My advise in terms of messaging would be that we cease referring to this as "natural gas" and call it what it is METHANE. and always point to how dangerous and destructive methane is to our climate. We need to be clear methane is not a bridge fuel unless we are on a suicide mission.
So very much information to parse and digest; find my place in climate action now from home as circumstances permit. Thank you for this exceptional piece. Must get the message to Biden that the LNG pauses must be permanent. METHANE IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. I knew years ago 1995-1999 driving my Chevy Blazer through the peninsula that is historic Charleston that it was drowning in the tides rising more everyday and threatening my ability to navigate to the then Cooper River Bridge to the beautiful Mount Pleasant, my home then, with the sweetgrass vendors along the road and moss dripping from the huge oaks. So much beauty, so much tradition, and remnants of Hugo lingering still. Would never have foreseen the changes on the horizon so involved with work. We in SC a brutal GOP governed state will have to fight like gladiators to make a dent in the prevailing political, economic, social mentalities to force change. But fight we will with facts from scientists and experts like yourself. Keep these factual posts coming as you can and perhaps we can find a miracle in voters and people who care about this finite Earth 🌎 before it is too late.
We could follow the example of Uruguay and get 98% of our power from renewables, without any of the problems posed by nuclear and at much lower cost. I have the impression that you're a nuclear advocate, and urge you to better educate yourself. If you don't care to read the nuclear related material on my substack, at least look up the papers by Didier Sornette and his colleagues on nuclear accidents and safety.
In the mean time, I looked up the guy who was the guiding light for Uruguay's transition. His name is Ramon Mendez Galain, and he's been written up by The Guardian, featured in a couple of NPR broadcasts and given a TED Talk.
You can see it happening down under. The Australian opposition, led by Peter Dutton (a man who looks very much like Voldemort as portrayed in the movies) is pushing "modular nuclear": a whole bunch of little nuclear plants instead of a few big ones. A couple years ago, when the current opposition was in power, they were all about "a gas-led recovery", so we might call this an improvement. But they also signed an agreement called AUKUS with the US and England to build Australia's very own nuclear-powered submarines. Prior to this, I don't believe Australia had any history of nuclear power, besides a small research reactor. You can see how this fits together: AUKUS develops the native nuclear expertise and industry, so that when the Tories return to power, they can easily roll out nuclear. The present Labor government has approved AUKUS. A nuclear Australia is the inevitable effect.
So (if there are any Aussie readers out there), to stop this, stop AUKUS. There are plenty of other reasons to object to it.
Yes it is important to have a gov't that actually functions for all life on this planet. Unfortunately all the efforts to stop fossil fuels ,gas included, will be for nothing until we can unscramble the brainwashed folks that believe large hydroelectric generation, stopping the flow of rivers, is clean and renewable energy. So many sexy looking cool-aid drinkers. Vermont buys much of its energy supply, some of the dirtiest of energy on this planet, from hydro Quebec in the Arctic region. In the Qubes' subarctic many major waterways , rivers ,have been totally dammed and NOW dead heat sinks for warming the poles. The real question should be. Will Bill ever turn toward the dam problem
And I distinctly remember climate alarmists like Bill McKibben screaming about the recent droughts in California as a sign the looming climate apocalypse is near...only to see hydropower output surge recently due to huge amounts of rain over the last season. Weird...weather patterns tend to oscillate and change over time. Who would have thought?
Battery backup power in California is growing, but it can only produce for 4 hours maximum before it runs out of charge. It will never be used to fully balance a renewables only grid -- the technology is not up to the task. It is also very expensive. Bill, did you tell your readers how expensive electricity is in California? Weird again that the state with a very high penetration of renewable energy also has the highest residential electricity prices in the contiguous 48 states. See the data here -- https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
Readers, please do your own investigation into data and facts before believing the California grid is run of renewables and batteries. It is not true. Bill, do better at speaking the truth and not hyperbole and fantasy. Or tell your readers you are writing fantasy so they know.
It’s beyond funny that you use the excuse of weather extremes like drought in the southwest, followed by flooding in California to justify your position.
