Oft reapeated, but not correct. Building lots of renewables only reduces emissions if it leads to *burning less* fossil fuels. Emissions scale w/how much we burn, not how much fossil power plant capacity is sitting on the grid. If remaining capacity is used rarely, emissions can still fall sharply. - ThreadSky

jessedjenkins.com • 83 days ago

Oft reapeated, but not correct. Building lots of renewables only reduces emissions if it leads to *burning less* fossil fuels. Emissions scale w/how much we burn, not how much fossil power plant capacity is sitting on the grid. If remaining capacity is used rarely, emissions can still fall sharply.

Reposted from Tim Donaghy

Just a reminder that "building lots of RE" only reduces emissions if it leads to shutting down fossil energy, which of course, isn't guaranteed.

A good example of why we need more deliberate supply-side climate policies paired with a RE build out.

www.washingtonpost.com/climate-envi...

Comments

lancedelecto.bsky.social•83 days ago

An underrated path forward politically (imo) is to just focus all messaging and political capital on build out and adoption, not replacement.

I feel like once clean energy is operating at scale, the concept of winding down fossil fuels becomes obvious.

envirolawprof.bsky.social•83 days ago

Yes, but if fossil fuel infrastructure is more efficient, e.g. larger capacity pipelines over shorter distances, or increases access to fossil fuels, e.g., LNG terminals allowing exports, those cost efficiencies could increase fossil fuel burning. But agree ultimate metric is fossil fuel burned.

gillesh38.bsky.social•82 days ago

even "burning less* fossil fuels (= PER YEAR !) doesn't assure that the global amount will be less. They can simply be burnt later, or may be now by other people who will be happy to benefit from a reduced price.

writeon1.bsky.social•82 days ago

How much wind and solar power is unused because the grid is inadequate to transfer it to where the demand exists? And will the demand exist if the grid is insufficient to supply it? Is grid construction the (literal) critical path?

timdonaghy.bsky.social•83 days ago

Yes agree, I should have been more specific.

As we've seen, the hard part is wringing fossil fuels out of the system. I think my main point is that the fabled, popularist "all of the above" framing has big risks!

timwyant.bsky.social•83 days ago

The "all of the above" strategy isn't popularist unless having reliable electricity is popularist. Current clean energy deployments have only recently matched load growth, and that was before the huge ramp up from AI, heating, and transport.

jessedjenkins.com•83 days ago

We need to build more clean faster. That's the only solution. If we can't, and we try to constrain fossil generation, we'll end up with reliability problems and backlash. It's not durable or even possible in the first place. Build, more, clean, faster. That's the mantra.

timdonaghy.bsky.social•83 days ago

Again, I agree 100% with build more clean faster.

I'm not arguing that constraints on fossils should *drive* us into scarcity and backlash. But the issue in the Post article is the opposite problem. (see also oil/gas exports)

timwyant.bsky.social•83 days ago

The reason fossils are being kept online, and more built, is because we aren't building enough clean. How many times do we need to talk about PJM's auction to see we aren't doing enough to build the infrastructure we need to keep the lights on?

timwyant.bsky.social•83 days ago

How do people expect to meet demand affordably without more gas when all we're building in much of this country is low ELCC solar and batteries?

hermgamma.bsky.social•83 days ago

It depends on who controls the spare fossil fuel capacity, because it will be looking for things to do by drumming up demand and reducing RE competition, especially going against transmission and wind. That is already happening with a vengeance.

collapsewatch3.bsky.social•82 days ago

I'm just wondering what you think of Jevon's paradox and if you have read the book
" Bright Green Lies"?

I see an alarming, bordering on terrifying amount of wishful hopeful ludicrously improbable thinking here in this thread.

We need to face stark, hard truths based on science now.

wmconlon.com•83 days ago

Indeed it is the quantity of fuel burn that matters. My view is that RE should be coupled via thermal storage to reduce fuel heat rate to less than 4.5 MMBtu/MWh while making intermediate load plants as nimble as peakers burning twice the fuel per unit of generation.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply