A new OECD report finds carbon pricing policies are spreading worldwide, but are almost uniformly too low to fully capture damages caused by CO2 or drive needed emissions declines. Here's a thread on why carbon pricing falls short and what we might do about it… Using a social cost of carbon -- the estimate of societal damage caused by one ton of CO2 -- of €30/ton, the OECD finds that almost 90% of total global CO2 emissions are priced at a level below the damages they cause. About 55% of global emissions are not priced at all.

Important memo to journalists & others reporting on passage of #SB100, California's clean electricity law signed by Gov. Brown yesterday.

What law does: requires 100% of CA electricity sales supplied by "eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources" by 2045. What the law does *not* require:
(a) 100% renewable electricity (it specifies renewables AND "zero-carbon resources")
(b) elimination of fossil fuels from electricity (it requires carbon-free, not no fossil)
(c) 100% clean *energy* (the law is about electricity, not all energy)

With legislation committing California to 100% carbon-free electricity sitting on Gov. Brown’s desk, I wanted to share a timely new peer-reviewed article out today in the journal, @Joule_CP: cell.com/joule/fulltext… In the paper, @nsepulvedam, @FdeSisternes, Prof. Richard Lester and I use detailed power system modeling to identify strategies that lower the costs and increase the odds of reaching a zero-carbon electricity grid. Check out MIT News coverage of the paper: technologyreview.com/s/611987/how-c…

Everything in this thread by @jacob_mays is correct (and also calmy and clearly articulated). Contrary to @ShellenbergerMD's thesis, there are no physical reasons why wind or solar power must increase electricity costs.

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @jacob_mays view original on Twitter

Michael's first (of two controversial) posts on renewables driving up electricity costs forbes.com/sites/michaels… contains several grains of truth (eg the declining value of wind/solar as they scale) but it doesn't connect the right dots either.

THREAD: There’s a commonly held view that nuclear power and wind & solar mix like oil and water. Inflexible, always-on nuclear, the idea goes, is ill-suited for a world where wind and solar output vary on timescales ranging from seconds to hours to seasons. 1/ In reality, while nuclear plants traditionally provide steady output 24-7, reactors are technically capable of much greater flexibility and can dynamically adjust their power output to respond to changing electricity prices and second-to-second frequency regulation needs. 2/

Good questions @RedsforNamesake. If confronting #climate change is your priority, it is imperative to ramp up carbon-free energy asap.

1. NJ will now ramp up renewable energy from 13% in 2017 and 20% by 2020 under old RPS to 35% by 2025 & 50% by 2030. Impressive leadership.

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @RedsforNamesake view original on Twitter

2. To ensure that this new clean energy replaces fossil fuels and contributes to #climate mitigation goals, NJ's new laws also make payments to ensure the continued operation of 3 South Jersey nuclear reactors that currently supply 31% of the state's electricity consumption.

I was about to head offline for 2 weeks, but I need to respond to this new paper from @ppchef before I go on whether #nuclear can operate flexibly. By coincidence, I just had a peer-reviewed article on this very subject accepted by Applied Energy by today! So here's a thread...

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @PPchef view original on Twitter

In this new "discussion paper," energy journalist @PPchef takes great pains to demonstrate that nuclear power is too inflexible to pair well with wind & solar in a "decarbonized energy system" & thus must be discarded "to make room" for more #wind & #solar publications.iass-potsdam.de/pubman/item/es…

Im seeing more discussion on possibility of using (smaller) #nuclear reactors to generate heat (instead of electricity) to eventually help decarbonize district heating (& cooling via evap. chillers), industrial process heat, etc. I've wondered: what are the economics? #thread 👇 Heat is much less valuable then electricity. Then again, a nuclear plant is a great heater! Only about 33% of heat generated by a reactor is converted to electricity. So would it be worth it to produce heat instead of power?

This shit drives me so nuts.

Friends, here is @MassSierraClub...

1. Says "Climate change is an existential threat facing humanity and many other species." sierraclub.org/massachusetts/…

(It is) 2. Calls for Pilgrim #nuclear plant near Plymouth MA to be "shut immediately" because planned 2019 closures isn't soon enough. sierraclub.org/massachusetts/…

Would immediately result in loss of 1 of New England's largest sources of CO2-free power & 4.2% of region's annual electricity.

Six #nuclear reactors closed since 2013. By my count, up to 23 more reactors may retire w/o policy or market conditions improving: 21.6 GW = ~1/5th of US fleet, 4% of US #electricity--and crucially, 12% of emissions-free generation.

So what's killing nuclear power in the U.S.? In a new @MIT CEEPR paper -- 1 part #energy #economics & 1 part film noir murder mystery! -- I provide the 1st empirical estimates of what's driving down #electricity market prices & killing profitability of 19 #nuclear power plants across @pjminterconnect ceepr.mit.edu/publications/w…