3 ms·

Why is it a problem to give funding or tax advantages to projects that actively reduce emissions?

by tshaddox 5y ago

vlovich123 5y ago
The argument would be that if you didn’t provide that out market forces would force us into renewables more quickly.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Surely any support available to projects that replace higher-emissions facilities with lower-emissions facilities would still be available if the lower-emissions facility is a zero-emissions facility, right?
  - mulmen 5y ago
    The gas plants aren’t zero emission. They’re better than coal. That’s a low bar.
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    You have a finite pool of resources. Market forces means that people will try to optimize for the best ROI (not really the full story, but generally true for a vast majority of the funds). Since natural gas is cheaper, you’re subsidizing a comparatively dirty source of energy which penalizes something like nuclear which is truly zero carbon. So sure, net you might achieve a reduction. However, that could mean that after 30 years you aren’t as decarbonized if the investments in natural gas prevented nuclear and renewable build out. I don’t know if that’s the actual case, but my prior based on how the FF industry operates leads me to believe that to be a reason natural gas is being framed in this way. Sure, it only covers construction before 2030. However these plants easily last 50+ years and inflation means that a nuclear plant starting in 2031 will have a much harder time competing with a natural gas plant making its economics worse. I’m always open to having my mind changed with data and a compelling counterargument, but I’m more sympathetic to the position that’s extremely concerned with natural gas being included. The emissions limit should probably be 10x lower than what was set to allow natural gas. If this is a jobs thing to provide an off ramp for the industry, I’m more sympathetic to that as long as we’re honest and transparent that that’s why we’re doing it (the political and economic ramifications are just as important as the goal of decarbonization). Just don’t spit in my face and tell me it’s raining.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  Sure yeah. The politics of that (i.e. pretty much everyone seeing massive increases in their heating, electricity and fuel costs) would lead to a backlash and actually lead to less action over the longer term. That's the theory anyway, and if we look at what happened in France with fuel taxes, it seems pretty plausible to me.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
mulmen 5y ago
It’s a problem when gas plants are classified as green so they can consume benefits earmarked for green power.
petre 5y ago
Because then Russian gas investments could get EU funding, that's why. Like a Russian owned gas terminal on German soil, to be more precise. That would actually take funding from nuclear or renewables and into fuelling another country's geopolitical ambitions.

Why is it a problem to give funding or tax advantages to projects that actively reduce emissions?

vlovich123 5y ago

The argument would be that if you didn’t provide that out market forces would force us into renewables more quickly.

tshaddox 5y ago
Surely any support available to projects that replace higher-emissions facilities with lower-emissions facilities would still be available if the lower-emissions facility is a zero-emissions facility, right?
- mulmen 5y ago
  The gas plants aren’t zero emission. They’re better than coal. That’s a low bar.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  You have a finite pool of resources. Market forces means that people will try to optimize for the best ROI (not really the full story, but generally true for a vast majority of the funds). Since natural gas is cheaper, you’re subsidizing a comparatively dirty source of energy which penalizes something like nuclear which is truly zero carbon. So sure, net you might achieve a reduction. However, that could mean that after 30 years you aren’t as decarbonized if the investments in natural gas prevented nuclear and renewable build out. I don’t know if that’s the actual case, but my prior based on how the FF industry operates leads me to believe that to be a reason natural gas is being framed in this way. Sure, it only covers construction before 2030. However these plants easily last 50+ years and inflation means that a nuclear plant starting in 2031 will have a much harder time competing with a natural gas plant making its economics worse. I’m always open to having my mind changed with data and a compelling counterargument, but I’m more sympathetic to the position that’s extremely concerned with natural gas being included. The emissions limit should probably be 10x lower than what was set to allow natural gas. If this is a jobs thing to provide an off ramp for the industry, I’m more sympathetic to that as long as we’re honest and transparent that that’s why we’re doing it (the political and economic ramifications are just as important as the goal of decarbonization). Just don’t spit in my face and tell me it’s raining.
disgruntledphd2 5y ago
Sure yeah. The politics of that (i.e. pretty much everyone seeing massive increases in their heating, electricity and fuel costs) would lead to a backlash and actually lead to less action over the longer term. That's the theory anyway, and if we look at what happened in France with fuel taxes, it seems pretty plausible to me.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

mulmen 5y ago

It’s a problem when gas plants are classified as green so they can consume benefits earmarked for green power.

petre 5y ago

Because then Russian gas investments could get EU funding, that's why. Like a Russian owned gas terminal on German soil, to be more precise. That would actually take funding from nuclear or renewables and into fuelling another country's geopolitical ambitions.