always makes the “correct” decision. Fossil fuels are a great example, as they have continued to be the primary form of energy for the past 100+yrs, since it was cheap. But it looks like natural market forces are bringing us around to green slowly but surely, and Chase Oliver might be right that this is a problem that will, at this point, largely solve itself.
I mean, I think that’s what the majority of people are advocating for in green circles too, no? “No New Coal” and all that?
I don’t hear much advocacy for tearing down working power plants.
Power plants don’t exactly have an infinite shelf life. They get run down and need to be replaced. Eventually only building green leads to only having green.
Combine that with the ever increasing cost of actually running a coal fire plant. Shipping in hundreds of tons of coal is eventually gonna get way more expensive than operating a solar or wind farm. At that point the business owners will likely tear the plant down of their own volition to replace it with the cheaper option. (Though that will be admittedly a little slower, as you have to amortize in the construction and downtime costs.)
I mean, I recall seeing a ton of press a while back that the percentage of the Texas power grid that was renewable keeps growing because it’s more economically viable than traditional power plants.
So, like, he may not be wrong. Solar and wind just keep getting cheaper. It’s not like businesses will spend extra money to burn coal, just to spite the environment.
Absolutely agree that, at this point, he’s probably right, especially if he were to go all-in on the free market aspect and cut 100% of fossil fuel subsidies. However, it does bug me that he’s clearly ignoring how that “free market economy” produces those oil/gas/coal company vultures to begin with. The primary issue I have against vanilla libertarianism is their insistance that deregulation is a solution to everything when we’re living in a time that’s obviously worse off because of companies and individuals who weren’t being properly regulated.
Let’s hear how he deals with bears.
For anyone interested: The Town That Went Feral
deleted by creator
Did you mean to reply to me? I don’t see how that is relevant.
Like, sure, oil and gas companies are corrupt and doing immoral things to prop up their industry.
But if a coal plant can sell me electricity for 5¢/kwh and the windmill company can sell it to me for 2¢/kwh, I don’t care what immoral stuff they try, the consumer is gonna buy the cheaper option.
Historically fossil fuels have been the cheaper option, and most of the immoral stuff was to avoid bad press. That strategy doesn’t work if you’re the more expensive option. The market will in fact work for the best in that scenario.
Which isn’t to say the free market always makes the “correct” decision. Fossil fuels are a great example, as they have continued to be the primary form of energy for the past 100+yrs, since it was cheap. But it looks like natural market forces are bringing us around to green slowly but surely, and Chase Oliver might be right that this is a problem that will, at this point, largely solve itself.
They’ll just add solar and gas to the pile and keep the coal.
I mean, I think that’s what the majority of people are advocating for in green circles too, no? “No New Coal” and all that?
I don’t hear much advocacy for tearing down working power plants.
Power plants don’t exactly have an infinite shelf life. They get run down and need to be replaced. Eventually only building green leads to only having green.
Combine that with the ever increasing cost of actually running a coal fire plant. Shipping in hundreds of tons of coal is eventually gonna get way more expensive than operating a solar or wind farm. At that point the business owners will likely tear the plant down of their own volition to replace it with the cheaper option. (Though that will be admittedly a little slower, as you have to amortize in the construction and downtime costs.)
I hope you’re right. My worry is we keep the fossil fuels as-is and just use newer technologies to facilitate even more extraction.