15 ms·

This supports my point about the cheapness of nat gas. Higher demand AND lower prices.

• whimsicalism 4y ago
  No, it supports my point: ie. that disruptions to the electricity grid are caused by high price of gas. Your point was: in the past there were higher prices, but no major grid disruption. My point: the grid wasn't reliant on natgas in the same way back then as it is now. we have never been as reliant on natgas as today while simultaneously experiencing these high of prices.
  • dpierce9 4y ago
    I said nothing about grid disruptions. Charitably, ‘relied on’ is undefined. Each US interconnect still has many MWh provided by coal plants. Further, coal capacity is still hundreds of gigawatts but you are right that capacity has gone down over the last decade (this isn’t true in China). Still, we all ‘rely on’ coal for any reasonable definition even with relatively more natural gas capacity. We have also always had substantial natural gas generation in every interconnect. The thing that has changed since the shale boom is the relative proportion of those things. I am not sure I would call that disruption since that is how energy markets are designed to work, they reward the lowest cost producer. My only point is that gas looks expensive until you realize you are comparing today’s price to the lowest prices ever. You pointing out that demand has increased supports my point (imagine what the price would be without that demand).