6 ms·

You cannot combat climate change by producing electricity cheaper than coal. If that was the case, the market would find a way not to replace coal, but to consu

You cannot combat climate change by producing electricity cheaper than coal. If that was the case, the market would find a way not to replace coal, but to consume the extra on top of coal.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> If that was the case, the market would find a way not to replace coal, but to consume the extra on top of coal. That's not how PPAs and generation works. Nuclear power is already barely viable in the Illinois market (dominated by Exelon) because wind sells its power so much cheaper. There's a new generation facility coming online near Vegas that's going to be selling solar at around 4 cents/kwh, the lowest price in the nation. Cheap renewables don't get consumed above existing fossil generation; cheap renewables push out existing fossil fuel generation. For an example, see Germany and how their utilities can barely keep some generation running because they don't get enough revenue with solar dominating during daylight hours. Solution: Continue to heavily subsidize solar, wind, utility-scale battery storage. Continue to shut down coal plants. Purchase peaking combined cycle natural gas generators, put them into non-profits (because they won't be profitable) to meet the generation gap until enough utility-scale battery storage can allow renewables to be firmly dispatchable resources (they can be relied on to provide power at a constant rate, vs intermittent resources). Profit (or rather, help stop climate change).
- afarrell 11y ago
  This is true. A lot of people don't realize that bulk electricity prices are paid to all generators based on the price of the marginal watt to be scheduled. Natural gas turbines can turn on and off quickly, so they can respond to the market and are usually the ones to provide that marginal watt. That means when natural gas prices decrease, so do profits for nuclear, coal, and hydro plants. Google "location based marginal pricing" to learn more.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  This is true, but so is the comment you reply to. The changes are not occurring purely because the renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper, but also because of (whisper it) benign regulation of the grid and air quality etc., which prioritises renewable and disincentives dirty coal power. I approve of your solution (though with a carbon tax I'm not sure that wind and solar need subsidies any more), though I'm not sure why the peaker gas plants need to go non-profit. They already get paid lots of money for short periods operating on an intermittent basis, so it's only a minor modification of their current business model. And if you have a specific dollar value on their use (including a portion for carbon production) then you have a ready made business model for utility-scale storage technologies to replace and a finincial incentive for the tech to be developed.
- danmaz74 11y ago
  > coming online near Vegas that's going to be selling solar at around 4 cents/kwh The big problem there is that they'll sell you that energy when they have it, not when you need it. Production is really becoming cheap with renewables; storage is the real problem (and a very big one).
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Correct. I mention utility-scale battery storage for that very reason. Until you have utility-scale battery storage, you burn natural gas to make up the difference. Faster response time than coal or nuclear, less carbon output than coal, easier to move across the country, no radioactive waste to store onsite "temporarily" for decades. Hydro could help, but in places with almost no water (California/Nevada), it can't be relied on.
shoo 11y ago
> a fundamentally different approach Here are some ideas: 1. adjust the rules regulating the market (e.g. price greenhouse gas emissions correctly) 2. introduce a tax on advertising to discourage unnecessary consumption 3. ensure the price of products and services includes full life cycle costs of disposal and pollution 4. replace the whole "economic growth" philosophy with something else that is consistent and reconcilable with planetary ecological limits 5. encourage non-coercive measures to discourage population growth (e.g. access to contraception, family planning, give women increased options for education and employment), particularly in the more affluent countries which have very high per-capita environmental footprints 6. discourage population growth as above, and provide increased economic opportunities, for people living in less affluent countries, since people are able to move between countries to seek better opportunities for themselves. Or instead invest in the rather less ethical "Fortress $(countryname)" approach to keep out the people unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong part of the globe. Tangentially, you may be interested in Donella Meadows' "Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System" [1]. [1] -- http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/ http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-place...
- eevilspock 11y ago
  > 4. replace the whole "economic growth" philosophy with something else that is consistent and reconcilable with planetary ecological limits Sadly Capitalism and the ideology that Americans and now it seems the entire world has bought into won't allow that. I agree with Jimmy Carter: "The U.S. Is an "Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery"[1] See also Yes, We’re Corrupt”: A List of Politicians Admitting That Money Controls Politics[2] - [1] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u... [2] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/politicians-admitting-obvious-fact-money-affects-vote/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/politicians-ad...
  - raverbashing 11y ago
    > Sadly Capitalism and the ideology that Americans and now it seems the entire world has bought Oh the whole world hasn't bough it. North Korea is still free from it. Cuba seems to have regretted it though

