3 ms·

The article equated "investment risk" to cost overruns, not ROI. It's like a forgone conclusion. If you have to build something, you have to pay construction co

The article equated "investment risk" to cost overruns, not ROI. It's like a forgone conclusion. If you have to build something, you have to pay construction costs and those can vary. If you can buy most of the stuff you need on Amazon (ok, supplier X), you can predict the cost better. If you look at ROI, which looks at the demand side risk as well (perhaps transient demand, need for quick build out), and assume utilities are in the business of profit maximization, natural gas wins.

earthnail 1y ago
This is why carbon tax is so important. The moment you tax carbon emissions, natural gas no longer wins. Assessing the right amount of tax is non-trivial, but approximations for the costs of carbon emissions exist, and even conservative estimates push natural gas out of the profitability zone.
- delusional 1y ago
  > Assessing the right amount of tax is non-trivia I disagree. The "right amount" is pretty trivial. Structuring it such that it's politically favorable, precise, and robust is the actual issue. There's a general tension between precision and robustness in law, and finding that tradeoff is often the difficult part once public opinion is secured.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  The right amount is the amount that drives net emissions to zero.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > right amount is the amount that drives net emissions to zero On what timeframe? Put it too soon and you risk social upheaval crashing the whole project. Put it too late and you cause unnecessary damage to the climate.
  - djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
    That's debatable. I haven't looked at the numbers, but surely there's some amount of net co2 emissions that doesn't have a significant impact on the climate.
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      The current global CO2 emission rate is about 200x the average emission rate during the Permian/Triassic mass extinction. Just slowing down these emissions buys time, which is useful and valuable, but is not itself a solution. Net CO2 emissions have to be driven effectively to zero or we're just delaying disaster. Also, "net emissions" that include CO2 being absorbed into the oceans must take into account that oceanic absorption declines as surface waters become more saturated with dissolved CO2 and the pH declines. The rate of carbon flux to the deep ocean (from descending organic detritus) is just a few percent of annual emissions.
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  > natural gas no longer wins. Well kinda compared to nuclear yes, but compared to coal/oil/incinerator it wins still.
- msgodel 1y ago
  It's still going to get used for power generation. Do you think flaring it off is a better use?
pydry 1y ago
The relative cheapness (as opposed to feasibility) of storage tech vs natgas is the main reason why storage tech hasnt really taken off. Natural gas is just too cheap as a battery (i.e. peaking). Nuclear power, batteries and pumped storage all require subsidies to be cost competitive and while nuclear power has a powerful champion in the military industrial complex to offset its ridiculous expense, storage tech has no such champion.
- matthewdgreen 1y ago
  Storage tech has China, which is massively installing it and promoting it for export. I think you’re focused on the US, but in terms of new energy construction the US is like a small rural province.

earthnail 1y ago

This is why carbon tax is so important. The moment you tax carbon emissions, natural gas no longer wins. Assessing the right amount of tax is non-trivial, but approximations for the costs of carbon emissions exist, and even conservative estimates push natural gas out of the profitability zone.

delusional 1y ago
> Assessing the right amount of tax is non-trivia I disagree. The "right amount" is pretty trivial. Structuring it such that it's politically favorable, precise, and robust is the actual issue. There's a general tension between precision and robustness in law, and finding that tradeoff is often the difficult part once public opinion is secured.
pfdietz 1y ago
The right amount is the amount that drives net emissions to zero.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > right amount is the amount that drives net emissions to zero On what timeframe? Put it too soon and you risk social upheaval crashing the whole project. Put it too late and you cause unnecessary damage to the climate.
- djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
  That's debatable. I haven't looked at the numbers, but surely there's some amount of net co2 emissions that doesn't have a significant impact on the climate.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    The current global CO2 emission rate is about 200x the average emission rate during the Permian/Triassic mass extinction. Just slowing down these emissions buys time, which is useful and valuable, but is not itself a solution. Net CO2 emissions have to be driven effectively to zero or we're just delaying disaster. Also, "net emissions" that include CO2 being absorbed into the oceans must take into account that oceanic absorption declines as surface waters become more saturated with dissolved CO2 and the pH declines. The rate of carbon flux to the deep ocean (from descending organic detritus) is just a few percent of annual emissions.
KaiserPro 1y ago
> natural gas no longer wins. Well kinda compared to nuclear yes, but compared to coal/oil/incinerator it wins still.
msgodel 1y ago
It's still going to get used for power generation. Do you think flaring it off is a better use?

pydry 1y ago

The relative cheapness (as opposed to feasibility) of storage tech vs natgas is the main reason why storage tech hasnt really taken off. Natural gas is just too cheap as a battery (i.e. peaking). Nuclear power, batteries and pumped storage all require subsidies to be cost competitive and while nuclear power has a powerful champion in the military industrial complex to offset its ridiculous expense, storage tech has no such champion.

matthewdgreen 1y ago
Storage tech has China, which is massively installing it and promoting it for export. I think you’re focused on the US, but in terms of new energy construction the US is like a small rural province.