Tomas, I think you may be approaching the analysis of the feasibility of this idea incorrectly. Even if I accept all concepts, numbers, and tech at face value, in order for market forces to make this idea a reality, the utility of the energy input must exceed most other uses. I can imagine at the point where this might be cost neutral, t…
Tomas, I think you may be approaching the analysis of the feasibility of this idea incorrectly. Even if I accept all concepts, numbers, and tech at face value, in order for market forces to make this idea a reality, the utility of the energy input must exceed most other uses. I can imagine at the point where this might be cost neutral, there will be many other options to use that excess energy that will make this one look wasteful.
There are already times and places where solar electricity costs are *negative* because of this.
If we were talking about a highly reactive energy source like hydroelectric I might agree. But right now electricity supply and demand can just not meet.
This is the obvious argument. The less obvious argument is that, as electricity costs fall, energy companies will start producing more and more methane, which will then drop in cost too. This will increase consumption. At some point, an equilibrium is reached between electricity costs, methane costs, and consumption. Hopefully, the equilibrium will be so that we'll be using all the methane we want without worrying about it at all. In effect, we will see methane consumption the way we see water or air consumption in developed economies today: something we don't even think about!
Tomas, I think you may be approaching the analysis of the feasibility of this idea incorrectly. Even if I accept all concepts, numbers, and tech at face value, in order for market forces to make this idea a reality, the utility of the energy input must exceed most other uses. I can imagine at the point where this might be cost neutral, there will be many other options to use that excess energy that will make this one look wasteful.
Thank you for your thoughtful and tactful disagreement!
I hear you, but here's the thing about solar: It doesn't produce whenever you want it!
As we saw in this article:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutions
There are already times and places where solar electricity costs are *negative* because of this.
If we were talking about a highly reactive energy source like hydroelectric I might agree. But right now electricity supply and demand can just not meet.
This is the obvious argument. The less obvious argument is that, as electricity costs fall, energy companies will start producing more and more methane, which will then drop in cost too. This will increase consumption. At some point, an equilibrium is reached between electricity costs, methane costs, and consumption. Hopefully, the equilibrium will be so that we'll be using all the methane we want without worrying about it at all. In effect, we will see methane consumption the way we see water or air consumption in developed economies today: something we don't even think about!