U see the thinking here but I disagree. Renewables are by far the most economic source of energy. More demand for energy will thus create more energy production and thus drive the transition to happen faster.
Increased demand will cause increased supply on all fronts including coal/oil/gas and drive investment into renewables as its more economical. If the demand wasn’t increased the same amount of foss fuels will be burned just over a longer period of time. The graph may be steeper now but the integral will remain the same.
Let’s abstract the idea here:
Widgets are in heigh demand and sell for $3 each they come in 2 types type A and type B. Type A costs $1 to produce and type be costs $2 to produce but their is not enough production of type A to meet the total demand so it is backfilled with type B. The people making type B widgets realise they can make an extra $1 per widget if they switch from type B to type A widgets. They thus invest in the production of type A widgets for the next generation. This investment isn’t instant so they also lobby politicians so they reduce the cost of type B widgets from $2 to $1.5.
The people buying the widgets are unhappy that widgets are so expensive and as such want cheaper widgets. They now have a vested interest in creating more type A widget production machines.
So if we want less type B widgets increased demand for widgets overall in the long run will result in more investment of type A widgets and the eventual phasing out of type B widgets completely simply due to economic profit incentives.
Nobody wants to invest in making type B widget making machines as that is less profitable than investing in type A widget production machines. Thus all new widgets production machines will be type A. The type B production machine have a running lifetime they will produce the same amount of type B widgets over their lifetime regardless of if that lifetime happens now or spread over a longer time.
Even if the price of widgets drops to $1.2 and type B production becomes unprofitable the money on the type B production machine has already been spent it still makes sense to run it till its lifetime is complete (this is the case cos fosil fuel products are cheap but the infrastructure to burn them is expensive) it is better to realise some percentage of the infrastructure roi than to realise 0% of the roi. Thus you run the machine despite it being unprofitable on a per widget bases as this reduces ur overall loss.
In the end the same total number of type B widgets where produced just that increased demand means that we transition to type A widgets faster and produce the last of the type B widgets now instead of later.
Nah, those data centers will be powered by gas turbines cos the current electrical infrastructure can’t handle the amount of power the data centers need.
U see the thinking here but I disagree. Renewables are by far the most economic source of energy. More demand for energy will thus create more energy production and thus drive the transition to happen faster.
This would make perfect sense under a management that doesn’t bomb regulations or uses the phrase ‘big beautiful coal’.
Increased demand will cause increased supply on all fronts including coal/oil/gas and drive investment into renewables as its more economical. If the demand wasn’t increased the same amount of foss fuels will be burned just over a longer period of time. The graph may be steeper now but the integral will remain the same.
Let’s abstract the idea here: Widgets are in heigh demand and sell for $3 each they come in 2 types type A and type B. Type A costs $1 to produce and type be costs $2 to produce but their is not enough production of type A to meet the total demand so it is backfilled with type B. The people making type B widgets realise they can make an extra $1 per widget if they switch from type B to type A widgets. They thus invest in the production of type A widgets for the next generation. This investment isn’t instant so they also lobby politicians so they reduce the cost of type B widgets from $2 to $1.5.
The people buying the widgets are unhappy that widgets are so expensive and as such want cheaper widgets. They now have a vested interest in creating more type A widget production machines.
So if we want less type B widgets increased demand for widgets overall in the long run will result in more investment of type A widgets and the eventual phasing out of type B widgets completely simply due to economic profit incentives.
Nobody wants to invest in making type B widget making machines as that is less profitable than investing in type A widget production machines. Thus all new widgets production machines will be type A. The type B production machine have a running lifetime they will produce the same amount of type B widgets over their lifetime regardless of if that lifetime happens now or spread over a longer time.
Even if the price of widgets drops to $1.2 and type B production becomes unprofitable the money on the type B production machine has already been spent it still makes sense to run it till its lifetime is complete (this is the case cos fosil fuel products are cheap but the infrastructure to burn them is expensive) it is better to realise some percentage of the infrastructure roi than to realise 0% of the roi. Thus you run the machine despite it being unprofitable on a per widget bases as this reduces ur overall loss.
In the end the same total number of type B widgets where produced just that increased demand means that we transition to type A widgets faster and produce the last of the type B widgets now instead of later.
Great explanation which makes sense.
“Coalie” the cute little mascot to sell the idea to fucking children for fucks sake.
This timeline is fucking atrocious.
Nah, those data centers will be powered by gas turbines cos the current electrical infrastructure can’t handle the amount of power the data centers need.
Yeah I’m not saying they will be powered by renewables but increased power demands will drive investment into it cos their is a profit incentive.