Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[TheTalkingMule]

When shale fields are depleted years from now, that should put upward pressure on NG prices.

I would say it's probably already happening. New drilling is probably at a standstill, and that's where you get the most gas. This forum has drilled it into my head that gas supply is a byproduct of exploration. No drilling, no supply.

 

[iPlug]

I would say it's probably already happening. New drilling is probably at a standstill, and that's where you get the most gas. This forum has drilled it into my head that gas supply is a byproduct of exploration. No drilling, no supply.

We definitely see decreased oil and therefore gas production from the time COVID and the price war with Russia/SA hit, but we would have to ascribe most of that to being demand driven + glut war driven and not local production constrained (yet). Just prior to that we were at record oil production levels and we had been able to replace depleted wells with new ones and then some.

 

[nwdiver]

And the award for the comment made in the past 12 months that aged the best goes to....

There is no reason why oil companies should worry about their revenues for the next 10-20 years

 

[mspohr]

Gas Companies Are Abandoning Their Wells, Leaving Them to Leak Methane Forever

In the past five years, 207 oil and gas businesses have failed. As natural gas prices crater, the fiscal burden on states forced to plug wells could skyrocket; according to Rystad Energy AS, an industry analytics company, 190 more companies could file for bankruptcy by the end of 2022. Many oil and gas companies are idling their wells by capping them in the hope prices will rise again. But capping lasts only about two decades, and it does nothing to prevent tens of thousands of low-producing wells from becoming orphaned, meaning “there is no associated person or company with any financial connection to and responsibility for the well,” according to California’s Geologic Energy Management Division.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

And the award for the comment made in the past 12 months that aged the best goes to....

Lol......little did we know while that post was being made global crude oil demand was actually peaking FOREVER. Madness.

 

[juliusa]

Maybe we have reached the tipping point:
Business Shifts From Resistance to Action on Climate

In a sign of how much corporate attitudes have changed, the Business Roundtable, one of the country’s most prominent business groups, is throwing its support behind broad-based measures to slash greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In a statement of principles released Wednesday, the Business Roundtable said it “supports a goal of reducing net U.S. GHG emissions by at least 80% from 2005 levels by 2050.” To achieve that, it endorses putting a price on carbon. It didn’t say whether that should be through a carbon tax or a system of tradable emissions permits.

Addressing Climate Change

 

[mspohr]

UK plans to bring forward ban on fossil fuel vehicles to 2030

The UK is poised to bring forward its ban on new fossil fuel vehicles from 2040 to 2030 to help speed up the rollout of electric vehicles across British roads.

 

[mspohr]

U.S. and European Oil Giants Go Different Ways on Climate Change U.S. and European Oil Giants Go Different Ways on Climate Change

HOUSTON — As oil prices plunge and concerns about climate change grow, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and other European energy companies are selling off oil fields, planning a sharp reduction in emissions and investing billions in renewable energy.

The American oil giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil are going in a far different direction. They are doubling down on oil and natural gas and investing what amounts to pocket change in innovative climate-oriented efforts like small nuclear power plants and devices that suck carbon out of the air.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

UK plans to bring forward ban on fossil fuel vehicles to 2030

The UK is poised to bring forward its ban on new fossil fuel vehicles from 2040 to 2030 to help speed up the rollout of electric vehicles across British roads.

The National Grid estimates that electrifying all road transport, aside from heavy goods vehicles, would require less than a third more energy than Great Britain’s current demand of around 300 terawatt hours “which the grid could easily cope with”, according to Cooper.

At peak electricity demand periods – such as the early evening – the grid may see demand for electricity climb by 10% if drivers “switched to electric vehicles overnight”, he said. “However, some targeted investment will be needed to ensure there are appropriate places where drivers can access sufficient high power charging away from home.”

Note that the 1/3 increase excludes heavy goods vehicles. The 2030 ban would be for new private cars.
So, there will still be a used market for a while. I expect the UK will have to control import of used fossil cars.

The UK government already has policy requiring new public chargers to be smart and provides a subsidy for PEV owners who have a smart charger installed. That has helped make Octopus Energy's Agile tariff a popular option for EV owners.

 

[mspohr]

‘Math Doesn’t Yet Add Up’ for Utility Decarbonization Goals: Deloitte

U.S. utilities can’t reach their ambitious decarbonization goals unless they reduce their planned reliance on natural gas, find ways to “baseload” solar and wind power with long-duration storage or substitute zero-carbon fuels, and radically expand energy efficiency, demand response and the power and flexibility of customer-owned distributed energy resources.


So says a new report from Deloitte highlighting the known, yet often underappreciated, challenges faced by utilities across the country promising to zero out their carbon impact by midcentury. “The math doesn’t yet add up,” the report finds, citing “significant gaps” between the decarbonization targets of major utilities and their current plans for retiring fossil-fuel plants.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

‘Math Doesn’t Yet Add Up’ for Utility Decarbonization Goals: Deloitte

U.S. utilities can’t reach their ambitious decarbonization goals unless they reduce their planned reliance on natural gas, find ways to “baseload” solar and wind power with long-duration storage or substitute zero-carbon fuels, and radically expand energy efficiency, demand response and the power and flexibility of customer-owned distributed energy resources.


So says a new report from Deloitte highlighting the known, yet often underappreciated, challenges faced by utilities across the country promising to zero out their carbon impact by midcentury. “The math doesn’t yet add up,” the report finds, citing “significant gaps” between the decarbonization targets of major utilities and their current plans for retiring fossil-fuel plants.

