• ChemicalPilgrim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    The profit margin may be lower, but I don’t see how fossil fuels could continue to maintain that margin as renewables undercut them. What utility would run a more expensive generator than a less expensive one, all else equal? Expected profit is higher from a wind farm that can continue to run for decades than a coal plant you have to shutter a partway through its lifespan because new, cheaper energy is available and grid stability functions are taken over by batteries instead of spinning turbines.

      • ChemicalPilgrim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Can’t really defend against some backwards legislature passing a law that says, “you can only use coal stoves to heat your house” or something, but it seems like a rear guard action that’s fighting a fundamental shift in how we generate energy. If renewables are cheaper, much of the world will just go with that, which is what will drive most of the transition.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          It is definitely a rearguard action, but it is a big enough deal that it has the potential to slow decarbonization enough to push temperatures outside of the range where we’re reasonably assured of a civilization-supporting planet.