booly

Sometimes it’s hard to explain negative numbers in real world contexts, but credits are real impact to total coal/gas demand.

If the credits are used to fund someone else buying renewable energy in lieu of fossil fuels, then the impact is that fewer fossil fuels are consumed.

So if I pay someone $10 to buy solar energy instead of coal they were otherwise going to buy, while I buy that same amount of coal, then the net effect is zero additional demand for coal. You can say that it’s just an accounting exercise, but the real world effect is actually real.

So they’re trying to put 2GW of dispatchable (can be dialed up and down on demand), carbon-free electricity by 2028. If you include the last year and a half of the exploratory drilling work they’ve done on site, that’s about 5 and a half years.

They’re also saying that each well is about $5 million, have about 30 wells planned for the 400MW project. Not sure how much going up to 2 GW would increase the cost, but that’s $0.33 per watt for the 400 MW plan.

In comparison, Vogtle added 2 nuclear reactors for 2 GW of capacity in Georgia, and it cost $35 billion and took 16 years. That’s $17.50 per watt.

Solar is somewhere between $1 to $1.20 per watt, but isn’t dispatchable.

Ongoing operational costs might be different between all of the different types of generation, but the up front costs are important enough to where they should be a significant part of the discussion.

So if they can pull this off in a few places, this will go a long way towards actually going to zero carbon on the grid.