6 Comments
User's avatar
Fred Porter's avatar

Thanks for breaking "gas powerplants" into simple and combined cycle turbines. Good to see that most of them have been and, to a slightly lesser extent, continue to be, simple cycle. It's worth explaining to the climate-concerned that these are designed and used for what I like to call "backup power." Given existing wind, new solar and newer batteries, they will only be called on during extended extreme peaks of demand or very low renewables production. They can be turned on and off and ramped quickly.

Given that we don't have magic cheap "300 hour" batteries, backup fuel-fired powerplants are an indispensable part of retiring coal plants and increasing renewables penetration where there is still a lot of coal on the grid like the other commenter about Colorado Springs Utilities. Coal powerplants often take up to 48 hours to start up, and then must run at 50% minimum capacity. Utilities want to leave them on if there is any chance of needing them. This places a false floor on variable renewables. They, like nuclear, aren't really "dispatchable," because they can't be dispatched OFF.

Many climate activists hate to see any "new fossil infrastructure." But it's a YUGE improvement to go from 30 or 40% wind with coal and a bit of gas in the background, to 80% wind and solar and batteries with gas making up the remainder. YUGE!

Expand full comment
Magnus Petersen-Paaske's avatar

There was a guy on the cleaning up podcast talking about this and it’s probably good to remember that the business for gas power is split between those making the turbines and those providing the fuel, so we should probably accept more turbines on the grid and expect them to use less fuel overall. Unfortunately we hear mostly from the people hoping to sell a lot more gas and this point ends up getting lost in the noise.

The only exception here is proposed data centers in Alberta or other places where the business model is to put them on top of fossil gas well to make a business for the gas. Although I guess they still need to be financed and may never actually get built.

Expand full comment
C. Andrew Hall's avatar

Thanks Fred. Great context.

Expand full comment
Rick Lynch's avatar

I was dismayed to hear that my local Colorado Springs Utilities planned to shut down its last coal plant in 2029 and now wants to delay that due to cost increases to renewables because of Trump.

We are decreasing the supply of cheap, clean, and quick to implement energy at the same time demand is skyrocketing because of AI and the fear of falling behind China.

Be prepared to pay more for electricity and experience more long term costs to our climate.

Expand full comment
Manka Khanna's avatar

I wonder if the momentum with renewables is due to 1) A shrinking tax credit window so a rush to do as much as possible, and 2) a continuation of previously built momentum. I'd be curious to see how the chart looks in 2026. To be clear, I only wish for renewables to grow and I am curious if the impacts we are hearing of today will be felt more tomorrow

Expand full comment
Julian Warmington's avatar

What the fuck is "natural gas"?!

- Do you mean methane?

If you mean methane, please say methane

or, even better: "one of the two most horrifically dangerous planet-warming, heat trapping industrially produced greenhouse gases we ought to have weaned ourselves off decades ago"

Expand full comment