I own a large ranch and farm on the RIo Grande and I see these climate effects daily. The heat dome over the southwest last year, devastated our region, completely drying up the river. All the lakes from the methane, admitting from the countless thousand miles of methane pipelines operating and orphan wells along with all the burning of fossil fuels, is undoubtedly, causing these extreme effects of drought floods, and now Hundreds of strong tornadoes before the season even starts.
You go on about the expense of using renewables, yet we pay every day for the undisclosed expenses to our health and safety from all the pollution of methane and producing transporting and burning fossil feels Like “natural” gas. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to see an experience extreme weather events we never had before regularly like intense heat and drought in one area, then massive flooding.
I’m riding this response not to convince you “Energy Diplomat” but as a response for others to read. By the way, why can’t you even use your real name?
In elementary school we repeatedly watched a movie about the TVA saving the region by building hydroelectric dams to “power up for prosperity”. Time to make a movie about how the TVA saves the region, again , via alternative energy sources .
Mr. McKibben, I would like to help with a paid subscription, but my fixed income is about $2200 a month and my rent is $895 a month. See the problem? And, in the winter, (rental-minimal insulation and failed windows) my electricity bill is something else.
This post has left me feeling close to hopeless about the future and we are really screwed if trump is returned to office. I hear voter intimidation is on the menu this time around in the swing states....
Thank you, Bill, for pointing out the obvious alternatives. The super rich have enough, of course they don't care, they're old. I am not surprised my home State (California) is ahead with green energy - we've been pushing an planning for a long time. We usually try to get the best people in government too. But I have been pleasantly surprised at how well, Texas is doing despite Abbott. They have huge wind power in West Texas also.
Maybe the fossil fuel industry can geoengineer the earth’s oceans so that they absorb methane. Or maybe, just tell us that they’re working on it. Problem solved. /s
Grim reporting. A nice victory at the end though. One day will news of catastrophe and abhorrent oversight change some minds? The world's young would love to know. And hopefully then it won't be too late.
So I value your argument but it almost seems you'd prefer further use of coal plants? You made no reference to nuclear energy and I am quite excited about wave, geothermal and H2. I'm in full support of solar, batteries and wind but I don;t think that's enough an arsenal. If you had to extract CO2 to make fuel wouldn't you want the technology to exist? I'm just coming up to speed on per capita energy needs and input/output. I don't want to make the same mistakes that were made in the 70s. Supply chains that robust not fragile. There is a need to look at the financial trade-offs as well. These industries will create jobs and lead to other innovations. My preference is an all hands approach for as many tools as possible. Retrofitting and reorganizing society, including industrial plants is quite a task. You also haven't discussed the agricultural, landfill component. I would imagine its a constant negotiation with stakeholders.
To be very clear I would utterly abandon coal.
' 5.1 megawatts of gas-fired power, compared with paltry, even by regional standards, levels of renewables.'
IF we only had a tax on net emissions of CO2 and methane, then we would not have a difficult decision. Whatever the utility deemed (lets assume they do their sum right) least costly would give them the decision that was right for the optimal long run concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But we do not so it is more difficult. TVA needs to ask (or be told) if TVA does not use a certain amount of gas, does it get exported and burned elsewhere? But even if we assume that the gas not burned in these facilities is a net avoidance of the CO2 emission, what does the emission cost do to the NPV of the projects? If gas is to be used how much will be used for off peak wind and solar generation?
My advise in terms of messaging would be that we cease referring to this as "natural gas" and call it what it is METHANE. and always point to how dangerous and destructive methane is to our climate. We need to be clear methane is not a bridge fuel unless we are on a suicide mission.
