Study says renewable energy power plants will overtake natural-gas plants by 2035
According to the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), it will be more expensive to run 90 percent of natural-gas fired power plants compared to the costs to build wind and solar farms with storage systems by 2035. The institute analyzed the construction costs, fuel prices, and operation costs of 68 proposed natural-gas power plants across the U.S.
“We find that the natural gas bridge is likely already behind us,” reads the RMI report, “and that continued investment in announced gas projects risks creating tens of billions of dollars in stranded costs by the mid-2030s, when new gas plants and pipelines will rapidly become uneconomic as clean energy costs continue to fall.”
Comments
-
Can you also tell me the results of the 3rd race at Hollywood Park tonight?
-
I laughed!
-
Same guys who did the study on peak oil?
-
-
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) is an organization in the United States dedicated to research, publication, consulting, and lecturing in the general field of sustainability, with a special focus on profitable innovations for energy and resource efficiency. RMI was established in 1982[2] and has grown into a broad-based institution with 150+ staff and an annual budget of some $30 million. RMI's work is independent and non-adversarial, with a strong emphasis on market-based solutions. The institute, including recently[when?] merged Carbon War Room, operates on 9 initiative areas: Electricity Platform, Renewables Solutions, Buildings, Reinventing Fire: China, Smart Island Economies, Mobility Transformation, Shipping Efficiency, Sunshine for Mines, Sustainable Aviation, and Trucking Efficiency.[3] The work of RMI has benefited more than 80 Fortune 500 companies in a diverse range of sectors.[4][non-primary source needed] RMI is headquartered in Basalt, Colorado, and also maintains offices in Boulder, Colorado, New York City, Washington D.C. and Beijing, China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Institute -
What is that supposed to mean? It’s a bunch of liberal academic types who’s entire goal is minimizing carbon and who is funded by folks like Tom Steyer. You think they would have any other opinion except natural gas is bad and some future technology that doesn’t exist yet will magically make it go away?
-
That is not how I interpreted the information.HoustonHusky said:What is that supposed to mean? It’s a bunch of liberal academic types who’s entire goal is minimizing carbon and who is funded by folks like Tom Steyer. You think they would have any other opinion except natural gas is bad and some future technology that doesn’t exist yet will magically make it go away?
-
Is the science settled?
Consensus? -
I don't know you're the man of science. I just post articles.RaceBannon said:Is the science settled?
Consensus? -
Well if economics are going to drive it then I guess we can remove any government subsidies for the sector.
-
What part? That their charter is that carbon is bad, or that Tom Steyer and a bunch of environmental activists like him fund it? Or both of those are true, but it’s a completely unbiased opinion of theirs that natural gas is bad and some as of yet nonexistent technology will make it economically obsolete?Gwad said:
That is not how I interpreted the information.HoustonHusky said:What is that supposed to mean? It’s a bunch of liberal academic types who’s entire goal is minimizing carbon and who is funded by folks like Tom Steyer. You think they would have any other opinion except natural gas is bad and some future technology that doesn’t exist yet will magically make it go away?
-
Jerry Jones just pushed in a billion dollars on natural gas.UW_Doog_Bot said:Well if economics are going to drive it then I guess we can remove any government subsidies for the sector.
-
So what happens when the wind doesn't blow? These bogus studies ignore the cost of getting wind power from nowhere to somewhere. They also ignore the cost of having base load production. Get the government out of the energy subsidy business and then see what happens. If you leftards were serious about reducing CO2 production then we would be building nukes and building LGN export facilities to send our fracked natural gas to Europe and Asia. But then, you love to be Putin's bitch.
-
By then they will have this amazing energy storage technology that doesn't yet exist but will because they are sure it will happen, and not only that but it it will be much cheaper than Natural Gas.WestlinnDuck said:So what happens when the wind doesn't blow? These bogus studies ignore the cost of getting wind power from nowhere to somewhere. They also ignore the cost of having base load production. Get the government out of the energy subsidy business and then see what happens. If you leftards were serious about reducing CO2 production then we would be building nukes and building LGN export facilities to send our fracked natural gas to Europe and Asia. But then, you love to be Putin's bitch.
