2 ms·

Right now renewables and storage are cheaper than most new fossil fuel types of generation. The cheapest new fossil fuel generation, gas, is bottlenecked by lim

Right now renewables and storage are cheaper than most new fossil fuel types of generation. The cheapest new fossil fuel generation, gas, is bottlenecked by limited capacity to build new turbines currently. So if you look at new resources being added to the grid, it's all solar, wind, storage, and a tiny bit of new fossil gas generation. The biggest impediment to more renewables is no longer cost, it's politics and regulations. We have a president that has torpedoes one of the best new sources of wind, offshore wind, just as it's becoming super economical, and all the rest of the world is going to get the benefit of that cheap energy while the US falls behind. Floating offshore wind in the Pacific, based on the same type of tech as floating oil platforms, could provide a hugely beneficial amount of electricity at night and in winter, to balance out solar with less storage and less overbuilding. Meanwhile on land, transmission line are a huge bottleneck towards more solar and wind, and the interconnection queue for the grid is backed out to hell in most places. The technology and economics are there, but the humans and their bureaucracy is not ready to fully jump on board.

dylan604 7mo ago
You seem to be focused on generation and delivery costs. Fossil fuels like coal needs to be mined and then shipped to the power plants.
- epistasis 7mo ago
  I'm including the costs of fossil fuel extraction in the comparison here; in the US fossil gas is super super cheap which makes it more competitive with solar and storage than in most places.
KaiserPro 7mo ago
> is bottlenecked by limited capacity to build new turbines currently. its bottlenecked by price. The reason why the UK's electricity is so fucking expensive is because its pegged to international gas prices
- epistasis 7mo ago
  My comment, like the linked article, was focused entirely on the US's situation, which has abundant fossil gas to the point that many frackers burn it as a waste product. I'd totally agree for UK and continental Europe. The difference between oil and gas is massive on the distribution angle, oil moves easily as long as there's not a naval blockade, but fossil gas requires super super expensive infrastructure either via pipeline or LNG. And with nearly all fossil fuel companies in the last stages of their life, trying to maximize profits on existing capital, it's hard to get investor support to buy infrastructure that costs multiple billions and has limited lifetime. I don't know the details in Europe, but it seems like this phasing out of infrastructure as the transition happens is a major hassle... I'd love any links on that sort of info about Europe.
  - KaiserPro 7mo ago
    You're missing the nuance here, gas is priced internationally, as is oil. The distribution costs for the UK are much less than in the US
    - epistasis 7mo ago
      LNG may be priced internationally to some degree, but local distribution of gas by pipelines drastically changes that equation. It may only be a few dollars per barrel to transport a barrel of oil, but LNG is far higher due to the massive liquefaction costs. As an indication of just how much natural gas is not priced internationally, US Henry Hub is down around $3/MMBTu, while UK NBP prices are around $14/MMBtu, if I did that correctly. When you say that distribution costs for the UK are much less than in the US, do you mean the cost of distributing natural gas? I'm not following your logic there.

dylan604 7mo ago

You seem to be focused on generation and delivery costs. Fossil fuels like coal needs to be mined and then shipped to the power plants.

epistasis 7mo ago
I'm including the costs of fossil fuel extraction in the comparison here; in the US fossil gas is super super cheap which makes it more competitive with solar and storage than in most places.

KaiserPro 7mo ago

> is bottlenecked by limited capacity to build new turbines currently. its bottlenecked by price. The reason why the UK's electricity is so fucking expensive is because its pegged to international gas prices

epistasis 7mo ago
My comment, like the linked article, was focused entirely on the US's situation, which has abundant fossil gas to the point that many frackers burn it as a waste product. I'd totally agree for UK and continental Europe. The difference between oil and gas is massive on the distribution angle, oil moves easily as long as there's not a naval blockade, but fossil gas requires super super expensive infrastructure either via pipeline or LNG. And with nearly all fossil fuel companies in the last stages of their life, trying to maximize profits on existing capital, it's hard to get investor support to buy infrastructure that costs multiple billions and has limited lifetime. I don't know the details in Europe, but it seems like this phasing out of infrastructure as the transition happens is a major hassle... I'd love any links on that sort of info about Europe.
- KaiserPro 7mo ago
  You're missing the nuance here, gas is priced internationally, as is oil. The distribution costs for the UK are much less than in the US
  - epistasis 7mo ago
    LNG may be priced internationally to some degree, but local distribution of gas by pipelines drastically changes that equation. It may only be a few dollars per barrel to transport a barrel of oil, but LNG is far higher due to the massive liquefaction costs. As an indication of just how much natural gas is not priced internationally, US Henry Hub is down around $3/MMBTu, while UK NBP prices are around $14/MMBtu, if I did that correctly. When you say that distribution costs for the UK are much less than in the US, do you mean the cost of distributing natural gas? I'm not following your logic there.