‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

US Revokes Limits on Power Plants' Climate Pollution

261 points · 266 comments · DeepLogin

  1. jmward01 · · focus · HN ↗
    There are a multitude of arguments against this:

    - Investing in alternatives has led to massive new industry that is improving the economy of those countries that do it. If your argument is an economic one then jump onto the solar, wind and battery bandwagon.

    - There are virtually no real short medium or long term gains economically here. Gas is the only thing still competitive with solar/wind and its costs are rising while solar and wind continue to fall. Building new maximum pollution plants would drop that internalized cost but who in their right mind would fund something so obviously DOA?

    - Obviously the externalized costs of greenhouse gas emissions are deeply undervalued in this move. Even if they are 'fake news' in the US, the rest of the world is finally starting to take them seriously. The US's diminished soft power means it won't be able to easily bully the world into allowing it to pollute without consequence and such an obviously hostile move means it will loose even more of its soft power by taking this position. So on the international level this means we burn a lot of political capital and gain nothing but decades of distrust and anger.

    - Current events show that energy security is dominated by decoupling from fossil fuels. This weakens the US strategically and continues to set it up to be manipulated by exceptionally hostile actors.

    - Oh yeah and, of course, climate change is real.

    This continues the US down the path of being the best buggy whip maker in the world. Worse than that, the US is becoming an obnoxious buggy whip maker who's neighbors are starting to hope fails horribly and will help make that happen as moves like this continue. This is stupid at every scale and in every dimension.

    1. cubefox · · focus · HN ↗
      > - Investing in alternatives has led to massive new industry that is improving the economy of those countries that do it

      That's a baseless claim. For example, Germany has invested massively in solar but its electricity prices went up, not down.

      > Gas is the only thing still competitive with solar/wind

      That's false. Coal power is cheaper than all of those. Solar and wind include costs for expensive battery backups since they are highly volatile.

      And to make it clear: Climate change is very bad so coal plants are very bad. But that doesn't mean you can go around and claim that coal isn't cheap compared to things like solar+batteries. The fact that something is good doesn't imply that it is cheap.

      1. importantstuff · · focus · HN ↗
        This price of electricity is high because gas, which is still expensive, sets the price of electricity most of the time [1]. The levelized cost of electricity for solar (including batteries) and wind is cheaper than coal [2].

        [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.carbonbrief.org&#x2F;qa-why-does-gas-set-the-price-of-electricity-and-is-there-an-alternative" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.carbonbrief.org&#x2F;qa-why-does-gas-set-the-price-of... [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ise.fraunhofer.de&#x2F;en&#x2F;press-media&#x2F;press-releases&#x2F;2024&#x2F;photovoltaic-plants-with-battery-cheaper-than-conventional-power-plants.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ise.fraunhofer.de&#x2F;en&#x2F;press-media&#x2F;press-releases&#x2F;...

        1. consensus1 · · focus · HN ↗
          I will believe it when I see it. The only countries with both cheap and clean electricity are those that built out extensive nuclear or got lucky enough to have access to other forms of cheap base load like hydro &#x2F; geothermal.
          1. tapoxi · · focus · HN ↗
            Australia would disagree: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energy.gov.au&#x2F;news&#x2F;new-energy-plan-daily-window-free-electricity" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energy.gov.au&#x2F;news&#x2F;new-energy-plan-daily-window-...
            1. mjmas · · focus · HN ↗
              Becaude, as we all know, taxpayer-funded == free.

              And we banned nuclear, since it&#x27;s scary.

              1. tapoxi · · focus · HN ↗
                It&#x27;s not taxpayer funded, the grid has an overabundance of daytime solar that exceeds their capacity to store it.
                1. mjmas · · focus · HN ↗
                  Here in Queensland the state owns the regional electricity company, Ergon. ∴ most of what they do that doesn&#x27;t generate money (such as doing free electricity rather than charging for it) is taxpayer-funded.
                  1. anenefan · · focus · HN ↗
                    Even though the power here (North Central Queensland) isn&#x27;t too expensive, Ergon is run with an aim to make a profit [1] [2] even if the last few years more infrastructure seems to be needing repairs due to changes in weather conditions and or replacing ancient old or relatively new poor quality wooden poles.

                    Given the power here has periods where it barely goes a day without blinking out, or line repairs that can take almost 2 days now after a somewhat mild storm, there&#x27;s been a large uptake of solar power panels, those that knew hooked up Island style where they can feed in their own small generator to take advantage of the panels during the day if there was no grid power, more recently batteries have become more affordable, making installation worthwhile.

                    [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ergon_Energy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ergon_Energy

                    [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energyq.com.au&#x2F;__data&#x2F;assets&#x2F;pdf_file&#x2F;0010&#x2F;2065843&#x2F;Ergon-Energy-Queensland-Pty-Ltd-Annual-Financial-Report-2023-24.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energyq.com.au&#x2F;__data&#x2F;assets&#x2F;pdf_file&#x2F;0010&#x2F;20658... [pdf]

                    &gt;Operating and financial review

                    The Company’s profit after income tax equivalent expense was $80.919 million for the year (2023: $225.754 million loss). Revenue from sales of electricity is higher when compared to 2023 due to an increase in notified prices as published by the Queensland Competition Authority in 2024. Residential and small business tariff rates increased significantly for 2024 with price rises of 29 percent and 27 percent respectively. Large business tariff rates rose between seven and 17 percent. Expenses are marginally lower compared to 2023 predominantly due to a reduction in fair value losses. More stable electricity trading conditions contributed to lower market movements on forward electricity derivative contracts.

            2. PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
              Australia hasn&#x27;t shot itself in the foot like EU&#x27;s self inflicted policies.
            3. phillipinman · · focus · HN ↗
              As an Australian I can say that for me personally the free energy periods have been amazing and are an example of the functional free markets making life better for the average person.
            4. consensus1 · · focus · HN ↗
              No, Australis ai a perfect example. Australia has an average electricity cost of close to 0.3 USD &#x2F; kwh. That&#x27;s not cheap. It&#x27;s not clean either at 525g co2&#x2F;kwh. The US is 0.19 USD &#x2F; kwh and 384g co2&#x2F;kwh. France is 0.22 USD&#x2F;kwh and 41g co2 &#x2F; kwh.

              <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;grapher&#x2F;electricity-mix?source=total&amp;metric=carbon_intensity&amp;frequency=annual" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;grapher&#x2F;electricity-mix?source=to...

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.