I think part of the storage technology involves capturing the energy of rainbows... -
A simple way to store the energy is to use the solar and wind power to pump water, uphill, to a reservoir and the let the water flow down through a turbine, as needed. It’s been done and is more environmentally friendly than batteries.WestlinnDuck said:So what happens when the wind doesn't blow? These bogus studies ignore the cost of getting wind power from nowhere to somewhere. They also ignore the cost of having base load production. Get the government out of the energy subsidy business and then see what happens. If you leftards were serious about reducing CO2 production then we would be building nukes and building LGN export facilities to send our fracked natural gas to Europe and Asia. But then, you love to be Putin's bitch.
https://theconversation.com/how-pushing-water-uphill-can-solve-our-renewable-energy-issues-28196 -
Not sure if a whoosh, but The physics don’t seem to add up there unless you’re also tapping underground springs higher up the Hill.USMChawk said:
A simple way to store the energy is to use the solar and wind power to pump water, uphill, to a reservoir and the let the water flow down through a turbine, as needed. It’s been done and is more environmentally friendly than batteries.WestlinnDuck said:So what happens when the wind doesn't blow? These bogus studies ignore the cost of getting wind power from nowhere to somewhere. They also ignore the cost of having base load production. Get the government out of the energy subsidy business and then see what happens. If you leftards were serious about reducing CO2 production then we would be building nukes and building LGN export facilities to send our fracked natural gas to Europe and Asia. But then, you love to be Putin's bitch.
https://theconversation.com/how-pushing-water-uphill-can-solve-our-renewable-energy-issues-28196
But maybe off River is feasible. I do wonder how long the pipes will last due to them being at grade and generally on unstable ground due to that? I’m guessing there would be a ton of repair costs? -
There have been a lot of ideas like that...another one I saw was to compress air into underground caverns and then have the compressed air drive turbines when needed.
Not horrible ideas, but hard to pull off at a massive scale and still not competitive economically. -
The oil/gas industry never received government subsidies.
Staff! True? -
It's not competing economically so we should just bag the idea. Imagine if we did that with the first computer or cell phone.HoustonHusky said:There have been a lot of ideas like that...another one I saw was to compress air into underground caverns and then have the compressed air drive turbines when needed.
Not horrible ideas, but hard to pull off at a massive scale and still not competitive economically. -
It can be a closed loop system so an outside source of water is not required. Although, to get a reasonable large scale, an open loop may be preferable (water tower vs. in-ground reservoir).salemcoog said:
Not sure if a whoosh, but The physics don’t seem to add up there unless you’re also tapping underground springs higher up the Hill.USMChawk said:
A simple way to store the energy is to use the solar and wind power to pump water, uphill, to a reservoir and the let the water flow down through a turbine, as needed. It’s been done and is more environmentally friendly than batteries.WestlinnDuck said:So what happens when the wind doesn't blow? These bogus studies ignore the cost of getting wind power from nowhere to somewhere. They also ignore the cost of having base load production. Get the government out of the energy subsidy business and then see what happens. If you leftards were serious about reducing CO2 production then we would be building nukes and building LGN export facilities to send our fracked natural gas to Europe and Asia. But then, you love to be Putin's bitch.
https://theconversation.com/how-pushing-water-uphill-can-solve-our-renewable-energy-issues-28196
But maybe off River is feasible. I do wonder how long the pipes will last due to them being at grade and generally on unstable ground due to that? I’m guessing there would be a ton of repair costs? -
There is so much stupid in the above where to start? It should be obvious the fly is attracted to the idea of compressed air because it involves hot air...2001400ex said:
It's not competing economically so we should just bag the idea. Imagine if we did that with the first computer or cell phone.HoustonHusky said:There have been a lot of ideas like that...another one I saw was to compress air into underground caverns and then have the compressed air drive turbines when needed.
Not horrible ideas, but hard to pull off at a massive scale and still not competitive economically.
HondoFS
-
Then what was your point by saying it's not competitive economically? You do realize that over time with more research and when you scale things is when they get more economically viable. Right?HoustonHusky said:
There is so much stupid in the above where to start? It should be obvious the fly is attracted to the idea of compressed air because it involves hot air...2001400ex said:
It's not competing economically so we should just bag the idea. Imagine if we did that with the first computer or cell phone.HoustonHusky said:There have been a lot of ideas like that...another one I saw was to compress air into underground caverns and then have the compressed air drive turbines when needed.
Not horrible ideas, but hard to pull off at a massive scale and still not competitive economically.
HondoFS -
What is the energy density of natural gas under pressure in a salt dome (i.e. how many btus can be released through burning a cf of stored natural gas)?2001400ex said:
Then what was your point by saying it's not competitive economically? You do realize that over time with more research and when you scale things is when they get more economically viable. Right?HoustonHusky said:
There is so much stupid in the above where to start? It should be obvious the fly is attracted to the idea of compressed air because it involves hot air...2001400ex said:
It's not competing economically so we should just bag the idea. Imagine if we did that with the first computer or cell phone.HoustonHusky said:There have been a lot of ideas like that...another one I saw was to compress air into underground caverns and then have the compressed air drive turbines when needed.
