Could you tell me: what are the positive effects in an economy - either rich or poor one - if they have access to abundant, cheap, scalable and versatile energy?
You mentioned the downsides, but I just wanted to go over the upsides.
Hey Zombie Hunter, thanks for the question, but I don't fully understand what you're asking. I don't think there are downsides to abundant, cheap, scalable and versatile energy. In fact, I think we should be open to more versatile, abundant, and renewable sources of energy like nuclear and geothermal. I think there are downsides to forever-expanding the fossil fuel industry when there are much cleaner and cheaper alternatives, and there are upsides to investing in zero-carbon energy like the fact that they are often renewable, often cheap (not always), and better for the environment.
So, I'm reading your question as, "what's the upside of doing what we're already doing?" You can probably just look at GDP forecasts, but that's a little less than reliable.
Also, the positives of using fossil fuels aren't left out of the SCC estimations. The DICE model accounts for any beneficial outcomes of climate change like crop yields in certain regions, those benefits just don't outweigh the costs. As far as economic growth is concerned, yeah, fossil fuels help the economy grow, but I don't think it's as advantageous as you think.
Nothing is as abundant as wind and solar. Nothing is cheaper than solar right now. I can't imagine it's easier to scale an oil company than a renewable or nuclear company (i.e. it's easier and cheaper to throw up solar panels than it is to set up a new oil rig). I will say that oil is versatile and stores well, and we need oil for energy but also to make plastics, pharmaceuticals, textiles, and more. Someone once told me that energy is the least exciting thing we could be producing with all this oil we extract.
So a few things: I was asking what is the value of cheap energy to an economy. You could simulate it by asking "What would it cost the economy if energy is x2-x5 more expensive." like it is in Europe and has been since October 2021. This is a continent that has been following green energy policies very closely for about 2 decades and has poured considerable amounts of money into it.
Crop yields are also a good point with synthetic fertiliser made from fossil fuels. You can see how Sri Lanka collapsed when they went off synthetic during the same time fossil fuels were getting expensive.
Nothing may be as abundant as wind and solar - apart actually from wind, because Europe experienced very low wind in 2021-22. The UK had 11 straight days of 10% expected wind, during that time. Putting that aside, let us say that wind and solar are very cheap where PV solar gets more and more cheap. What is expensive however, are transmission lines, pylons (you know how difficult infrastructure is), load balancing equipment (wind/solar is parasitic on the stability of a grid) and of course, the huge expense, storage.
So all I was really asking, is for a more complete picture. Not that I am disagreeing about climate change, I just want a full picture of pros and cons.
Otherwise, we will have what has happened in Europe last winter where we had an excess of deaths due to people not being able to afford heat which resulted in more estimated deaths than covid-19 for the same period.
Could you tell me: what are the positive effects in an economy - either rich or poor one - if they have access to abundant, cheap, scalable and versatile energy?
You mentioned the downsides, but I just wanted to go over the upsides.
Hey Zombie Hunter, thanks for the question, but I don't fully understand what you're asking. I don't think there are downsides to abundant, cheap, scalable and versatile energy. In fact, I think we should be open to more versatile, abundant, and renewable sources of energy like nuclear and geothermal. I think there are downsides to forever-expanding the fossil fuel industry when there are much cleaner and cheaper alternatives, and there are upsides to investing in zero-carbon energy like the fact that they are often renewable, often cheap (not always), and better for the environment.
Well, I asked if you could calculate the upsides of having access to abundant, cheap, scalable and versatile energy such as fossil fuels.
If we are talking about the costs of the negatives, what are the benefits of the positives that we are leaving out of the calculation?
So, I'm reading your question as, "what's the upside of doing what we're already doing?" You can probably just look at GDP forecasts, but that's a little less than reliable.
Also, the positives of using fossil fuels aren't left out of the SCC estimations. The DICE model accounts for any beneficial outcomes of climate change like crop yields in certain regions, those benefits just don't outweigh the costs. As far as economic growth is concerned, yeah, fossil fuels help the economy grow, but I don't think it's as advantageous as you think.
Nothing is as abundant as wind and solar. Nothing is cheaper than solar right now. I can't imagine it's easier to scale an oil company than a renewable or nuclear company (i.e. it's easier and cheaper to throw up solar panels than it is to set up a new oil rig). I will say that oil is versatile and stores well, and we need oil for energy but also to make plastics, pharmaceuticals, textiles, and more. Someone once told me that energy is the least exciting thing we could be producing with all this oil we extract.
So a few things: I was asking what is the value of cheap energy to an economy. You could simulate it by asking "What would it cost the economy if energy is x2-x5 more expensive." like it is in Europe and has been since October 2021. This is a continent that has been following green energy policies very closely for about 2 decades and has poured considerable amounts of money into it.
I cover more about it here https://philosophicalzombiehunter.substack.com/p/why-green-energy-policies-hurt-the
Crop yields are also a good point with synthetic fertiliser made from fossil fuels. You can see how Sri Lanka collapsed when they went off synthetic during the same time fossil fuels were getting expensive.
Nothing may be as abundant as wind and solar - apart actually from wind, because Europe experienced very low wind in 2021-22. The UK had 11 straight days of 10% expected wind, during that time. Putting that aside, let us say that wind and solar are very cheap where PV solar gets more and more cheap. What is expensive however, are transmission lines, pylons (you know how difficult infrastructure is), load balancing equipment (wind/solar is parasitic on the stability of a grid) and of course, the huge expense, storage.
So all I was really asking, is for a more complete picture. Not that I am disagreeing about climate change, I just want a full picture of pros and cons.
Otherwise, we will have what has happened in Europe last winter where we had an excess of deaths due to people not being able to afford heat which resulted in more estimated deaths than covid-19 for the same period.