[JumpCrisscross]

> transitional plants will either need to be subsidized or guaranteed by governments

This isn’t some hypothetical, this is current investment being made under known terms.

Europe (nor America) can’t afford a trillion-dollar bail-out of its brand new gas terminals and pipelines. When demand starts being saturated, the existing infrastructure will take priority: every gas turbine, terminal and pipeline being built today will crowd out renewables down the line.

> As batteries come online, gas and nuclear will be dead

Possibly. Everyone seems to like a monoculture. The pro-nukes want only nukes. The pro-batteries want only renewables + batteries. Given that divide, it makes sense we’re betting on gas for the long term.

> I’d wager we’ll see more technologies in the mix in the next 1-2 decades that makes the nuclear discussion moot

Barring antimatter weapons, no.

[matthewdgreen]

There is a certain price for renewables and storage where, yes, gas infrastructure will absolutely be dead. I don’t know what that price is: but it exists. And it won’t be the first time entire generations of capital investment have been torn up and thrown in the trash. Go out and take a look at what remains of the industrial Midwest.

But 20 years, where gas gradually becomes a backup seasonal fuel source and is increasingly displaced by renewables and storage? That is absolutely consistent with a net-zero-by-2050 world. And probably a shorter timeline than the one that gives us ubiquitous SMRs, unfortunately.

[JumpCrisscross]

> is a certain price for renewables and storage where, yes, gas infrastructure will absolutely be dead

My point is the infrastructure is endogenous. Trillions in gas infrastructure investment creates real pushback against the price being allowed to get that low.

For Exhibit A as to how this will progress, see PG&E in California.

[h0l0cube]

> This isn’t some hypothetical, this is current investment being made under known terms.

Not sure what you mean here. Is it that private sector investments into gas? If so, it can't be said that it's a good investment. Plenty of bad investments happen, even in so called 'efficient' markets. At the end of the day, making a gas plant is a bet that we'll need more power than renewables can provide 1 - 2 decades from now.

> terminal and pipeline being built today will crowd out renewables down the line

If the energy can be had for cheaper, it will taken from renewables, though the losses may or may not be underwritten by the government.

If the argument is that renewable capacity will be insufficient 2 decades from now, well it would seem we'd need to vast increase in demand for that to be the case. That's not implausible, but certainly energy demand has been shrinking in western nations due to efficiency gains. Even AI, which seems set to increase energy usage, will be subject to efficiency gains as custom silicon, more efficient nodes, photonics, and other technological advances come into play

> Everyone seems to like a monoculture.

I'm not talking about a monoculture. As evidenced in this thread, I've talked about a mix of energy with gas in the equation. All I'm talking about is economics. Solar panels keep on giving (well past their previously expected lifetime of 15 years), wind farms keep on giving, with very little extraction or transport required, though transmission and, for now, backup, seem to be the pain points.

Personally I prefer nuclear from a conservation viewpoint – the waste and water usage problems not withstanding — as there's less land usage, and not a huge amount of extraction required.

> Barring antimatter weapons, no.

If we were to entertain this hypothetical, seems like there would be military budget enough to build whatever nuclear generators they need for their weapon (as they do for subs). I'm not sure on what timeline antimatter weapons enter the equation, but we could add the other hypotheticals of fusion or Dyson Spheres in the mix too