I've found, working in the middle zone of customer acquisition for residential solar, that people who've been in this world forever have the toughest time accepting game-changing pivots. Installers used to grinding to gain customers and paying 15-25% sales cost can't fathom a reality where simply removing that 20% is the solution. The battle has been too hard, they're programmed that it's an inevitable struggle and always will be.

Utilities throwing red flags are 50% protecting(unconsciously and consciously) the inefficiencies making them money, and 50% not capable of imagining the level of change ubiquitous storage brings. We can, with relative ease, get to 60% solar/wind+storage. There's nothing wrong with leaving gas a "top off" technology to provide 20% then rapidly 15% then rapidly 10% of total supply. The key is to remember the structure will be completely different once storage is everywhere.

Centralized storage lets us build up a massive hoard of energy within 24-72 ranges. Distributed integrated storage lets us build up a massive hoard of energy over weeks. Gas can be run intermittently(and wildly expensively) where needed to top off the storage and fill the gaps. In certain scenarios that may mean running 24/7 for weeks on end. The economics of this new structure will drive us from 20% gas down to 5% before you can shout "Incremental savings!"

It's purely political will at this point. And our capacity to add storage.

 

[nwdiver]

There's nothing wrong with leaving gas a "top off" technology to provide 20% then rapidly 15% then rapidly 10% of total supply.

The tough spot with John Q public is that 10-20% gas could be >100% of current CAPACITY. People don't understand GW vs GWh. People don't understand physics. I've literally had people tell me that renewables don't help because gas GW is going up. People are morons.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The tough spot with John Q public is that 10-20% gas could be >100% of current CAPACITY. People don't understand GW vs GWh. People don't understand physics. I've literally had people tell me that renewables don't help because gas GW is going up. People are morons.

On that note US Gas Turbine capacity factor was 11.8% in 2019.

 

[nwdiver]

On that note US Gas Turbine capacity factor was 11.8% in 2019.

Yep. Even as GW has increased. And to most people 11.8% is just 2 numbers, a period another number and a weird symbol. Most people are morons

 

[mspohr]

On that note US Gas Turbine capacity factor was 11.8% in 2019.

But, utilities get the cost of the NG plant built into their rate base with a guaranteed 10% return regardless of how much it is used. This is a significant barrier to getting rid of these plants (and incentive to build more.)

 

[SmartElectric]

But, utilities get the cost of the NG plant built into their rate base with a guaranteed 10% return regardless of how much it is used. This is a significant barrier to getting rid of these plants (and incentive to build more.)

Exactly! Ontario Canada built 7GW of gas plants, which are idle most of the time, but which contribute to a secondary cost billed as an "adjustment" charge, which has now exceeded the cost of the electricity whole sale cost ... regulatory (nuclear), incentive (wind + solar FIT) and now gas idle cost is exceeding the cost of the electricity produced here in Ontario.

 

[nwdiver]

But, utilities get the cost of the NG plant built into their rate base with a guaranteed 10% return regardless of how much it is used. This is a significant barrier to getting rid of these plants (and incentive to build more.)

The cost is pretty low. ~$1/w and ~$14/kW/yr. So a 1GW gas plant would cost ~$1B to build and ~$14M/yr to maintain. It's hard to compare to batteries because the cost is falling so quickly and I think storage is more constrained by supply than cost.

If you want to retire 1GW of coal (or nuclear) to make room for more renewables the best way to ensure you're not giving opponents ammunition with rolling blackouts *cough* CA *cough*. Is to ensure you have more than enough capacity to call on if needed.

They've actually started installing ~50MW? Gas Generators at choke points out here in TX. Not turbines but reciprocating engines. ERCOT is running razor thin capacity margins. Really playing with fire. On several occasions the grid has been saved because there happened to be juuuust enough wind to keep the lights on. Not smart.

Exactly! Ontario Canada built 7GW of gas plants, which are idle most of the time,

I've never used the seat belts in any car I've ever owned. Should I stop wearing them? Similar concept.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Yep. Even as GW has increased. And to most people 11.8% is just 2 numbers, a period another number and a weird symbol. Most people are morons

View attachment 590942

And although you can see CCGT rising more than coal has fallen, capacity factors for coal were higher than CCGT is now, so obviously additonal CCGT is needed.

Similar problem with the "China is building more coal power plants!" scare stories. Ignoring capacity factor dropping, and closure of old coal power plants. The grid operator won't care, it'll take the cheapest power, and that's solar and wind. Also they're building some new nuclear, so expect that to push coal down as well.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

They've actually started installing ~50MW? Gas Generators at choke points out here in TX. Not turbines but reciprocating engines.

Ah, so that's where some of the new Internal Combustion capacity is coming from. ICE is more efficient than basic combustion turbine, but maybe maintenance is an issue. So, this is for brief use at high peak demand only?

You may remember the consultancy paper Oncor had issued in 2014 saying that at $350/kWh or less, batteries deployed across the grid would save money overall by reducing other costs. The total capacity they were asking for was 5GW/15GWh.

Of course, as a utility, they really wanted to spend money, and the request was refused, but $350/kWh system price is probably comfortable now.

 

[Mader Levap]

The American oil giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil are going in a far different direction. They are doubling down on oil and natural gas and investing what amounts to pocket change in innovative climate-oriented efforts like small nuclear power plants and devices that suck carbon out of the air.

Sounds like "Focus on non-transformative solutions" part of climate delayism.