5 ms·

the US is propping up gas while the world moves to renewable energy

54 points by lxm 2y ago

tromp 2y ago
One reason for this is that since cutting off Russian gas, Europe has begun importing huge amounts of liquefied gas from multiple sources, the U.S. being the biggest one [1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61483 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61483
- maerF0x0 2y ago
  And somehow the US gets painted as a bad guy for helping...
- PreInternet01 2y ago
  European LNG imports are mostly from Qatar and, somewhat ironically, Russia: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/lng/112823-interactive-lng-europe-imports https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight... (And, in case you're wondering why The Netherlands imports so much LNG: that's where the terminals are...)
  - youngtaff 2y ago
    That chart shows most of Europe’s LNG coming from the US
- Clent 2y ago
  This is not what the article is about. There is nothing in the article about exporting. The percentage of America's electricity generated by non-renewables is lagging behind others. The crux of the article is that American has replaced coal with natural gas.
  - RetroTechie 2y ago
    Of course fossil fuel lobby had nothing to do with that..
  - tonetegeatinst 2y ago
    Agreed. However I'd argue there is a few major factors. 1. I live in a state with nuclear power, I love radiation, but I also recognize that the US has basically been super avoidance of nuclear anything since the three mile incident. Even though no direct lives were lost, it created a lot of fear. And nuclear power also gets the PR of nuclear weapons unfortunately 2. Where I live solar might be feasible if the trees were not so dam tall....so we only get like 4 or many 5 hours of direct sunlight on the best days. I'm all for solar and love to see it becoming commonplace in my area over the past 5 years, but I also realize that its still not super affordable or efficient. 3. Regulation is a thing. Its not easy to start a power company that produces electricity. Even if you ignore the capital requirements, their are laws and regulations that need to be followed and these exist for a reason. In addition, you need to be able to generate enough profit so that you can repay the loans you probably took to get your company started, you also need to pay salary, and maintenance bills, and be planning for the future when your current equipment breaks or its lifespan has reached its end. You need to juggle this mess all without charging customers (the consumer and distribution company) to much otherwise they will straight up go out of their way to not do business with you. Sure solar dosnt need to buy physical stuff like a coal factory does or even how a nuclear plant needs to buy fuel....but you need to keep those panels or your wind turbines in running condition. You need to be able to have a battery backup method for the stormy cloudy days with no wind. This all costs money and its not something that can spring up out of nowhere. 3. Renewables are not a basic technology. Just like how a gas factory burn fuel or an engine needs to be made to certain tolerances to work. You have that problem but its 1000× worse. Your solar cells are not something that can easily be fabed. You need extremely specialized equipment similar to a semiconductor boundary or a EV battery maker. Wind turbine blades are massive and very few places can actually make them, what kinda wait time do you think a brand new turbine blade has? All of this to mention that while solar cells have become cheaper, they only last 20 to 25 years tops and we need more efficient cost effective improvements. Turbine blades are a nightmare to make and transport, and can easily break, and we currently don't recycle them. All of this points to a future that is grey and hazy. These are technical issues were facing, and its not something that gets fixed overnight. R&D isn't free and when coal and gas are much cheaper at the moment, well as much as I dislike the practice I can't blame company's for using what makes economic sense. Keep in mind, all of this, be it renewables or the most inefficient coal power plant is still impacting the environment. Those renewables like solar or nuclear are expensive, require high precision, and use expensive metals. Hell the power lines alone.....just imagine how much co2 was produced refining the metal cables and insulation. Now remember that energy transmission is inefficient and nowhere near close to lossless. I think were seeing a buildup of our current limits in technology given our current solution. Things like better solar or wind, or small breader reactors have potential, but it's going to take Time, money, and a lot of innovation to get to a better greener future where we can meet future energy needs while drasticly reducing our impact on earth.
badgersnake 2y ago
The limiting factor in the UK at least seems to be the power grid, we really need to get better at upgrading it quicker and cheaper.
maerF0x0 2y ago
> President Joe Biden set a goal of reaching 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 and signed into law the nation’s largest investment in clean energy and climate to date with the Inflation Reduction Act. Perhaps a nuanced detail out of scope for the article, but I continue to be frustrated that the Government is legislating solutions, not outcomes. Because we're primarily focused on CO2 balance I should be allowed to emit + sink as much as I please so long as the net is <= 0 . Additionally reading between the lines this article could be titled "World free to use renewables, knowing US gas is a backup plan" . Again the US is being a world good guy by ensuring that Russian gas has less geo-politcal power than it did in the past. (how quickly we forget the German crisis in 2022)
