5 ms·

The cost of gas does not include the now massive externalities. If it did, the financial case would already favor a mix of more planet friendly, renewable ener

The cost of gas does not include the now massive externalities. If it did, the financial case would already favor a mix of more planet friendly, renewable energy. People are going to be living very differently 50 years from now, maybe sooner.

acidburnNSA 8y ago
Excellent point. What's the insurance policy for global warming look like? I'd say the favor would be towards planet friendly, low-carbon energy. Biomass is renewable but high carbon while nuclear fission is low-carbon but not considered* renewable. Is nuclear fusion considered renewable? Renewability doesn't matter in itself. It's anything that's long-term sustainable given our current understanding of the world. *though known resources will last at world-scale for at least 10s of thousands of years, and more likely billions of years.
- ddingus 8y ago
  It has gotta be very expensive. Yeah, known resources are still very significant compared to our use profile. And that means we have them for necessary uses. Too much consumption is bad. We know that now. Good news is we did bootstrap appropriate tech. No reason not to use it, and frankly the cost does not concern me. (Those externalities are simply huge) What I see is another bootstrap effort. Lots of jobs, economic activity. Many people need that too. Game on.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > though known resources will last at world-scale for at least 10s of thousands of years, and more likely billions of years. "Billions of years" is about how long before the sun burns out, so in that sense solar wouldn't be renewable either.
Dylan16807 8y ago
Looks like vaguely around $50 per MWh to capture the carbon coming out of a natural gas plant. That cost would shift the balance but it wouldn't push base loads onto renewables just yet.
- thechao 8y ago
  I think the best reliable estimate I know of is 600$/ton of solid sequestered CO2. (That’s an operating plant.) olivine based methods could be a 1/3 of that. That puts the cost at 6$/gallon of consumer-grade fuel. I feel like if I ran a 1300 hp car for an hour, I’d use far more than 9 gallons. CCGT must be hella efficient.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    That's capturing it from the air, isn't it? From what I understand that's a lot more expensive than sticking your equipment directly on the output of the power plant. Also natural gas specifically is quite carbon-light.
ThomPete 8y ago
The massive externalities are two-fold though both good and bad. Whats the positive externalities worth compared to the negative, thats imo a better way to think about this. Also does solar include externalities such as of decommission, price of extracting rare earth materials, externalities with regard to production and setting up? My guess is that nuclear is going to win and that we are going to reduce the cost of creating the powerplants by reducing the bureaucracy around it because of the newer reactors safetymeasures (physics based).
- Krasnol 8y ago
  I'm sure you also didn't include costs for nuclear waste, plant decomission, set up etc. > My guess is that nuclear is going to win My guess is that nuclear is never to be seen again, as it should be.
  - acidburnNSA 8y ago
    Nuclear waste and plant decmissioning are actually all included in nuclear LCOE. This is quite unique. Nuclear plants all pay into a multi-billion dollar thing called the Nuclear Waste Fund and all have trust funds for decommissioning. In fact, some have suggested that as decommissioning costs are coming in lower than expected, some utilities are factoring in access to those decom funds in their decisions to close plants early.
    - Krasnol 8y ago
      It certainly doesn't feel so priced in in Germany right now where the taxpayer has to pay for formerly "safe" mine dumps and decommissioning.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Its all included in nuclear. And newer plants will be able to eat its own waste. Not wanting to see nuclear again sounds very regressive to me, but ok if you dont care about co2 there is certainly not need for it.

acidburnNSA 8y ago

Excellent point. What's the insurance policy for global warming look like? I'd say the favor would be towards planet friendly, low-carbon energy. Biomass is renewable but high carbon while nuclear fission is low-carbon but not considered* renewable. Is nuclear fusion considered renewable? Renewability doesn't matter in itself. It's anything that's long-term sustainable given our current understanding of the world. *though known resources will last at world-scale for at least 10s of thousands of years, and more likely billions of years.

ddingus 8y ago
It has gotta be very expensive. Yeah, known resources are still very significant compared to our use profile. And that means we have them for necessary uses. Too much consumption is bad. We know that now. Good news is we did bootstrap appropriate tech. No reason not to use it, and frankly the cost does not concern me. (Those externalities are simply huge) What I see is another bootstrap effort. Lots of jobs, economic activity. Many people need that too. Game on.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> though known resources will last at world-scale for at least 10s of thousands of years, and more likely billions of years. "Billions of years" is about how long before the sun burns out, so in that sense solar wouldn't be renewable either.

Dylan16807 8y ago

Looks like vaguely around $50 per MWh to capture the carbon coming out of a natural gas plant. That cost would shift the balance but it wouldn't push base loads onto renewables just yet.

thechao 8y ago
I think the best reliable estimate I know of is 600$/ton of solid sequestered CO2. (That’s an operating plant.) olivine based methods could be a 1/3 of that. That puts the cost at 6$/gallon of consumer-grade fuel. I feel like if I ran a 1300 hp car for an hour, I’d use far more than 9 gallons. CCGT must be hella efficient.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  That's capturing it from the air, isn't it? From what I understand that's a lot more expensive than sticking your equipment directly on the output of the power plant. Also natural gas specifically is quite carbon-light.

ThomPete 8y ago

The massive externalities are two-fold though both good and bad. Whats the positive externalities worth compared to the negative, thats imo a better way to think about this. Also does solar include externalities such as of decommission, price of extracting rare earth materials, externalities with regard to production and setting up? My guess is that nuclear is going to win and that we are going to reduce the cost of creating the powerplants by reducing the bureaucracy around it because of the newer reactors safetymeasures (physics based).

Krasnol 8y ago
I'm sure you also didn't include costs for nuclear waste, plant decomission, set up etc. > My guess is that nuclear is going to win My guess is that nuclear is never to be seen again, as it should be.
- acidburnNSA 8y ago
  Nuclear waste and plant decmissioning are actually all included in nuclear LCOE. This is quite unique. Nuclear plants all pay into a multi-billion dollar thing called the Nuclear Waste Fund and all have trust funds for decommissioning. In fact, some have suggested that as decommissioning costs are coming in lower than expected, some utilities are factoring in access to those decom funds in their decisions to close plants early.
  - Krasnol 8y ago
    It certainly doesn't feel so priced in in Germany right now where the taxpayer has to pay for formerly "safe" mine dumps and decommissioning.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Its all included in nuclear. And newer plants will be able to eat its own waste. Not wanting to see nuclear again sounds very regressive to me, but ok if you dont care about co2 there is certainly not need for it.