You cannot combat climate change by producing electricity cheaper than coal. If that was the case, the market would find a way not to replace coal, but to consume the extra on top of coal.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> If that was the case, the market would find a way not to replace coal, but to consume the extra on top of coal. That's not how PPAs and generation works. Nuclear power is already barely viable in the Illinois market (dominated by Exelon) because wind sells its power so much cheaper. There's a new generation facility coming online near Vegas that's going to be selling solar at around 4 cents/kwh, the lowest price in the nation. Cheap renewables don't get consumed above existing fossil generation; cheap renewables push out existing fossil fuel generation. For an example, see Germany and how their utilities can barely keep some generation running because they don't get enough revenue with solar dominating during daylight hours. Solution: Continue to heavily subsidize solar, wind, utility-scale battery storage. Continue to shut down coal plants. Purchase peaking combined cycle natural gas generators, put them into non-profits (because they won't be profitable) to meet the generation gap until enough utility-scale battery storage can allow renewables to be firmly dispatchable resources (they can be relied on to provide power at a constant rate, vs intermittent resources). Profit (or rather, help stop climate change).

afarrell 11y ago
This is true. A lot of people don't realize that bulk electricity prices are paid to all generators based on the price of the marginal watt to be scheduled. Natural gas turbines can turn on and off quickly, so they can respond to the market and are usually the ones to provide that marginal watt. That means when natural gas prices decrease, so do profits for nuclear, coal, and hydro plants. Google "location based marginal pricing" to learn more.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
This is true, but so is the comment you reply to. The changes are not occurring purely because the renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper, but also because of (whisper it) benign regulation of the grid and air quality etc., which prioritises renewable and disincentives dirty coal power. I approve of your solution (though with a carbon tax I'm not sure that wind and solar need subsidies any more), though I'm not sure why the peaker gas plants need to go non-profit. They already get paid lots of money for short periods operating on an intermittent basis, so it's only a minor modification of their current business model. And if you have a specific dollar value on their use (including a portion for carbon production) then you have a ready made business model for utility-scale storage technologies to replace and a finincial incentive for the tech to be developed.
danmaz74 11y ago
> coming online near Vegas that's going to be selling solar at around 4 cents/kwh The big problem there is that they'll sell you that energy when they have it, not when you need it. Production is really becoming cheap with renewables; storage is the real problem (and a very big one).
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Correct. I mention utility-scale battery storage for that very reason. Until you have utility-scale battery storage, you burn natural gas to make up the difference. Faster response time than coal or nuclear, less carbon output than coal, easier to move across the country, no radioactive waste to store onsite "temporarily" for decades. Hydro could help, but in places with almost no water (California/Nevada), it can't be relied on.

shoo 11y ago

> a fundamentally different approach Here are some ideas: 1. adjust the rules regulating the market (e.g. price greenhouse gas emissions correctly) 2. introduce a tax on advertising to discourage unnecessary consumption 3. ensure the price of products and services includes full life cycle costs of disposal and pollution 4. replace the whole "economic growth" philosophy with something else that is consistent and reconcilable with planetary ecological limits 5. encourage non-coercive measures to discourage population growth (e.g. access to contraception, family planning, give women increased options for education and employment), particularly in the more affluent countries which have very high per-capita environmental footprints 6. discourage population growth as above, and provide increased economic opportunities, for people living in less affluent countries, since people are able to move between countries to seek better opportunities for themselves. Or instead invest in the rather less ethical "Fortress $(countryname)" approach to keep out the people unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong part of the globe. Tangentially, you may be interested in Donella Meadows' "Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System" [1]. [1] -- http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/ http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-place...

eevilspock 11y ago
> 4. replace the whole "economic growth" philosophy with something else that is consistent and reconcilable with planetary ecological limits Sadly Capitalism and the ideology that Americans and now it seems the entire world has bought into won't allow that. I agree with Jimmy Carter: "The U.S. Is an "Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery"[1] See also Yes, We’re Corrupt”: A List of Politicians Admitting That Money Controls Politics[2] - [1] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u... [2] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/politicians-admitting-obvious-fact-money-affects-vote/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/politicians-ad...
- raverbashing 11y ago
  > Sadly Capitalism and the ideology that Americans and now it seems the entire world has bought Oh the whole world hasn't bough it. North Korea is still free from it. Cuba seems to have regretted it though