So very much information to parse and digest; find my place in climate action now from home as circumstances permit. Thank you for this exceptional piece. Must get the message to Biden that the LNG pauses must be permanent. METHANE IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. I knew years ago 1995-1999 driving my Chevy Blazer through the peninsula that is historic Charleston that it was drowning in the tides rising more everyday and threatening my ability to navigate to the then Cooper River Bridge to the beautiful Mount Pleasant, my home then, with the sweetgrass vendors along the road and moss dripping from the huge oaks. So much beauty, so much tradition, and remnants of Hugo lingering still. Would never have foreseen the changes on the horizon so involved with work. We in SC a brutal GOP governed state will have to fight like gladiators to make a dent in the prevailing political, economic, social mentalities to force change. But fight we will with facts from scientists and experts like yourself. Keep these factual posts coming as you can and perhaps we can find a miracle in voters and people who care about this finite Earth 🌎 before it is too late.
I like your analogy, Bill. Thank you for another painful-to-read newsletter! Your work is appreciated.
Nice and pithy: "do we build out gas to replace coal for producing electricity, or do we go straight to sun, wind, and batteries?"
I wonder if we'll see a renewed push for nuclear as a way of avoiding the latter.
We could follow the example of Uruguay and get 98% of our power from renewables, without any of the problems posed by nuclear and at much lower cost. I have the impression that you're a nuclear advocate, and urge you to better educate yourself. If you don't care to read the nuclear related material on my substack, at least look up the papers by Didier Sornette and his colleagues on nuclear accidents and safety.
Stephen, you must have me confused with someone else. I'm not a nuclear advocate, but as an analyst I study the issue.
My sincerest apologies!
In the mean time, I looked up the guy who was the guiding light for Uruguay's transition. His name is Ramon Mendez Galain, and he's been written up by The Guardian, featured in a couple of NPR broadcasts and given a TED Talk.
No worries, and thank you.
You can see it happening down under. The Australian opposition, led by Peter Dutton (a man who looks very much like Voldemort as portrayed in the movies) is pushing "modular nuclear": a whole bunch of little nuclear plants instead of a few big ones. A couple years ago, when the current opposition was in power, they were all about "a gas-led recovery", so we might call this an improvement. But they also signed an agreement called AUKUS with the US and England to build Australia's very own nuclear-powered submarines. Prior to this, I don't believe Australia had any history of nuclear power, besides a small research reactor. You can see how this fits together: AUKUS develops the native nuclear expertise and industry, so that when the Tories return to power, they can easily roll out nuclear. The present Labor government has approved AUKUS. A nuclear Australia is the inevitable effect.
So (if there are any Aussie readers out there), to stop this, stop AUKUS. There are plenty of other reasons to object to it.
Yes it is important to have a gov't that actually functions for all life on this planet. Unfortunately all the efforts to stop fossil fuels ,gas included, will be for nothing until we can unscramble the brainwashed folks that believe large hydroelectric generation, stopping the flow of rivers, is clean and renewable energy. So many sexy looking cool-aid drinkers. Vermont buys much of its energy supply, some of the dirtiest of energy on this planet, from hydro Quebec in the Arctic region. In the Qubes' subarctic many major waterways , rivers ,have been totally dammed and NOW dead heat sinks for warming the poles. The real question should be. Will Bill ever turn toward the dam problem
I really tried to get through this piece without laughing out loud. It is rife with nonsense and pure fantasy. Check out California Independent System Operator's Q4 2023 report and you will see its power grid is stabilized by significant amounts of natural gas -- https://www.caiso.com/Documents/2023-fourth-quarter-report-on-market-issues-and-performance-apr-24-2024.pdf.
And I distinctly remember climate alarmists like Bill McKibben screaming about the recent droughts in California as a sign the looming climate apocalypse is near...only to see hydropower output surge recently due to huge amounts of rain over the last season. Weird...weather patterns tend to oscillate and change over time. Who would have thought?
Battery backup power in California is growing, but it can only produce for 4 hours maximum before it runs out of charge. It will never be used to fully balance a renewables only grid -- the technology is not up to the task. It is also very expensive. Bill, did you tell your readers how expensive electricity is in California? Weird again that the state with a very high penetration of renewable energy also has the highest residential electricity prices in the contiguous 48 states. See the data here -- https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
Readers, please do your own investigation into data and facts before believing the California grid is run of renewables and batteries. It is not true. Bill, do better at speaking the truth and not hyperbole and fantasy. Or tell your readers you are writing fantasy so they know.