Not horrible ideas, but hard to pull off at a massive scale and still not competitive economically.
HondoFS
What is the energy density of compressed air (including efficiency losses) utilized by running it through a turbine (i.e. how many equivalent btus per cf does it generate)?
Please explain how any amount of research narrows that gap. The laws of physics would love to know.
Or go take your speed limit IQ off and go start another Kavanaugh thread on something you don't 'care about'...
-
You needed all those words to say that fossil fuels are the cheapest available energy source. Nice work Captain obvious.HoustonHusky said:
What is the energy density of natural gas under pressure in a salt dome (i.e. how many btus can be released through burning a cf of stored natural gas)?2001400ex said:
Then what was your point by saying it's not competitive economically? You do realize that over time with more research and when you scale things is when they get more economically viable. Right?HoustonHusky said:
There is so much stupid in the above where to start? It should be obvious the fly is attracted to the idea of compressed air because it involves hot air...2001400ex said:
It's not competing economically so we should just bag the idea. Imagine if we did that with the first computer or cell phone.HoustonHusky said:There have been a lot of ideas like that...another one I saw was to compress air into underground caverns and then have the compressed air drive turbines when needed.
Not horrible ideas, but hard to pull off at a massive scale and still not competitive economically.
HondoFS
What is the energy density of compressed air (including efficiency losses) utilized by running it through a turbine (i.e. how many equivalent btus per cf does it generate)?
Please explain how any amount of research narrows that gap. The laws of physics would love to know.
Or go take your speed limit IQ off and go start another Kavanaugh thread on something you don't 'care about'...
That being said, why are you scared to invest in alternative energy sources? -
Has nothing to do with just being the cheapest moron...has to do with simple energy density. As in orders of magnitude difference. Something your average 5th grader could probably understand, which puts it out of your capabilities...2001400ex said:
You needed all those words to say that fossil fuels are the cheapest available energy source. Nice work Captain obvious.HoustonHusky said:
What is the energy density of natural gas under pressure in a salt dome (i.e. how many btus can be released through burning a cf of stored natural gas)?2001400ex said:
Then what was your point by saying it's not competitive economically? You do realize that over time with more research and when you scale things is when they get more economically viable. Right?HoustonHusky said:
There is so much stupid in the above where to start? It should be obvious the fly is attracted to the idea of compressed air because it involves hot air...2001400ex said:
It's not competing economically so we should just bag the idea. Imagine if we did that with the first computer or cell phone.HoustonHusky said:There have been a lot of ideas like that...another one I saw was to compress air into underground caverns and then have the compressed air drive turbines when needed.
Not horrible ideas, but hard to pull off at a massive scale and still not competitive economically.
HondoFS
What is the energy density of compressed air (including efficiency losses) utilized by running it through a turbine (i.e. how many equivalent btus per cf does it generate)?
Please explain how any amount of research narrows that gap. The laws of physics would love to know.
Or go take your speed limit IQ off and go start another Kavanaugh thread on something you don't 'care about'...
That being said, why are you scared to invest in alternative energy sources?
I have no problem at all with investing...but its HondoFS to invest in ideas that literally have no chance of being competitive. Its FS to spend billions commercializing a technology that even if it approaches its theoretical peak 20 years from now will still not become in any way, shape, or form, an economically viable alternative. You are much better off spending that money on early research intro ideas/technology that at least has a chance.
HondoFS... -
Pumped storage can work in some places. However , hydro currently comprises 6% of the US electrical production. You think you can double that with pumped storage? We have pretty much damned all the prime spots in the US and we aren't building new dams we are tearing them down. No new Grand Coulees or Hoover Dams are out there. I'm happy to support marginal production increases like pumped storage. But the first thing the greens and crony capitalists will tell us is how great this new technology is - cheap and efficient. Then they ask for massive federal subsidies - because it isn't cheap and efficient. Pumping compressed air into a salt dome and then using the pressure to run turbines when power is needed is not advanced technology. It just doesn't pencil out without subsidies or government mandates.
-
Yeah good thing renewable energy never got any government money.........Solyndra much?
-
There's a whopping $500 million. Nice Fox news talking point however.Sledog said:Yeah good thing renewable energy never got any government money.........Solyndra much?
-
Cheap renewable energy isn't the real problem.
Cheap renewable energy storage is the problem.
HTH