- mistrial9 2y ago
  two brothers and their truck fleet in the West Texas pirmian basin claim that their fracking operation has a little filter on it so "its all good" ..same as the last 15 years regarding blowing up pipelines of other nations -- no comment
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  The government took two swings at legislating outcomes during the Obama administration, first when Congress considered some climate bills like Waxman-Markey, and then the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. The bills failed and the CPP was stayed by the courts then gutted during the Trump administration. The law is what can get through the process. Unfortunately that may not always result in the best approach.
- jfengel 2y ago
  Legislating outcomes would mean having to compel you. If you want to guarantee that you, personally, will be net-zero CO2, then the government will need some way to enforce that guarantee. I'm not sure that's really what you want. There wouldn't be any room to say, "I wanted to be net-zero, but I couldn't force the local power company to stop using coal". You'd either have to cut your energy use, a lot, or suffer whatever punishment was in the government's purview. This is a coordination problem. That's precisely the kind of situation that governments are good for.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
coffeebeqn 2y ago
I mean doesn’t gas make sense at least until every coal plant is offline ?
- youngtaff 2y ago
  Why replace coal with gas when you can replace coal with solar and wind?
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    . . . because you can't. Nuclear, sure.
GenerocUsername 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
wumeow 2y ago
Here’s the actual report the article is based on: https://ember-climate.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Report-Global-Electricity-Review-2024.pdf https://ember-climate.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Report-Global-...
kkfx 2y ago
Well, I do not know in the US, but here in EU the main problem with renewables is the absurd price they have: I've built some years ago a small domestic p.v. system myself since here is legal (France, certifications is done by energy grid operator body) spending 11.500€ for 5kWp/8kWh LFP (used as a big home UPS in case of grid failure, not anything else) the decision to made it myself was made after I collect quotes from some local companies, the cheapest was ~30.000€ the most expensive ~50.000€ for essentially the same system. A low-cost usable BEV (meaning at least 400km WLTP range, should be something like 250 miles EPA range) is no less than 30.000€ and in this range there are only some Chinese brands witch have no incentives as an "anti-dumping" (effectively an anti-free-trade) measure. To get something just a little more it's ~45-50.000€. Seeing p.v., BEV etc prices in China well... That's why EU lag behind, I imaging a similar situation happen in the USA as well. Our industries led by managers has ceased any substantial research and development since SOME DECADES, so even if we was the best in the world now we are just a little bit more advanced than China in some areas, even a bit behind in some other areas. Trying to compete pushing measures against free trade and keep pushing up prices to try keeping up industry margins will not last longer. Actual devastating management culture should be removed with whatever it takes to annihilate it, and be prepared for a decade at least of recovery, otherwise the "lag behind renewables" will became "lag behind" in general.
shortsunblack 2y ago
Americans also consume way more per capita than Europeans. For future trade deal deliberations, EU must demand US pay for its pollution. Carbon credits, but not for goods, but individuals. Tax the carbon of imports, too. It's astonishing how much impunity US gets on not doing anything of value in regards to the Climate crisis. China leads in solar rollout, China leads in EVs. China leads in HSR. EU leads in building codes/insulation/heat pump adoption (you can't import most of the heat pumps into US because uhh scary refrigerant is being used!).
- throwaway11460 2y ago
  China also leads in coal, oil and gas.
  - shortsunblack 2y ago
    As they can. It is still largely a developing country with half the population in poverty. If we are to take United States' historic emissions and equalize it to per capita, China can pollute at current rate till death of universe. This inconsequential of an argument you are making. Green colonialism is not desirable.
- gruez 2y ago
  >EU must demand US pay for its pollution. Carbon credits, but not for goods, but individuals. Tax the carbon of imports, too. I get the justification for a carbon border tax is to equalize the cost difference between a country that has a carbon tax vs one that doesn't, so manufacturers from the country with carbon tax isn't disadvantaged, but what's the justification for enacting taxes just because the country's citizens are polluting? Is it just a "we don't like what you're doing" tax?
  - jijijijij 2y ago
    Because pollution is of global consequence?
    - 2y ago

