Jack Andreasen Cavanaugh Profile picture
Mar 30 10 tweets 3 min read Read on X
If you're interested in the broader analysis, you can find it here:

carbonmiddlemanagementinc.github.io/publicfunding_…

Some important caveats on the methodology, including what was put in and left out and why🧵 x.com/ThomasHochman/…
To start, the goal of this exercise is to get a relative view of public funding for various energy sources. I am including coal, oil, and gas in the next version.

I welcome all feedback and know that people will give it since everyone feels some sort of way about the numbers!
I purposefully took the public funding angle with R&D, tax credits, state incentives, NEM, grants/loans, loan guarantees, ZECS/mandates for a full view of how much public money has been allocated to different resources rather than using the word "subsidy"...
Subsidy has all sorts of connotations in the policy world and people feel all sorts of ways about what counts and doesn't count as a subsidy.

A clear example of this is with the Price Anderson act which insitute an indemnity insurance pool for nuclear companies...
narrowly defining this as a subsidy doesn't provide the full picture, and so I've included it as a toggle-able option

Furthermore some of this data is sparse, or difficult to piece together, so I have some confidence scores baked into the charts section Image
On net metering, I evaluated several studies that have looked at the cost-shift of that policy, and there is a separate tab that outlines the differences in those studies Image
In the methodology section, you can see where I pulled the data from and the relative certainity of which the numbers can be substantiated Image
Also in the methodology section a whole table on what wasn't included, and why, alongside estimates on what their addition would do to totals and the uncertainty around those estimates Image
The methodology section also includes gaps and known exclusions. I'm going to work through these to find better data sources and/or a way to incorporate them with higher confidence. Image
I welcome any and all feedback on where I'm off or where I can find data to help make this a more accurate view.

The goal here is to get a holisitic view of the relative amounts of public funding for various energy sources. I'm including fossil fuels in the next version!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jack Andreasen Cavanaugh

Jack Andreasen Cavanaugh Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AndreasenJack

Jan 25, 2024
Did you grow up wanting to be a carbon middle manager? Do you love The Climate (tm)?

I've got jobs for you

Here's a thread of positions from policy, to comms, to engineering and everything else I could find! 🧵👇
Starting with policy, because that's what I do and know the best!

@GreatPlainsInst is one of the most effective policy and advocacy organizations in the US, and they work on everything!
betterenergy.org/careers/
@CascadeClimate is a newcomer to the NGO world but @DaiEllis and @johnlsanchez8 are building an org to stand the test of time, and permanently remove Co2 from the atmosphere.

jobs.lever.co/cascade-climate
Read 21 tweets
Sep 29, 2023
I've been reading through the DAC purchase program. Not only is it historic, but it's incredibly well written and thoughtful.

Let's look at the highlights!👇🧵

energy.gov/fecm/articles/…
This $35M dollar program is set up in a gated prize format, meaning if you make it through the first gate, called Phase 1, you move on to be eligible for next phase.

Prizes decrease in number and increase in size. 3 phases in total. Image
Who is eligible:

1. Private entities
2. Academic Institutions
3. Non-profits

However you must be based in the US, and for private business, you must be incorporated in the US with majority domestic control.

CO2 must be removed and sequestered within the US.
Read 12 tweets
Jun 20, 2023
A recent report from IEEFA on the Sleipner and Snøhvit CO2 storage fields left much to be desired from a technical and rhetorical stand-point, it's a long one I'm sorry 👇here we go:

ieefa.org/resources/norw…
Let's look at the "Key Findings" of this analysis. These are certainly a lot of words, my interest in the use of phrases like "may not" "cast doubt" "expect the unexpected" "not without material ongoing risk"

Let's juxtapose this with a retrospective paper on Sleipner Image
As you can see from the conclusion section of the paper below, it paints a very different picture from the IEEFA "analysis"

Very interesting that this paper wasn't brought up or referenced
sciencedirect.com/science/articl… Image
Read 20 tweets
May 16, 2023
A really disappointing piece in Politico this morning on carbon capture and storage. Filled with half-truths and inaccuracies.

Let's get into it 🧵

politico.com/news/2023/05/1…
Starting off the article with a bang, we see "relatively untested technology" to describe CO2 storage which is strange since we've been doing it for decades with 300M+/tons and no leaks

We don't pump CO2 "into a cavern" we pump it into a porous and permeable rock, like a sponge Image
"Can choke people unconscious. Or worse" is, I suppose this is literally true but given the safety record of CO2 storage and the regulatory regime associated with injection, highly highly unlikely.

I'm not entirely sure why this line is in the piece, if but to invoke fear. Image
Read 16 tweets
Jan 3, 2023
Mineralization, or mineral trapping, has become a catch-all term in carbon removal. However this one term can mean several technologies or processes depending on the method. A general overview 🧵
Mineralization, in the CDR context, is the reaction that moves CO2 from the fluid state (dissolved in water, supercritical, gaseous) into a solid state carbonate.

It can be lumped into one of two, broad, categories:

1. In-situ
2. Ex Situ
In-situ mineralization occurs in the subsurface, thus "in" situ

This process is currently being done by @CarbFix in Iceland, and by @4401earth in Oman. It can involve injecting CO2 dissolved in water, called a seltzer @lacroixwater, into mafic and ultra mafic geologic formations
Read 15 tweets
Dec 14, 2022
The @ENERGY @FECMgov DAC prizes offer three pathways to get a share of $115M, how does that work, are you eligible? A 🧵🧵🧵

americanmadechallenges.org/challenges/dir…
Recognizing that there are numerous steps involved in moving an innovation from idea to marketable product, the DAC Prizes are split into three separate but connected programs:

1. Pre-commercial EPIC
2. Pre-Commercial Technology
3. Commercial
1. Pre-commercial EPIC

Pre-Commercial Energy Program for Innovation Clusters (EPIC) Prize awards cash prizes to regional incubator teams that submit creative and impactful plans to support entrepreneurs and innovators in the DAC space and create meaningful community engagement.
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(