Climate alarmists? What planet are you living on?
It’s beyond funny that you use the excuse of weather extremes like drought in the southwest, followed by flooding in California to justify your position.
I own a large ranch and farm on the RIo Grande and I see these climate effects daily. The heat dome over the southwest last year, devastated our region, completely drying up the river. All the lakes from the methane, admitting from the countless thousand miles of methane pipelines operating and orphan wells along with all the burning of fossil fuels, is undoubtedly, causing these extreme effects of drought floods, and now Hundreds of strong tornadoes before the season even starts.
You go on about the expense of using renewables, yet we pay every day for the undisclosed expenses to our health and safety from all the pollution of methane and producing transporting and burning fossil feels Like “natural” gas. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to see an experience extreme weather events we never had before regularly like intense heat and drought in one area, then massive flooding.
I’m riding this response not to convince you “Energy Diplomat” but as a response for others to read. By the way, why can’t you even use your real name?
Looks like I have some typos and grammatical errors I can’t edit out no option. I use voice to text forgot to edit. But you get the idea
In elementary school we repeatedly watched a movie about the TVA saving the region by building hydroelectric dams to “power up for prosperity”. Time to make a movie about how the TVA saves the region, again , via alternative energy sources .
So gotta get them to NOT build that new gas fired power plant.
Mr. McKibben, I would like to help with a paid subscription, but my fixed income is about $2200 a month and my rent is $895 a month. See the problem? And, in the winter, (rental-minimal insulation and failed windows) my electricity bill is something else.
This post has left me feeling close to hopeless about the future and we are really screwed if trump is returned to office. I hear voter intimidation is on the menu this time around in the swing states....
No worries, that’s why others subscribe. It’s how a community works
Don’t feel hopeless, but do help defeat Trump. We’re mobilizing volunteers aplenty at Third Act!
Thank you, Bill, for pointing out the obvious alternatives. The super rich have enough, of course they don't care, they're old. I am not surprised my home State (California) is ahead with green energy - we've been pushing an planning for a long time. We usually try to get the best people in government too. But I have been pleasantly surprised at how well, Texas is doing despite Abbott. They have huge wind power in West Texas also.
Speaking of gas, let’s stop industrial meat production.
Maybe the fossil fuel industry can geoengineer the earth’s oceans so that they absorb methane. Or maybe, just tell us that they’re working on it. Problem solved. /s
Thank you!🙏🏼
Grim reporting. A nice victory at the end though. One day will news of catastrophe and abhorrent oversight change some minds? The world's young would love to know. And hopefully then it won't be too late.
So I value your argument but it almost seems you'd prefer further use of coal plants? You made no reference to nuclear energy and I am quite excited about wave, geothermal and H2. I'm in full support of solar, batteries and wind but I don;t think that's enough an arsenal. If you had to extract CO2 to make fuel wouldn't you want the technology to exist? I'm just coming up to speed on per capita energy needs and input/output. I don't want to make the same mistakes that were made in the 70s. Supply chains that robust not fragile. There is a need to look at the financial trade-offs as well. These industries will create jobs and lead to other innovations. My preference is an all hands approach for as many tools as possible. Retrofitting and reorganizing society, including industrial plants is quite a task. You also haven't discussed the agricultural, landfill component. I would imagine its a constant negotiation with stakeholders.
To be very clear I would utterly abandon coal.
' 5.1 megawatts of gas-fired power, compared with paltry, even by regional standards, levels of renewables.'
That's disappointing.
That’s why what’s happening in California is so exciting. Pure renewables and batteries
IF we only had a tax on net emissions of CO2 and methane, then we would not have a difficult decision. Whatever the utility deemed (lets assume they do their sum right) least costly would give them the decision that was right for the optimal long run concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But we do not so it is more difficult. TVA needs to ask (or be told) if TVA does not use a certain amount of gas, does it get exported and burned elsewhere? But even if we assume that the gas not burned in these facilities is a net avoidance of the CO2 emission, what does the emission cost do to the NPV of the projects? If gas is to be used how much will be used for off peak wind and solar generation?