54 points by lxm 2y ago

One reason for this is that since cutting off Russian gas, Europe has begun importing huge amounts of liquefied gas from multiple sources, the U.S. being the biggest one [1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61483 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61483

maerF0x0 2y ago
And somehow the US gets painted as a bad guy for helping...
PreInternet01 2y ago
European LNG imports are mostly from Qatar and, somewhat ironically, Russia: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/lng/112823-interactive-lng-europe-imports https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight... (And, in case you're wondering why The Netherlands imports so much LNG: that's where the terminals are...)
- youngtaff 2y ago
  That chart shows most of Europe’s LNG coming from the US
Clent 2y ago
This is not what the article is about. There is nothing in the article about exporting. The percentage of America's electricity generated by non-renewables is lagging behind others. The crux of the article is that American has replaced coal with natural gas.
- RetroTechie 2y ago
  Of course fossil fuel lobby had nothing to do with that..
- tonetegeatinst 2y ago
  Agreed. However I'd argue there is a few major factors. 1. I live in a state with nuclear power, I love radiation, but I also recognize that the US has basically been super avoidance of nuclear anything since the three mile incident. Even though no direct lives were lost, it created a lot of fear. And nuclear power also gets the PR of nuclear weapons unfortunately 2. Where I live solar might be feasible if the trees were not so dam tall....so we only get like 4 or many 5 hours of direct sunlight on the best days. I'm all for solar and love to see it becoming commonplace in my area over the past 5 years, but I also realize that its still not super affordable or efficient. 3. Regulation is a thing. Its not easy to start a power company that produces electricity. Even if you ignore the capital requirements, their are laws and regulations that need to be followed and these exist for a reason. In addition, you need to be able to generate enough profit so that you can repay the loans you probably took to get your company started, you also need to pay salary, and maintenance bills, and be planning for the future when your current equipment breaks or its lifespan has reached its end. You need to juggle this mess all without charging customers (the consumer and distribution company) to much otherwise they will straight up go out of their way to not do business with you. Sure solar dosnt need to buy physical stuff like a coal factory does or even how a nuclear plant needs to buy fuel....but you need to keep those panels or your wind turbines in running condition. You need to be able to have a battery backup method for the stormy cloudy days with no wind. This all costs money and its not something that can spring up out of nowhere. 3. Renewables are not a basic technology. Just like how a gas factory burn fuel or an engine needs to be made to certain tolerances to work. You have that problem but its 1000× worse. Your solar cells are not something that can easily be fabed. You need extremely specialized equipment similar to a semiconductor boundary or a EV battery maker. Wind turbine blades are massive and very few places can actually make them, what kinda wait time do you think a brand new turbine blade has? All of this to mention that while solar cells have become cheaper, they only last 20 to 25 years tops and we need more efficient cost effective improvements. Turbine blades are a nightmare to make and transport, and can easily break, and we currently don't recycle them. All of this points to a future that is grey and hazy. These are technical issues were facing, and its not something that gets fixed overnight. R&D isn't free and when coal and gas are much cheaper at the moment, well as much as I dislike the practice I can't blame company's for using what makes economic sense. Keep in mind, all of this, be it renewables or the most inefficient coal power plant is still impacting the environment. Those renewables like solar or nuclear are expensive, require high precision, and use expensive metals. Hell the power lines alone.....just imagine how much co2 was produced refining the metal cables and insulation. Now remember that energy transmission is inefficient and nowhere near close to lossless. I think were seeing a buildup of our current limits in technology given our current solution. Things like better solar or wind, or small breader reactors have potential, but it's going to take Time, money, and a lot of innovation to get to a better greener future where we can meet future energy needs while drasticly reducing our impact on earth.

badgersnake 2y ago

The limiting factor in the UK at least seems to be the power grid, we really need to get better at upgrading it quicker and cheaper.

