4 ms·

Love how the goalposts magically shifted to ”green hydrogen deployed today!!” even though many grids still don’t even reach saturation from renewables. Storage

Love how the goalposts magically shifted to ”green hydrogen deployed today!!” even though many grids still don’t even reach saturation from renewables. Storage or green hydrogen is an enormous waste of money in Poland given their grid composition. That renewable buildout leads to larger fossil emissions being wrong is trivial to verify. The UK as one example of many: - Coal has gone from 150 TWh to zero. - Fossil gas from 175 TWh to 85 TWh. - Nuclear from 80 TWh to 40 TWh. Massively decreasing all fossil fueled electricity production of course "extends the life" of these plants. All those plants that were shut down had their "life extended". You can do the same for Denmark, Portugal, California, South Australia and everywhere else. First renewables offset coal followed by cutting into gas usage. After hitting a plateau storage is now unlocking massive reductions in fossil gas usage in California: - Gas is down 45% v '23 and 25% v '24 - Batteries up 198% v '23 and 73.4% v '24 https://bsky.app/profile/mzjacobson.bsky.social/post/3lnw3hs7pm22i https://bsky.app/profile/mzjacobson.bsky.social/post/3lnw3hs... Storage is exploding globally. China installed 74 GW comprising 134 GWh of storage in 2024. Increasing their yearly installation rate by 250%. The US is looking at installing 18 GW in 2025 making up 30% of all grid additions. Well, before Trump came with a sledgehammer of insanity. Storage delivers. For the last bit of "emergency reserves" we can run some gas turbines. First our existing fleet and then when it becomes the most pressing issue to decarbonize we can utilize the solution aviation and shipping settled on. Or just run the gas turbines on biofuels, green hydrogen or whatever. Start collecting food waste and create biogas from it. Doesn't really matter, we're talking single percent of total energy demand. I love how completely insignificant issues becomes blown up to enormous proportions try to force nuclear power into the conversation.

belorn 1y ago
Lets then have a ban on all new natural gas power plants until its down to a single percent. That should not be a problem if that is all that is needed. Using UK as an example, the majority of energy is not renewables. Why should they build new natural gas power plants? Natural gas produce more energy than any other source in the UK. They are not going from 98% renewables, 2% natural gas. (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-electricity-was-cleanest-ever-in-2024/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-electricity-was-cle...) UK should increase the production of renewables energy, but they should also decommission their fossil fuel plants. If they want to use non-fossil fuel solutions, then they should do so and compete fairly and without subsidizes. Same goes for nuclear. The cost of intermittence should not be paid by the environment or subsidizes, otherwise they are just hiding the true cost that society have to pay.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  You seem to advocate for some holier than thou perfect path rather than the messy reality that is a transition of the entire energy system to a new cheaper source while upholding our modern society. Let’s look at the area under the curve? You know, we need to decarbonize agriculture, construction, transportation etc. as well. Let look at what the UK has done: - Coal has gone from 150 TWh to zero. - Fossil gas from 175 TWh to 85 TWh. - Nuclear from 80 TWh to 40 TWh. Would you say this reduction in fossil fuel usage is insignificant because they obviously aren’t done yet?
  - belorn 1y ago
    If we want to talk messy reality, then the only realistic way to prevent critical point in global warming is to build everything that is non-fossil fuel, that being renewables, nuclear, experimental storage and so on, while at the same time utilizing market forces and use risk-benefit analysis for each government intervention in order to spend government subsidies as cost effective as possible. Everything is needed in order to do as much as possible to reduce emissions. For EU regulation that requires lower emissions and environmental issues with hydro power, the messy reality is also that the cost of breaking the law and paying the fines are currently cheaper than the economical and political costs of complying with the law. So that is what the Swedish government are doing. The Paris Agreement is just a goal and clearly there is a lot of voters who see it as incompatible with modern society. It is also the messy reality that many current governments in EU got their votes in the last election because they bailed out the citizens when the power crisis happened and paid the power bills through taxes, causing major harm in the market and further inflated prices. Building out more natural gas power plants will reduce the cost of the next crisis, which is also the stated goal of the new one that got built in Sweden.
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      You still haven’t been able to answer why we should waste money on new built nuclear power. It costs 5-10x as much, does not integrate well with renewables due to the capital structure and takes 15-20 years to build from political decision to operational plant. We need to decarbonize now. Not extend the life of fossil assets for decades waiting for nuclear power to come online. With this nuclear power producing a fraction of the TWh compared to if the same money went into renewables and storage. Wasting money on enormous handouts to the nuclear industry is not ”doing as much as possible to reduce emissions”. It is a dogwhistle from climate change deniers to extend the life of fossil assets to stymie their disruption by renewables. I don’t think you’ve kept up with the renewable industry. The absolute explosion we are seeing is because renewables and storage today are cheaper than fossil fuels. It started as feelgood moonshot decades ago. Today companies and countries are at a competitive advantage if they can retool their fossil dependent processes and systems to renewables.

