This too sahort a forum to address all of the issues raised. But just as a starter - discussing the pairing of renewables and combustion turbine plants is not meaningful unless it includes a discussion of capacity factors over time. The long term lowest carbon lowest cost power system might well include gas turbines that run at increasingly lower capacity factors but provide critical reliability (and get compensated for doing so). It also would be important to discuss the long term potential to increasingly decarbonize the fuel of such systems. Hydrogen, ammonia and renewable sources of natural gas.
The power system is complex, dynamic and nuanced. Binary, simplistic and overly generalized commentary is of little value. Additionally, even if the premise that it doesn’t reduce emissions were true, that is not the same as saying it would not reduce emissions relative to it not passing - which is certainly not true.
I am on the fence about the bill. The whole tax credit approach is deeply flawed and inefficient. However, we need to embark on this journey and something is probably better than nothing.
It's pretty clear that the IRA will not lead to real emissions reductions. The Democrats are acting on the basis of the assumption that if we don't take drastic action NOW society as we know it will not exist after some made up number of years. Furthermore, with mid-term elections coming up if they don't pass a bill with a bunch of climate pork they'll really get wiped out.
As far as I can tell the IRA is a waste of money concocted by 2 old man Senators that wouldn't know the Navier Stokes equations if they hit them in the ass.
My understanding is that regulatory reform is part of a “side-deal”? Seven years is not very long when it comes to permitting on federal land. Would be interesting to see what mechanics/assumptions are behind the substantial RE build-out in real-world terms (where, how and when).
PS when politicians make claims, they are usually based on a potent mix of wishful thinking and hot air.
Don’t we also have to replace at least a substantial fraction of nuclear too? For example, here in New York Indian Point 3 is slated to close in the next few years.
A somewhat similar conundrum. If I plot temperature anomaly vs CO2 (1880-2020) I get a pretty good correlation - R**2 ~ 0.8. If I plot fossil use (EIA data) vs temp anomaly, again, good correlation, same R**2. Now the kicker - if I plot non-fossil (hydro, wind, solar, nuclear) vs temp anomaly, again, good correlation, same R**2. Question - is it really CO2, or is total energy use driving the temp anomaly? The policy options would be different if it was energy and not CO2.
This too sahort a forum to address all of the issues raised. But just as a starter - discussing the pairing of renewables and combustion turbine plants is not meaningful unless it includes a discussion of capacity factors over time. The long term lowest carbon lowest cost power system might well include gas turbines that run at increasingly lower capacity factors but provide critical reliability (and get compensated for doing so). It also would be important to discuss the long term potential to increasingly decarbonize the fuel of such systems. Hydrogen, ammonia and renewable sources of natural gas.
The power system is complex, dynamic and nuanced. Binary, simplistic and overly generalized commentary is of little value. Additionally, even if the premise that it doesn’t reduce emissions were true, that is not the same as saying it would not reduce emissions relative to it not passing - which is certainly not true.
I am on the fence about the bill. The whole tax credit approach is deeply flawed and inefficient. However, we need to embark on this journey and something is probably better than nothing.
It's pretty clear that the IRA will not lead to real emissions reductions. The Democrats are acting on the basis of the assumption that if we don't take drastic action NOW society as we know it will not exist after some made up number of years. Furthermore, with mid-term elections coming up if they don't pass a bill with a bunch of climate pork they'll really get wiped out.
As far as I can tell the IRA is a waste of money concocted by 2 old man Senators that wouldn't know the Navier Stokes equations if they hit them in the ass.
My understanding is that regulatory reform is part of a “side-deal”? Seven years is not very long when it comes to permitting on federal land. Would be interesting to see what mechanics/assumptions are behind the substantial RE build-out in real-world terms (where, how and when).
PS when politicians make claims, they are usually based on a potent mix of wishful thinking and hot air.
Don’t we also have to replace at least a substantial fraction of nuclear too? For example, here in New York Indian Point 3 is slated to close in the next few years.
A somewhat similar conundrum. If I plot temperature anomaly vs CO2 (1880-2020) I get a pretty good correlation - R**2 ~ 0.8. If I plot fossil use (EIA data) vs temp anomaly, again, good correlation, same R**2. Now the kicker - if I plot non-fossil (hydro, wind, solar, nuclear) vs temp anomaly, again, good correlation, same R**2. Question - is it really CO2, or is total energy use driving the temp anomaly? The policy options would be different if it was energy and not CO2.
“Facts, facts, stupid facts, don’t bother me with the stupid facts.”
My 2nd ex-wife