maerF0x0 2y ago

> President Joe Biden set a goal of reaching 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 and signed into law the nation’s largest investment in clean energy and climate to date with the Inflation Reduction Act. Perhaps a nuanced detail out of scope for the article, but I continue to be frustrated that the Government is legislating solutions, not outcomes. Because we're primarily focused on CO2 balance I should be allowed to emit + sink as much as I please so long as the net is <= 0 . Additionally reading between the lines this article could be titled "World free to use renewables, knowing US gas is a backup plan" . Again the US is being a world good guy by ensuring that Russian gas has less geo-politcal power than it did in the past. (how quickly we forget the German crisis in 2022)

mistrial9 2y ago
two brothers and their truck fleet in the West Texas pirmian basin claim that their fracking operation has a little filter on it so "its all good" ..same as the last 15 years regarding blowing up pipelines of other nations -- no comment
snowwrestler 2y ago
The government took two swings at legislating outcomes during the Obama administration, first when Congress considered some climate bills like Waxman-Markey, and then the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. The bills failed and the CPP was stayed by the courts then gutted during the Trump administration. The law is what can get through the process. Unfortunately that may not always result in the best approach.
jfengel 2y ago
Legislating outcomes would mean having to compel you. If you want to guarantee that you, personally, will be net-zero CO2, then the government will need some way to enforce that guarantee. I'm not sure that's really what you want. There wouldn't be any room to say, "I wanted to be net-zero, but I couldn't force the local power company to stop using coal". You'd either have to cut your energy use, a lot, or suffer whatever punishment was in the government's purview. This is a coordination problem. That's precisely the kind of situation that governments are good for.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

coffeebeqn 2y ago

I mean doesn’t gas make sense at least until every coal plant is offline ?

youngtaff 2y ago
Why replace coal with gas when you can replace coal with solar and wind?
- psunavy03 2y ago
  . . . because you can't. Nuclear, sure.

GenerocUsername 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

wumeow 2y ago

Here’s the actual report the article is based on: https://ember-climate.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Report-Global-Electricity-Review-2024.pdf https://ember-climate.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Report-Global-...

kkfx 2y ago

Well, I do not know in the US, but here in EU the main problem with renewables is the absurd price they have: I've built some years ago a small domestic p.v. system myself since here is legal (France, certifications is done by energy grid operator body) spending 11.500€ for 5kWp/8kWh LFP (used as a big home UPS in case of grid failure, not anything else) the decision to made it myself was made after I collect quotes from some local companies, the cheapest was ~30.000€ the most expensive ~50.000€ for essentially the same system. A low-cost usable BEV (meaning at least 400km WLTP range, should be something like 250 miles EPA range) is no less than 30.000€ and in this range there are only some Chinese brands witch have no incentives as an "anti-dumping" (effectively an anti-free-trade) measure. To get something just a little more it's ~45-50.000€. Seeing p.v., BEV etc prices in China well... That's why EU lag behind, I imaging a similar situation happen in the USA as well. Our industries led by managers has ceased any substantial research and development since SOME DECADES, so even if we was the best in the world now we are just a little bit more advanced than China in some areas, even a bit behind in some other areas. Trying to compete pushing measures against free trade and keep pushing up prices to try keeping up industry margins will not last longer. Actual devastating management culture should be removed with whatever it takes to annihilate it, and be prepared for a decade at least of recovery, otherwise the "lag behind renewables" will became "lag behind" in general.

shortsunblack 2y ago

Americans also consume way more per capita than Europeans. For future trade deal deliberations, EU must demand US pay for its pollution. Carbon credits, but not for goods, but individuals. Tax the carbon of imports, too. It's astonishing how much impunity US gets on not doing anything of value in regards to the Climate crisis. China leads in solar rollout, China leads in EVs. China leads in HSR. EU leads in building codes/insulation/heat pump adoption (you can't import most of the heat pumps into US because uhh scary refrigerant is being used!).

throwaway11460 2y ago
China also leads in coal, oil and gas.
- shortsunblack 2y ago
  As they can. It is still largely a developing country with half the population in poverty. If we are to take United States' historic emissions and equalize it to per capita, China can pollute at current rate till death of universe. This inconsequential of an argument you are making. Green colonialism is not desirable.
gruez 2y ago
>EU must demand US pay for its pollution. Carbon credits, but not for goods, but individuals. Tax the carbon of imports, too. I get the justification for a carbon border tax is to equalize the cost difference between a country that has a carbon tax vs one that doesn't, so manufacturers from the country with carbon tax isn't disadvantaged, but what's the justification for enacting taxes just because the country's citizens are polluting? Is it just a "we don't like what you're doing" tax?
- jijijijij 2y ago
  Because pollution is of global consequence?
  - 2y ago