As a Californian who now lives in a state that doesn't have an RPS, I share the rage about slow climate action, + questions about what it means to move faster.
Contribution for now: new paper + model of CA utility-specific committed emissions to 2050.
What we find: CA's targets are reasonable. A 2045 decarbonization deadline doesn't strand much infrastructure -- just letting plants retire at the end of their typical lifespans essentially results in full decarbonization by 2047, assuming you don't build more FF plants.
Our model allows you to look at utility-specific emissions profiles under a bunch of different scenarios -- it's an asset-based model, with emissions bounded by existing plants, policy targets, and user assumptions about what you replace the power with.
Existing plant futures:
And, a well-known caution that people usually don't put in quite these terms: methane leakage boosts natural gas power plants' emissions intensity by about 30%, assuming national average emissions.
I think CA's gas supply is worse than that (that paper is in process).
I really hope this model is useful and interesting for folks -- I designed it to be usable, so read the paper, but also download the model and mess around with it. Change plant retirement dates, move up RPS / CES deadlines, etc. -- and see where the pressure points are.
As @cleantechsonia points out: getting to 0 by 2035 is totally possible.
I might mess around with some recent changes and post more about that next week -- gas plant lifetime extensions, etc., so hit me up if you want to see specific results. Good air and safe weekends to all!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ok I’m going to live my dream: a living thread of Google reviews of power plants. These are hilarious to me because they are completely unsolicited and often rule. Will post as the spirit moves me…kicking off with —
On the occasion of the @IPCC_CH Synthesis Report (coincidentally!) -- if you'd like to spend 8 minutes with me on a journey about fossil phaseout & why we need to plan it carefully & righteously (#midtransition), have I ever got a TED talk for you.
Fossil fuels support ~80% of commercial energy consumption, which means we have an enormous amount of stuff to retire over the next couple of decades, while simultaneously building a replacement system /and/ dealing with worsening climate change effects.
🚨new paper🚨 on the water consumption of electrolytic hydrogen 🫧 that I have literally been working on since before modern hydraulic fracturing was a thing
Under deep decarb electrolytic H2 could consume ~15% of today's water for energy
Big headlines: 1) a lot of processes we think we might need for deep decarb (sustainable aviation fuels, various kinds of CDR, hydrogen) might use a LOT of water
(and electrolytic hydrogen is probably on the low end for water intensity of proposed ways to make hydrogen)
2) decarbonization also dewaters the grid (see doi.org/10.1016/j.jhyd…) so we should think about both what the water needs are /now/ and what they would be for a mature industry
this new piece uses NZA and ZCAP scenarios for both H2 production & grid mix projections
As many of you know I'm obsessed with physical infrastructure & want to invite you on this journey re: fossil fuel supply chains in a decarb'd future with me.
Basically: examine claims of future small fossil use critically. A lot of these systems have minimum viable scale.
The ("the") neat thing about flow renewables like wind & solar is that they do fuel harvesting & conversion at the same place, with the same equipment.
Not so for fueled systems (e.g., fossil). You need multiple industries, mostly private in the US, to keep operating.
If I have one wind turbine I can just run it or not (ofc there are construction supply chains -- but I'm talking once it's built). If I have one gas plant I need a gas well, a processing plant, pipelines, safety inspectors, reservoir engineers, educational infrastructure...
Re: CCS in the IRA 1) emissions cuts model suggests ~1b tons of CO2 sequestered 2024-2031 due to IRA 2) Senate finance committee suggests ~0.04b tons of CO2 claiming 45Q credit 2022-2031 (0.05b if it's all tied to EOR, or 0.3b if EOR & no multiplier)
These cannot both be true.
Plus, the lack of requirement to capture on an entire plant (it's unit only) means the CCS part could effectively subsidize the uncontrolled units if the math works, which it might--particularly if the capture is coupled to $90/bbl EOR.
🔥🏭 NEW from your methane attribution dream team, Diana Burns & me🏭🔥
How much do CH4 emissions contribute to GHG footprint of US natural gas-fired power, CCS, and DAC?
*Unit, utility, BA, & NERC region-level #s for power
*AR6 GWPs. Doc drop-->pub'd in 40 hours ain't bad!
HEADLINES: methane matters, a lot, and emissions are spatially variable. We used our state-level consumer-attributed emissions estimates (iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…) + the usual EIA & EPA data suspects to see what's up. What's up is CO2e: +13-48% of CO2 ems for utility gas fleets.
The top 10 utilities with highest methane burden are largely out West, and the lowest methane burdens are heavily associated with the low-leakage Marcellus. (Btw: if people claim a low CH4 emitting supply, ask: are you blessed with Marcellus gas, or did you do something?)