You wrote, "I suspect we have different views of "transition" and/or "integrate" based on my use in these two instances:
"We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition to renewables..." and "First is technical capability to integrate renewables. We have more than enough existing capacity to do the job."
The difference seems obvious to me but that must reflect my view as someone immersed in the issue. A 'transition to renewables' places emphasis on the end goal of a carbon free grid. 'Integrating renewables' places emphasis on the process of getting there. We are not going to build a separate grid in a factory and bring it, full-blown, out of that factory and plug it into the continent's energy consumption points, therefore to effect a 'transition' we must first go through a period of 'integration'.
Now let's recap the three needs identified:
Need to integrate
Need for corporate profits by natural gas companies
Need to shut down large-scale thermal
The need to integrate is not the same as the need to shut down large-scale thermal.
The need to shut down large scale thermal is 'our' need and stands in opposition to the need of those vested in large-scale thermal to maintain their socio-economic position.
The question central to our need is "How do we dismantle the economics of the energy system that was created by large-scale thermal and continues to favor them?"
We could take over control of the energy supply and do it by fiat, but I doubt that has any chance of happening, don't you?
We can enact policies that make fossil energy more expensive. We've been pursuing this approach for decades and it has had little success. There may be a time in the future where it becomes a valuable tool in accelerating the process of transition, but the political climate that exists where entrenched energy interests hold all the power makes it impossible to enact this strategy at a meaningful and consequential level today.
We can enact policies that promote market acceptance of renewable energy sources, a policy also known as subsidies. There are fewer structural economic barriers to this approach but it is still a difficult sell politically. Fortunately the regional areas where political will has manifested itself have had consideral success in driing the market and pushing technological advances and price reductions, however the pace of change is slow relative to the need for change. The political power structure built around entrenched energy's money is still in control in far too many places and it has the potential to delay transition for decades that we do no have.
Enter natural gas - the potential Judas Goat of the entrenched energy interests. It is already an integrated part of the techno-economic structure; consequently there are no barriers to it as there are to renewables.
Imagine a venn diagram where the left circle represents an electrical system oriented both economically and technologically around the steady state operating characteristics of centralized thermal with it's fuel costs. It is composed of coal, nuclear, hydro, (natural) gas turbines and storage.
The right circle represents a grid oriented, both economically and technologically, around the variable operating characteristics of renewables with zero fuel costs. It is composed of wind, solar, various forms of hydro, geothermal, biomass, (methane) gas turbines and storage.
The overlap area includes hydro, gas turbines and storage - these technologies are fully functional in both circles.
With this in mind let's return to the third need - "How do we dismantle the economics of the energy system that was created by large-scale thermal and continues to favor them?"
Here is your comment about meeting that need:
corresponding political ramifications) rather than the desired direct displacement.
And I suspect that this is mainly where we differ: having been misled and seriously disappointed by the abyssmal behaviour of human greed in the past, I am very loathe to trust that an argument such as "their low capital cost and relatively high fuel costs (natural gas plants) also are easier to economically displace" will actually lead to their removal in a timely fashion as opposed to being used to justify further exploitation of land/people in order to reduce their "high fuel cost".
To put it differently, I have been pleased to see public pressure closing coal plants but I'd want to see more of this happening *with* the "more than enough installed natural gas plants" *before* agreeing to *additional* natural gas plants as at least that way there would be historical evidence to support the strategy before having to test the "phase II" assumption (i.e., that the gas corps would not be able to dig their heels in to avoid going out "without a whimper"
.Not to be rude, but the first of those three paragraphs is not based on an understanding of economic forces. It is loosely used jargon, nothing more. Also in all of it there is no trace of a *means* by which we move from the left circle to the right.
You say you don't trust "that an argument such as "their low capital cost and relatively high fuel costs (natural gas plants) also are easier to economically displace" will actually lead to their removal in a timely fashion".
???
The raised eyebrows are a result of that coming right after you wrote of "having been misled and seriously disappointed by the abyssmal behaviour of human greed in the past".
You see, it is human 'greed', as you put it, is the foundation of why the zero fuel costs of renewables dictates that they will replace natural gas. But to get to that point we must first break down the institutional and systemic barriers that go along with centralized thermal - which is precisely the opportunity that the glut of natural gas affords us.
If you want to transition away from centralized thermal as soon as is practically possible, this is the path.
If you have another route I'd love to hear it.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
