UK opposes a 2030 renewable energy target (Conservative push nuclear)

[Nihil]

15. Hmmm ... I think we might be having problems with the words "integrate" & "transition" ...

I definitely agree with the first two of your three points relating to "category of need":

> First is technical capability to integrate renewables. We have more than enough
> existing capacity to do the job. There may be a trend towards building more
> small, distributed combined cycle plants going forward, but that would be
> in response to decreased demand on larger units...
>
> Second is the need of natural gas as an industry to increase profits. We can
> both agree that this is not, on its face, a reason to go along with deploying
> more natural gas plants.

... but, to me, your third point ("the need to shut down large-scale thermal&quot
is the same as the first ("... to integrate renewables&quot .


Looking back to your reply in .2 (with which I agree) ...

.2>> We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition
.2>> to renewables if we decide to just build out all of our renewable alternative
.2>> and I'd prefer that we pursue that path with all haste.

... and the previous reply (with which I agree) ...

.14> However, what about the need to shut down large-scale thermal? We are both
.14> witness to "the titanic struggle that coal and nuclear wage" because "the encroachment
.14> of renewables is an almost immediate existential crisis because they (large scale
.14> thermal plants) can only recoup their capital and operating costs by operating
.14> almost constantly".

... I suspect we have different views of "transition" and/or "integrate".


I have been reading "the transition to renewables" as necessarily meaning "shutting down
large-scale thermal" as, otherwise, there is no benefit in such a "transition" as it is less of
a transition between generating regimes and more of a simple addition of power
from renewable sources with no corresponding reduction in power from large-scale thermal.


Increasing the total power available to the grid (by adding both renewables *and* gas) isn't a benefit
to my eyes as it risks involving Jevon (not to mention tipping pricing/profit/demand equilibria and their
corresponding political ramifications) rather than the desired direct displacement.

And I suspect that this is mainly where we differ: having been misled and seriously disappointed
by the abyssmal behaviour of human greed in the past, I am very loathe to trust that an argument
such as "their low capital cost and relatively high fuel costs (natural gas plants) also are easier to
economically displace" will actually lead to their removal in a timely fashion as opposed to being
used to justify further exploitation of land/people in order to reduce their "high fuel cost".


To put it differently, I have been pleased to see public pressure closing coal plants but I'd want to see
more of this happening *with* the "more than enough installed natural gas plants" *before* agreeing
to *additional* natural gas plants as at least that way there would be historical evidence to support
the strategy before having to test the "phase II" assumption (i.e., that the gas corps would not be
able to dig their heels in to avoid going out "without a whimper&quot .

Here's hoping for the happy and smiling lagomorphs all around!