Natural gas plants are cheap but they cause global warming, so soon we will not be able to use them. For example, the U.S. target is to have zero carbon emissions from electricity generation by 2035, and zero carbon emissions at all by 2050.
NG is likely going to be a critical transitional fuel for the planet to depend on while we get to more abundant renewable options, grid batteries and nuclear/fusion/thorium.
We need more generation, but solar is already cheaper than new natural gas built on the leaky network. It makes more economic sense to just overbuild your solar at these prices.
[1] $250mn for a single state: https://apnews.com/article/business-environment-and-nature-c...
Fuck natural gas. Just because coal and oil are terrible doesn't mean that it is a good option too.
Build hydro, build nuclear, build wind and solar if you have money to waste. But natural gas is not a good stopgap measure while we get to fusion.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11
There are a limited number of locations where hydro is viable and most of them have been tapped (last I read about it at least),
I'm 100% with you on nuclear.
Regardless of cost, we need base load capabilities when the wind isn't blowing and the sun is down. Grid storage hasn't been well proven yet. People are actively fighting nuclear and the costs as well as timeliness are crazy. If there's one thing in this country worth wasting money on, it's nuclear.
If we can't get base load generation from nuclear due to all of the financial risks, NG is about all that's left to carry the load as an improvement over coal and oil.
I'd much rather have zero emission nuclear, but NG is the stop gap that we are left with until we start committing to nuclear (or we have a better round-the-clock option).
That's not a proper use of the concept "base load".
We used to have plants which are only cost-effective when run 24/7, but are cheaper than other kinds. The concept of "base load" is to build those kinds of plants to meet roughly the lowest daily usage so as to minimize costs.
It isn't a substitute for "capacity needed when renewables aren't generating".
In a capitalist world, "lets do this until that is ready" plans usually just end up delaying 'that'.
A massive tax on carbon would mean we can all pay for 'this', until 'that' has been developed and we can enjoy low prices again.