54 ms·

Carbon neutrality and excess energy are not a measurement of the same thing. Nevertheless, the energy supply demand balance doesn’t work the way you describe. M

Carbon neutrality and excess energy are not a measurement of the same thing. Nevertheless, the energy supply demand balance doesn’t work the way you describe. Most power plants are contracted with a specific energy buyer such as distribution utility or an industrial buyer that is meeting a specific load need or as part of their resource planning. So there is rarely more excess capacity beyond a reserve margin. These plants are very capital intensive and investors demand a minimum rate of return so if you don’t know who will buy the power and at what price for many years, the plant will not be funded or built. Source: i work in the power financing industry

jillesvangurp 5y ago
That's only how it works now. It's an obsolete way to operate our energy markets. Carbon neutrality will require electrifying large markets that currently aren't electrified. That overall market is much larger than the current electricity market. By the time even a small portion of that market has been addressed, most electricity generation will long be renewable. That's happening a lot faster than some people seem to think/hope for. Existing gas/coal plant generation will be a tiny portion of that market. And there won't be a whole lot of new capacity going forward. Arguably, new gas plants are already a very dubious investment. Most new capacity will either be new players (e.g. Tesla is planning to be a virtual power provider) in the market without a sunk investment legacy or existing players that compete on divesting/isolating their sunk investments the fastest. Either way, this pushes a lot more renewable energy in the market. That in turn accelerates the demise of more expensive things in the market. Including plants that are still under construction which were financed under the assumption that they would operate for a few decades at high price points for energy. I don't think that industry can afford a major drop in cost for renewables. Yet that seems exactly what might be happening. https://www.rethinkx.com/implications https://www.rethinkx.com/implications Rethinkx published an interesting perspective on this recently. They point out that the financial incentives of new technology are making this happen much faster than many incumbent players have planned/hoped for. They are calling out a feasible date of decarbonizing 90% by 2035 using existing technology depending on how governments incentivize and stimulate scaling and deploying that. It's a very aggressive and provocative timeline. But the reasoning behind it has some merit. We can haggle about how far they are off but I doubt it will be measured in decades.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

That's only how it works now. It's an obsolete way to operate our energy markets. Carbon neutrality will require electrifying large markets that currently aren't electrified. That overall market is much larger than the current electricity market. By the time even a small portion of that market has been addressed, most electricity generation will long be renewable. That's happening a lot faster than some people seem to think/hope for. Existing gas/coal plant generation will be a tiny portion of that market. And there won't be a whole lot of new capacity going forward. Arguably, new gas plants are already a very dubious investment. Most new capacity will either be new players (e.g. Tesla is planning to be a virtual power provider) in the market without a sunk investment legacy or existing players that compete on divesting/isolating their sunk investments the fastest. Either way, this pushes a lot more renewable energy in the market. That in turn accelerates the demise of more expensive things in the market. Including plants that are still under construction which were financed under the assumption that they would operate for a few decades at high price points for energy. I don't think that industry can afford a major drop in cost for renewables. Yet that seems exactly what might be happening. https://www.rethinkx.com/implications https://www.rethinkx.com/implications Rethinkx published an interesting perspective on this recently. They point out that the financial incentives of new technology are making this happen much faster than many incumbent players have planned/hoped for. They are calling out a feasible date of decarbonizing 90% by 2035 using existing technology depending on how governments incentivize and stimulate scaling and deploying that. It's a very aggressive and provocative timeline. But the reasoning behind it has some merit. We can haggle about how far they are off but I doubt it will be measured in decades.