belorn 1y ago

Lets then have a ban on all new natural gas power plants until its down to a single percent. That should not be a problem if that is all that is needed. Using UK as an example, the majority of energy is not renewables. Why should they build new natural gas power plants? Natural gas produce more energy than any other source in the UK. They are not going from 98% renewables, 2% natural gas. (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-electricity-was-cleanest-ever-in-2024/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-electricity-was-cle...) UK should increase the production of renewables energy, but they should also decommission their fossil fuel plants. If they want to use non-fossil fuel solutions, then they should do so and compete fairly and without subsidizes. Same goes for nuclear. The cost of intermittence should not be paid by the environment or subsidizes, otherwise they are just hiding the true cost that society have to pay.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
You seem to advocate for some holier than thou perfect path rather than the messy reality that is a transition of the entire energy system to a new cheaper source while upholding our modern society. Let’s look at the area under the curve? You know, we need to decarbonize agriculture, construction, transportation etc. as well. Let look at what the UK has done: - Coal has gone from 150 TWh to zero. - Fossil gas from 175 TWh to 85 TWh. - Nuclear from 80 TWh to 40 TWh. Would you say this reduction in fossil fuel usage is insignificant because they obviously aren’t done yet?
- belorn 1y ago
  If we want to talk messy reality, then the only realistic way to prevent critical point in global warming is to build everything that is non-fossil fuel, that being renewables, nuclear, experimental storage and so on, while at the same time utilizing market forces and use risk-benefit analysis for each government intervention in order to spend government subsidies as cost effective as possible. Everything is needed in order to do as much as possible to reduce emissions. For EU regulation that requires lower emissions and environmental issues with hydro power, the messy reality is also that the cost of breaking the law and paying the fines are currently cheaper than the economical and political costs of complying with the law. So that is what the Swedish government are doing. The Paris Agreement is just a goal and clearly there is a lot of voters who see it as incompatible with modern society. It is also the messy reality that many current governments in EU got their votes in the last election because they bailed out the citizens when the power crisis happened and paid the power bills through taxes, causing major harm in the market and further inflated prices. Building out more natural gas power plants will reduce the cost of the next crisis, which is also the stated goal of the new one that got built in Sweden.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    You still haven’t been able to answer why we should waste money on new built nuclear power. It costs 5-10x as much, does not integrate well with renewables due to the capital structure and takes 15-20 years to build from political decision to operational plant. We need to decarbonize now. Not extend the life of fossil assets for decades waiting for nuclear power to come online. With this nuclear power producing a fraction of the TWh compared to if the same money went into renewables and storage. Wasting money on enormous handouts to the nuclear industry is not ”doing as much as possible to reduce emissions”. It is a dogwhistle from climate change deniers to extend the life of fossil assets to stymie their disruption by renewables. I don’t think you’ve kept up with the renewable industry. The absolute explosion we are seeing is because renewables and storage today are cheaper than fossil fuels. It started as feelgood moonshot decades ago. Today companies and countries are at a competitive advantage if they can retool their fossil dependent processes and systems to renewables.